9 Replies Latest reply on Mar 1, 2012 6:25 AM by JCschild

    Raid 5 or 10


      That age old question which raid to opt for. Having read all the great information on the forum here regarding setups, raid and disk configs, Harm's articles in particular I wanted to ask you guys your thoughts on Raid 5 versus 10 on my system configuration.


      System is an i7 980x overclocked reliably to 4.2GHz with 24GB on a Gigebyte Guerrilla G1 motherboard, which has 2xSATA III portsand 6xSATA II ports


      Current config:

      • C: SSD 128GB on SATAIII with OS and Apps
      • D: HHD 1TB on SATAII with Projects and Media (also backed up to another external disk)
      • E: 2xHHD 1TB on SATA II (Raid 0) with Media Cache and Pagefile


      As the motherboard supports raid 5 and 10 I am considering the following setup as I have plenty of matched samsung spinpoint sata II HDD's:


      Proposed config:

      • C: SSD 128GB on SATAIII with OS and Apps
      • D: 4 or 6 1TB on SATAII with Projects, Media, Media Cahe and Pagefile


      The real motivation for this setup to improve data rate and also for realtime redundancy. Projects and media would still be backed up periodically onto an external disk


      Would love to hear your thoughts on how D: should be configured. I know some may say buy a raid controller card and go raid 3. I've already got the HDD's available the option of raid 0,1, 5 or 10 is on my motherboard south bridge and finally don't really want to spend more cash on a controller but do want to improve the performance and redundancy of my current configuration.


      The question which raid level 5 or 10 should D: on the proposed config?

        • 1. Re: Raid 5 or 10
          Harm Millaard Level 7

          With the on-board raid controller, which is a software raid, no doubt, raid 10. Raid5 is just way too slow. But you have to weigh the alternatives. Assuming your 6 disk 1 TB thought:


          Raid10 on-board requires 6 disks to give you 3 TB net space and is around 285% faster than a single disk.


          Raid5 on-board will give you 5 TB space and is around 200% faster than a single disk.


          Raid5 with a dedicated raid controller will give you 5 TB space and is around 400% faster than a single disk.


          Also see the featured discussion at the top of the page.

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Raid 5 or 10
            Just_Karma Level 1



            I was really hoping you'd reply to my question so thank you for taking the time to read and reply.  I have read the many and really helpful post/articles on the forum by you and others so thank you for your efforts.


            From your reply above I understand where you get the Raid 10 285% and Raid 5 400% faster than single disk figures. As I have read the http://forums.adobe.com/thread/950539 article. So these numbers are based on high end, high performance expensive raid controller cards?


            Is the Raid 5 200% figure mentioned based on personal experience of typical Raid 5 onboard motherboard controllers.

            • 3. Re: Raid 5 or 10
              Harm Millaard Level 7

              They are approximate figures and depend on many factors, not just the hardware, but also on the level of tuning and system setup, but they are based on my experience with all the 740+ system results (plus the old benchmark results of 150+ systems) in our Benchmark, as well as Bill Gehrke's and my own testing. Raid5 on the motherboard is around 50 % slower than a good dedicated hardware controller, but this figure is dependent on stripe size, number of disks, cache memory, etc. so don't take this number as an absolute figure, only as indicative. The approximate figures are based on the gains you can expect from hardware raid controllers like LSI and Areca, not from Promise and the other cheap ones, which are the software models.

              1 person found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Raid 5 or 10
                Just_Karma Level 1

                Thanks Harm, I appreciate you detailing this further.


                I think I will setup the the Raid 5 and 10 arrays and do a little testing with the onboard controller and use something the AJA tool to test and will post back to let you see how it performed.

                • 5. Re: Raid 5 or 10
                  JCschild Level 3

                  Raid 5 is not happening without Enterprise drives.

                  (not smart)


                  here are some benchmarks (whilst a tad old ( 18 months now i think)at this point, the % difference remains the same)

                  raid 0 and raid 10 should perform the same


                  WD 1 TB 64 meg Cache Sata 600 Drives

                  Intel onboard Controller

                  Single drive - 112MB

                  2 Drive Raid 0 - 196MB

                  4 Drive raid 0 - 364MB

                  3 Drive Raid 5 - 108MB

                  4 Drive Raid 5 - 296MB

                  Marvell 6G controller

                  Single Drive  - 111MB

                  2 Drive Raid 0 - 215MB


                  Intel SAS RS2BL080 8 Port controller with 512 DDR2 Ram.

                  Single Drive - 111MB

                  2 Drive Raid 0 - 215MB

                  4 Drive Rqaid 0 - 429MB

                  3 Drive Raid 5 - 219MB

                  4 Drive Raid 5 - 315MB


                  Seagate 1TB 32 Meg Cache Drives

                  Onboard Intel Controller

                  Single Drive - 103MB

                  2 Drive Raid 0 - 206MB

                  4 Drive Raid 0 - 395MB

                  3 Drive Raid 5 - 202MB

                  4 Drive Raid 5 - 299MB


                  Intel SAS RS2BL080 8 Port controller with 512 DDR2 Ram

                  Single Drive - 101MB

                  2 Drive Raid 0 - 199MB

                  4 Drive Raid 0 - 399MB

                  3 Drive Raid 5 - 204MB

                  4 Drive Raid 5 - 310MB


                  Intel SAS RS2PI080 8 Port controller with 512 DDR2 Ram

                  8x WD VelociRaptor 600 GB, SATA 6 Gb/s, 32 MB Cache, 10,000 RPM

                  8 Drive Raid 5 - 745MB/s read 735MB/s Write


                  8x WD 1TB SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, 7200 RPM

                  8 Drive Raid 5 - 703.8MB/s read 670MB/s Write





                  1 person found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: Raid 5 or 10
                    Just_Karma Level 1

                    Hey Scott,


                    That's awesome thank you for the data very comprehensive. Fortunately for me my Gigabyte G1 motherboard has Intel's Southbridge chipset ICH10R. I found a great performance comparison of 3 onbaord chipsets vs. dedicated hardware card at tomshardware. It would appear I am fortunate as the ICH10R seems to be the better performing onboard chipset for raid.


                    The drives I am planning on using is either 4 or 6 Samsung spinpoint HD103SJ 1TB 32MB cache SATAII. I also have an extra few spare for replacements too.


                    Although given the failure rates of these consumer orientated Samsung drives looks like I may be better to consider raid 10 and not 5 according to a comment (2nd comment) on a storage froum as these drives are not enterprise drives.


                    Would love to hear your thoughts and comments. My motivation to going raid is to increase performance read/write and also to provide an layer of redundancy protection. I've already for the HDD's got the motherboard ICH10R capability, but really don't want to shell out £400-£600 on a raid controller card. That said I will probably install a UPS to reduce power outage scenarios.

                    • 7. Re: Raid 5 or 10
                      ECBowen Most Valuable Participant

                      The performance of the controller during normal operations is not the issue with onboard raid 5/parity arrays. The issue is the rebuild times which are 6 to 10 times longer than an equivalent raid 5 on a dedicated raid controller. When your rebuild times take 34 to 40+ hours for an array that takes 3 to 5 hours on a dedicated raid controller, then the comparison is far different than raw bandwidth numbers. Also you will find out the Timeout recovery time and detection of the onboard raid is far lower and more problematic with desktop drives than the dedicated raid controller. Then add to that the Parity verification of the onboard raid is far less efficient and reliable than the Dedicated raid controllers, and I cannot recommend the onboard parity raids in any Pro level environment. This is one of those configuration points where you get what you pay for. Gluck with that onboard raid 5 over time.




                      1 person found this helpful
                      • 8. Re: Raid 5 or 10
                        Just_Karma Level 1

                        Hi Eric,


                        Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed explaination. I think I have pretty much decided against Raid 5 with the onboard Intel ICH10R chipset. Although I am pretty keen and almost sold on the idea of Raid 10 using the onboard Intel ICH10R. I'm happy to take the hit on storage size for the benefit of the parity issue going away as obviously Raid 10 is just stripped sets of mirrors and I think the performance will hopefully be ok on the ICH10R onboard.


                        Great assessment of performance of the ICH10R chipset with the Samsung drives I am planning on using can be found here:



                        This really only considers read and write performance for various drive numbers and raid configurations and does not look at rebuild times.


                        So final question then as Harm said earlier on then


                        How does Raid 10 with 6x Samsung F3 spinpoints on the Intel ICH10R southbridge chipset sound for all data (project, media, cache, pagefile)?

                        • 9. Re: Raid 5 or 10
                          JCschild Level 3


                          all this having seperate drives for this and that are frankly absurb.


                          this is what we recommend

                          1) OS/Programs

                          2) Media drive (Raid) (that would be 4 drive minimum for raid 10)

                          3) Export drive (raid) (that would be 4 drive minimum for raid 10)

                          4) back up ideally external and a raid 5 as well


                          any other designation of drives is simply foolish, un-nessesary and complicated to manage.. use those 3 drive sets for all the mentioned.


                          if needed you can combine 2/3 (and you will have to with using the onboard) but this is generally best with an 8 drive raid 5

                          personally if it were me i would just do 2 x 2drive raid 0 and get used to backing up your data the right way and not rely on assuming your data is safe with a raid 10,3,5,6

                          use the rest of your drives to populate an external NAS.