PDA

View Full Version : Gaming: Darkfall, Hard Drive RAID, & Fraps


mutantmagnet
11-15-2008, 08:23 AM
I'm interested in using a RAID setup to get more out of my machine for Darkfall. But before I pick a specific RAID to work with there are certain things I'm unsure about when it comes to software in general, and things I need to know specifically when Darkfall comes out.


If you are unfamiliar with RAID take a few days to read this 80 page doc (http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/raid/index.html). Stop hyperventilating, many of the "pages" contain only two paragraphs. If you refuse to read that then take a look at this comparison chart (http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/comp.html). If you can correctly guess what each catagory represents you'll be fine mostly in following the discussion.


The first thing that bothers me is that when it comes to gaming does hard drive performance really mean anything?

The way I understand it files are initially read from the hard drive and then RAM makes a copy of that data and any additional reading will be done from RAM and not the hard drive itself. So what's the point if RAM is always faster than hard drives?

The only reason I see this ever becoming an issue is if you get into large battles and the graphical pictures for any new object have to be initially read from your hard drive first. Yet even that seems to be irrelevant, because I've noticed many times graphical images don't load when you enter an area with a lot of players in all MMOs. So is this a case of graphical images not being stored on RAM?


Now let's just assume implementing RAID is useful, is improving write performance neccessary for gaming? IMO there doesn't seem to be any reason to write new data on your hardrive in a single player game besides save points. Even in an MMO where writing may be more frequent than an offline game I still see it as a marginal activitiy.

But what about reading performance? This to me would be the reason to use RAID, yet each RAID setup emphasizes different ways to read your hard drives. Until Darkfall comes out we don't really know which reading method is going to be more valuable; but I'm curious to hear others' opinions on how Darkfall will work.

Speculation Section
When I think about how the devs say they've thought carefully about preventing players from manipulating graphics to negate stealth tactics I'm wondering if the devs are using procedural textures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_textures) to do this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farbrausch) If my understanding of them is correct the code written for these type of textures directly control the hardware and force a specific color value to be used.

If they use such a method is sequential read performance still valuable even though the footprint size of the code is essentially small?

Maybe on wrong and the devs create premade textures and other graphical files and have that stored in your machine. Since the data will be packaged to try and protect it we'll have one large file representing a jumble of little files. Is sequential read performance more important, because it is bundled; or is random read performance the more valuable consideration when choosing RAID, because the specific files in the package will be small?

I've been focusing heavily on graphics affecting our machines but more than that would be loaded by our machines. It's all just a matter of what do we think the devs would allow our client computers to handle that we couldn't use to cheat with. Based on past MMOs what do you think Darkfall would allow our machines to handle? More specifically and importantly, how large do you think the average amount fo data needed to be read will be?

/Speculation


Currently I don't think implementing RAID is a big deal for gaming, but what about if you like to game while using fraps a lot? Fraps constantly writes data onto your drive. Will using something like RAID 0 or RAID 7 actually help gaming performance? I think it does but I'm not sure why fraps slows down a system so much to begin with.

Sho'nuff
11-15-2008, 08:39 AM
Faster read and write times mean a lot to gaming. It is pretty easy to bottleneck a good system with a crappy drive.

Mippoose
11-15-2008, 08:56 AM
Just buy the new intel 80gb SSD.

It's just about as fast a storage device as a consumer can get it.

Malishan
11-15-2008, 10:35 AM
Just buy the new intel 80gb SSD.

It's just about as fast a storage device as a consumer can get it.

how bout 2 of those in raid 0? ya!

Spinewire
11-15-2008, 12:19 PM
how bout 2 of those in raid 0? ya!
this

raid 0 is where it's at, i have never had a Hard Drive fail on me and i do move my PC about from time to time.. (Stick it in the boot of my car drive it 200 miles etc)

I will always go with Raid 0 and buy the 2 fastest drives on the market.

I have had these to raptor drives for many many years and they are still all good.

Methuselah
11-15-2008, 12:37 PM
My thought was always that RAID 0 helped drastically in MMO games where you're constantly hitting the Hd.

My personal experience one Hd failure on 4 RAID systems I've built, spanning over 3 years. The one that did fail was a Seagate Barracuda SATA 150 drive. I have to say I was kinda shocked.

mutantmagnet
11-15-2008, 02:05 PM
Well I guess this saves me a lot on thinking. I first read about Solid State a few months ago, but I misinterpreted what it does. I'm definitely going to invest in two of those, but I don't get why MMOs benefit from any RAID setup that improves writing performance.

It seems like the number of times a game needs to write on your hard drive shouldn't be significant.

StainlessSteelRat
11-15-2008, 03:44 PM
A few reviews I've read show SSD having slower write times. So, depending on how important write is vs. read (which SSD does much faster); a conventional Raptor drive setup might be better.

Spinewire
11-15-2008, 04:07 PM
I would probably just get 2 of these (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-236-WD&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=167&name=Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 10000RPM SATA-II 16MB Cache - OEM (WD1500HLFS)) as i doubt the difference a £600 SSD (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-000-IN&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=910&name=Intel X25-E Extreme 32GB 2.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive (SSDSA2SH032G1)) would make much difference to the performance, when compared to 2 of the VelociRaptor 150GB HDs when in a Raid 0, if there is a difference i doubt it's going to be £300+ worth.

Also 300Gb vs 32Gb

mutantmagnet
11-15-2008, 04:25 PM
A few reviews I've read show SSD having slower write times. So, depending on how important write is vs. read (which SSD does much faster); a conventional Raptor drive setup might be better.

It's a bit confusing.

There are two versions of SSD. Flash based SSD has inferior writing speed to HDD. DRAM based SSD has superior writing speed to HDD but its bigger making it harder to put in PC, is volatile (lose power and the data is gone) and more expensive (though this is changing as RAM in general gets a better bang for buck ratio).

Yin
11-15-2008, 04:30 PM
Switching on raid 0 improved performance in AoC noticebly. Mainly loading tims, but the overall too.

alfaroverall
11-15-2008, 04:37 PM
This thread makes my decision to keep this HD that I bought on accident (I thought my HD was failing but my graphics card was failing, as I learned when the graphics card finished failing, so to speak) seem a lot better than I had initially thought. The new one is a good bit better than my old one, which I was just going to cannibalize for my new comp (had I not expected it was going to fail.) Having just googled it instead of bothering to newegg it, this is what it actually is:
http://computers.pricegrabber.com/hard-drives/m/14947546/
The 7200 RPM number is the main one that I know is good. Not the best on the market, but good.
I'm too lazy to check the model of my old HD, but it's a 250 GB Seagate. Not a terrible drive (it's stuck with me since 2004, no crashes, reasonable load times, and I leave that thing on way more than I should) but not exactly comparable to this one.

Spinewire
11-15-2008, 04:47 PM
This thread makes my decision to keep this HD that I bought on accident (I thought my HD was failing but my graphics card was failing, as I learned when the graphics card finished failing, so to speak) seem a lot better than I had initially thought. The new one is a good bit better than my old one, which I was just going to cannibalize for my new comp (had I not expected it was going to fail.) Having just googled it instead of bothering to newegg it, this is what it actually is:
http://computers.pricegrabber.com/hard-drives/m/14947546/
The 7200 RPM number is the main one that I know is good. Not the best on the market, but good.
I'm too lazy to check the model of my old HD, but it's a 250 GB Seagate. Not a terrible drive (it's stuck with me since 2004, no crashes, reasonable load times, and I leave that thing on way more than I should) but not exactly comparable to this one.i don't think i could ever go back to a 7200 RPM single drive set up, the differnce from one of those HDs and going to a raptor raid 0 set up is very noticable.

alfaroverall
11-15-2008, 04:52 PM
i don't think i could ever go back to a 7200 RPM single drive set up, the differnce from one of those HDs and going to a raptor raid 0 set up is very noticable.
So is the price difference.

Spinewire
11-15-2008, 05:00 PM
So is the price difference.
This is true it has basicly gimmped me as anything slower would prob drive me wild so i am forced to drop around 250+ just for the HDs, however it is worthwhile investment as you will get 5 years + out of them.

The one you have is WD tho and i have only used them as the ones i bought have never died...

Did it have a 5 year warranty on the one you got? I noticed the SSD did not mention anything about a warranty, that alone would put me off.

mutantmagnet
11-15-2008, 05:11 PM
To me the price can make sense as long as the speed performance is comparable to the 25% increase in performance you can get for premium graphics card. The SSDs are large enough to hold the operating system the handful of applications you want to give its speed benefits to.

Spinewire
11-15-2008, 06:11 PM
To me the price can make sense as long as the speed performance is comparable to the 25% increase in performance you can get for premium graphics card. The SSDs are large enough to hold the operating system the handful of applications you want to give its speed benefits to.
How much space does vista take up?

32 gb does not give you alot of wriggle room imo

mutantmagnet
11-15-2008, 06:43 PM
I just checked and it's sad. Vista Home basic can fit but any other version can't.

Spinewire
11-15-2008, 07:08 PM
I just checked and it's sad. Vista Home basic can fit but any other version can't.
thought as much...

You can go for the not so good SSD drives (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-001-IN&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=910&name=Intel X25-M Mainstream 80GB 2.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive (SSDSA2MH080G1)) as they are a bit bigger but a 70mb/s write speed is fucking shocking imo.

flampy
11-15-2008, 07:34 PM
Ever play an FPS with a low end machine and have the cache file recycle itself? your performance gets crushed.

I don't think raid 0 will have much if any performance gain on your frames per second. Sure it will help load times, but DFO doesn't have zone load times, so they may do something like doom3 where the next area loads in the background slowly as the player nears it.

Raid 0 writes to the hard drive at the same speed as a normal drive. The only performance gain is read speed.

Other than zone loading, you won't see any performance gains. Also if a game has to access the hard drive while mid play, no matter what raid setup you do or don't have, your fps will suffer. The whole point of your RAM is to load the area so it doesn't have to access the HD.


edit: Having sufficient ram and video card and processor is way more important. You need overall performance with no bottlenecks to have a smooth running machine.

Mippoose
11-15-2008, 07:41 PM
A few reviews I've read show SSD having slower write times. So, depending on how important write is vs. read (which SSD does much faster); a conventional Raptor drive setup might be better.

The SSDs that Intel makes are totally made by intel, and are by far the fastest thing like ever.

Do not doubt intel. They rock socks.

edit: And I wouldn't buy any one else's except intels.

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=517

I had another link, but I need a shower bbl.

mutantmagnet
11-15-2008, 11:04 PM
After looking around some more I'm going to use HDD instead. The SSD that actually realistically outperforms the high end drives from Westgate are 2-3 times the cost.

zie
11-15-2008, 11:17 PM
Raid 0 writes to the hard drive at the same speed as a normal drive. The only performance gain is read speed.

both read and write speed are multiplied by the # of drives in a raid0 array, assuming you have enough bandwidth but the most noticeable performance increase is usually seek time

if you guys are serious about harddrive performance you need one of these (http://www.acard.com.tw/english/fb01-product.jsp?idno_no=271&prod_no=ANS-9010B&type1_title=%20Solid%20State%20Drive&type1_idno=13)

flampy
11-16-2008, 01:20 AM
both read and write speed are multiplied by the # of drives in a raid0 array, assuming you have enough bandwidth but the most noticeable performance increase is usually seek time

if you guys are serious about harddrive performance you need one of these (http://www.acard.com.tw/english/fb01-product.jsp?idno_no=271&prod_no=ANS-9010B&type1_title=%20Solid%20State%20Drive&type1_idno=13)

you're right, my bad, haven't messed with it in a few years.