![cod4 maps in mw2 cod4 maps in mw2](https://img.gta5-mods.com/q95/images/ctp-price-from-cod-4-remastered-add-on-replace/5e7115-20161121200039_1.jpg)
However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit. RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns. The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. That will make fark all difference, but if you want to try it you can. I'm assuming that the game loads much larger files causing multiple read and write request are killing my performance. I'm going to image my drives and up that value to 128kb or 256kb to see if it helps. I just checked and my stripe size is set at 16kb. I rebooted between the 2 tests I ran to make sure nothing was cached in memory. Please note that if I reload the map without quiting it takes only 5 seconds at the most. now timing it with a stopwatch reveals that when textures are set to "extra" it from the time the loading bar in the splash screen displays till it reaches the end takes 53sec and when textures are set to "high" it takes 44 seconds.
![cod4 maps in mw2 cod4 maps in mw2](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/l2Y2Xyaul5I/maxresdefault.jpg)
![cod4 maps in mw2 cod4 maps in mw2](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qKK5JCkW-Rk/maxresdefault.jpg)
My initial time estimates are off because I was way too conservative when counting 1001, 1002, 1003 etc. The game is started fresh from a reboot using the Afghan map with a resolution of 1680x1050, Anti-Aliasing set at 2x and textures set at extra and another test run with it set to high. In my HDTach tests the CPU usage is 11% so I still have 90% of my Q6600 quad core to cope with the rest.
#Cod4 maps in mw2 software
I agree that onboard RAID is only slightly better than a software RAID but I should still see better performance than just running one single drive. My motherboard has an onboard Intel ICH9R RAID controller. I got a deal on five 80GB Seagate baracuda harddrives so I was running 4 in a RAID0 configuration and a spare. Well gaming was one of the reasons I went for a 4 drive RAID0 but also I do video and image editing.