|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Few RAID0 Questions
just thinking if i was to get two Western Digital Raptor Hard drives (10000rpm) both 74 GB drives slapped them on a RAID0 (im a raid newbie never used it, i just read a introduction) it would make the two drives appear as one yes? so 148 GB drive would be visible after creating the array and then re starting and i proceed to install the OS will windows XP setup see one drive (148 GB) or will it still see 2 74 GB drives im gonna assume it should see one and if it sees two then the array fecked up somewhere. also would i notice an improvement in performance? I mean would it be faster because it would already be with pretty wuick hard drives i believe raptors are the fastest SATA drives available at 10 thousand RPM quicker than standard 7200rpm drives so would having these on a raid0 make it super fast? also about creating partitions on the raid would i be able to use programs such as partition magic to create partitions on the 148GB raid as i would a standard single drive? finally if i wanted to wipe the array i would do that through the controller interface? im not exactly sure how it works but i gather it appears at boot, will detect both the drives on the SATA channels and will the ask me to press "f6" or whatever could be "f5" for all i know to create an array or enter RAID setup or RAID utility? am i right in thinking that? once in the RAID setup or RAID utility i just choose the RAID i want, RAID0, RAID1 or RAID0/1 in this case RAID0 it does its thing i re boot, i install windows on what should now appear as one 148GB hard drive hey presto I should really do it on my next system for myself but been a bit reluctant to embrace SATA still using old school ATA at the mo, must get with the times any help appreciated and thanks in advance On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:38:56 -0000, "Christo"
<chris@juststuffnospam.co.uk> wrote: Ive been doing chores and havent slept all night. Im almost wacky at the moment from lack of sleep. Im doing some PC stuff now so Im here to answer anything I can. Im sure to conk out anytime soon. >been posting here like a mad man lately One big HD. > > >will windows XP setup see one drive (148 GB) or will it still see 2 74 GB >drives > People have posted the Anandtech article in other newsgroups if you go>also would i notice an improvement in performance? I mean would it be faster >because it would already be with pretty wuick hard drives i believe raptors >are the fastest SATA drives available at 10 thousand RPM quicker than >standard 7200rpm drives to his site in fact he tests TWO raptors ! His conclusion was - dont do it. He says flat out in the final words segment. He points out itll seem blindingly faster when you do artificial benchmarks but has negligible impact in real world usage, He even does a test loading up some games like Far Cry I think. He also says it increases the chance of data loss if one of the two disks dies , the whole thing is gone. Raptors are super fast to begin with so you dont really need Raid. >am i right in thinking that? Yeah theres a thing in bios where you set up a few parameters . I didit with two WDs for the hell of it. And then I took them out of the raid config after reading Anands article.
Show quote
Hide quote
"J***@Smith.com" <xxxxs***@newscene.com> wrote in message oh wellnews:109i11d428jqis5rruomhc911lb377btke@4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:38:56 -0000, "Christo" > <chris@juststuffnospam.co.uk> wrote: > > Ive been doing chores and havent slept all night. Im almost wacky at > the moment from lack of sleep. Im doing some PC stuff now so Im here > to answer anything I can. Im sure to conk out anytime soon. > >>been posting here like a mad man lately >> >> >>will windows XP setup see one drive (148 GB) or will it still see 2 74 GB >>drives > > One big HD. > >> >>also would i notice an improvement in performance? I mean would it be >>faster >>because it would already be with pretty wuick hard drives i believe >>raptors >>are the fastest SATA drives available at 10 thousand RPM quicker than >>standard 7200rpm drives > > People have posted the Anandtech article in other newsgroups if you go > to his site in fact he tests TWO raptors ! His conclusion was - dont > do it. He says flat out in the final words segment. He points out > itll seem blindingly faster when you do artificial benchmarks but has > negligible impact in real world usage, He even does a test loading up > some games like Far Cry I think. He also says it increases the chance > of data loss if one of the two disks dies , the whole thing is gone. > > Raptors are super fast to begin with so you dont really need Raid. > > >>am i right in thinking that? > > Yeah theres a thing in bios where you set up a few parameters . I did > it with two WDs for the hell of it. And then I took them out of the > raid config after reading Anands article. > i was just a bit curious about how good it would be with two raptors, i guess ill stick to 1, they are a bit too pricey for me to be going out buying for experiments sake I did read that having the load of read/write being spread over two drives and over two SATA channels would increase overall performance by 30% or something like that but like you say... the data loss issue, if one did go FUBAR they both would need re formatting, i was just thinking of ways to get speedy operation, think ill go hunt that article you were on about cheers again John Smith lol (thats gotta be a psuedoname, if thats how you spell that word)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Christo" <chris@juststuffnospam.co.uk> wrote in message Or you could really get the bank manager worried and buy 4 of the drives - news:37sq04F52ut6kU1@individual.net... > > "J***@Smith.com" <xxxxs***@newscene.com> wrote in message > news:109i11d428jqis5rruomhc911lb377btke@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:38:56 -0000, "Christo" >> <chris@juststuffnospam.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Ive been doing chores and havent slept all night. Im almost wacky at >> the moment from lack of sleep. Im doing some PC stuff now so Im here >> to answer anything I can. Im sure to conk out anytime soon. >> >>>been posting here like a mad man lately >>> >>> >>>will windows XP setup see one drive (148 GB) or will it still see 2 74 GB >>>drives >> >> One big HD. >> >>> >>>also would i notice an improvement in performance? I mean would it be >>>faster >>>because it would already be with pretty wuick hard drives i believe >>>raptors >>>are the fastest SATA drives available at 10 thousand RPM quicker than >>>standard 7200rpm drives >> >> People have posted the Anandtech article in other newsgroups if you go >> to his site in fact he tests TWO raptors ! His conclusion was - dont >> do it. He says flat out in the final words segment. He points out >> itll seem blindingly faster when you do artificial benchmarks but has >> negligible impact in real world usage, He even does a test loading up >> some games like Far Cry I think. He also says it increases the chance >> of data loss if one of the two disks dies , the whole thing is gone. >> >> Raptors are super fast to begin with so you dont really need Raid. >> >> >>>am i right in thinking that? >> >> Yeah theres a thing in bios where you set up a few parameters . I did >> it with two WDs for the hell of it. And then I took them out of the >> raid config after reading Anands article. >> > > oh well > > i was just a bit curious about how good it would be with two raptors, i > guess ill stick to 1, they are a bit too pricey for me to be going out > buying for experiments sake > > > I did read that having the load of read/write being spread over two drives > and over two SATA channels would increase overall performance by 30% or > something like that > > but like you say... the data loss issue, if one did go FUBAR they both > would need re formatting, i was just thinking of ways to get speedy > operation, think ill go hunt that article you were on about with such a setup you could use RAID 10 (aka RAID 0+1) which offers the best of both worlds - i.e. the speed increase of RAID 0 and the redundancy of RAID 1. With this arrangement if 1 drive should fail you can simply swap out that drive for a new one and the RAID setup will automatically restore data content back to the drive as it was before the failure (without any data loss). I'm using a RAID 10 setup with a 3Ware Controller card on my home server and so far so good. Paul On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:38:56 -0000, "Christo"
<chris@juststuffnospam.co.uk> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >been posting here like a mad man lately It sees one drive. Be sure to hit F6 during installation to> >just thinking if i was to get two Western Digital Raptor Hard drives >(10000rpm) both 74 GB drives > >slapped them on a RAID0 (im a raid newbie never used it, i just read a >introduction) it would make the two drives appear as one yes? so 148 GB >drive would be visible > >after creating the array and then re starting and i proceed to install the >OS > >will windows XP setup see one drive (148 GB) or will it still see 2 74 GB >drives load the RAID driver via floppy. You will see the prompt to do so. > yes, but it's pretty hard to mess it up, in the RAID setup>im gonna assume it should see one and if it sees two then the array fecked >up somewhere. menu it should be obvious. > If the RAID controller is integral to the southbridge, yes.>also would i notice an improvement in performance? I mean would it be faster >because it would already be with pretty wuick hard drives i believe raptors >are the fastest SATA drives available at 10 thousand RPM quicker than >standard 7200rpm drives > >so would having these on a raid0 make it super fast? If it's a separate chip on the PCI bus, no. > Yes>also about creating partitions on the raid > >would i be able to use programs such as partition magic to create partitions >on the 148GB raid as i would a standard single drive? > Depends on what you mean by "wipe". It is treated like a>finally if i wanted to wipe the array i would do that through the controller >interface? single drive, whatever you want to do. IF you want to delete the array then that is done in the RAID bios menu. If you simply wanted to format it, there is no need to delete the array, unless you didn't want the array any more, then there is no sense in formatting it before deleting it. > Yes you'd hit a key to enter the RAID config screen. >im not exactly sure how it works but i gather it appears at boot, will >detect both the drives on the SATA channels and will the ask me to press >"f6" or whatever could be "f5" for all i know to create an array or enter >RAID setup or RAID utility? > >am i right in thinking that? > You'd choose a stripe size too. generally smaller sizes are>once in the RAID setup or RAID utility i just choose the RAID i want, RAID0, >RAID1 or RAID0/1 in this case RAID0 > >it does its thing better for OS, larger for (large files) other uses. >any help appreciated and thanks in advance It is prudent to have a backup of all data on a RAID0 arrayeven moreso than another storage alternative, especially since the drives can only be read in their array(ed) state on similar/same controller. For example, if set up on a Via southbridge, you can't read them, recover the data from a Silicon Image or Promise controller if your motherboard were to fail.
Show quote
Hide quote
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message so basically if it is onboard integrated as it is mostly when you buy SATA news:7jfi11heskoklsp26k9qbt984vct9p956n@4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:38:56 -0000, "Christo" > <chris@juststuffnospam.co.uk> wrote: > >>been posting here like a mad man lately >> >>just thinking if i was to get two Western Digital Raptor Hard drives >>(10000rpm) both 74 GB drives >> >>slapped them on a RAID0 (im a raid newbie never used it, i just read a >>introduction) it would make the two drives appear as one yes? so 148 GB >>drive would be visible >> >>after creating the array and then re starting and i proceed to install the >>OS >> >>will windows XP setup see one drive (148 GB) or will it still see 2 74 GB >>drives > > It sees one drive. Be sure to hit F6 during installation to > load the RAID driver via floppy. You will see the prompt to > do so. > >> >>im gonna assume it should see one and if it sees two then the array fecked >>up somewhere. > > yes, but it's pretty hard to mess it up, in the RAID setup > menu it should be obvious. > >> >>also would i notice an improvement in performance? I mean would it be >>faster >>because it would already be with pretty wuick hard drives i believe >>raptors >>are the fastest SATA drives available at 10 thousand RPM quicker than >>standard 7200rpm drives >> >>so would having these on a raid0 make it super fast? > > If the RAID controller is integral to the southbridge, yes. > If it's a separate chip on the PCI bus, no. motherboards? and by PCI you mean a seperate controller card, not "built-in" On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:33:40 -0000, "Christo"
<chris@juststuffnospam.co.uk> wrote: >> If the RAID controller is integral to the southbridge, yes. Current-gen motherboards do have SATA via southbridge, but>> If it's a separate chip on the PCI bus, no. > > >so basically if it is onboard integrated as it is mostly when you buy SATA >motherboards? and by PCI you mean a seperate controller card, not "built-in" the prior generation(s) used separate chip, often Silicon Image. By "PCI" I mean a separate chip, whether it be soldered to the board or on a PCI card is irrelevant in this context. "Built it" on a separate, soldered-on chip is logically (and performancewise) the same as it'd be on a PCI-slotted card... could even be same chip, as you can usually buy a PCI card with same chip as those that were used on descreet onboard solutions though sometimes the onboard used "lite" bios because it was cheaper to license (typical with Promise solutions). 
Other interesting topics
Power supplies
on speed - any good or not? 40 pin cables and 80 pin cables on hard drives For people in the US Compusa is having a pretty good sale today One semi bad pixel on my LCD - it strange Computer sometimes doesn't turn on 90nm work on all 939 boards KVM switch reccomendation SATA converter? SATA fails to format in Win2000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
