SATA Raid Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lawrence E. Oliver
  • Start date Start date
L

Lawrence E. Oliver

Just a curious question from someone who is completely untutored in Raid
setup.

I am building a new Intel mobo system with integrated hardware raid. I
intend to use three disks - 1st for "operating system" & 2nd & 3rd for a
Raid1 setup for "data". Where do you recommend the installation of
"programs" - 1st or 2nd/3rd?

Larry
 
You need the RAID controller to support more than 2 SATA drives if 3 hds
are what you have planned,the board might have 4 plug ins for SATA but they
each have thier seperate controller and arent configurable together in a RAID
configuration.Plus,if you do have more than 2 plugs on the same controller
(server
board),they usually run RAID 5.To get back to youre set up,you dont decide
where anything goes per RAID hd,you just configure the 2 drives,and install
xp,
only one drive is viewable in xp.Read the owners manual,take a look at:
http://support.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/CS-010695.htm
 
What is SATA? [Webopedia dot Com is a great source of computer
definitions.]
SATA is an enhancement of the ATA standard:

Source: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/ATA.html
ATA: Short for Advanced Technology Attachment, a disk drive implementation
that integrates the controller on the disk drive itself. There are several
versions of ATA, all developed by the Small Form Factor (SFF) Committee:
ATA: Known also as IDE, supports one or two hard drives, a 16-bit interface
and PIO modes 0, 1 and 2.
ATA-2: Supports faster PIO modes (3 and 4) and multiword DMA modes (1 and
2). Also supports logical block addressing (LBA) and block transfers. ATA-2
is marketed as Fast ATA and Enhanced IDE (EIDE).
ATA-3: Minor revision to ATA-2.
Ultra-ATA: Also called Ultra-DMA, ATA-33, and DMA-33, supports multiword DMA
mode 3 running at 33 MBps.
ATA/66: A version of ATA proposed by Quantum Corporation, and supported by
Intel, that doubles ATA's throughput to 66 MBps.
ATA/100: An updated version of ATA/66 that increases data transfer rates to
100 MBps.
ATA also is called Parallel ATA. Contrast with Serial ATA.
Source: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/Serial_ATA.html

Often abbreviated SATA or S-ATA, an evolution of the Parallel ATA physical
storage interface. Serial ATA is a serial link -- a single cable with a
minimum of four wires creates a point-to-point connection between devices.
Transfer rates for Serial ATA begin at 150MBps. One of the main design
advantages of Serial ATA is that the thinner serial cables facilitate more
efficient airflow inside a form factor and also allow for smaller chassis
designs. In contrast, IDE cables used in parallel ATA systems are bulkier
than Serial ATA cables and can only extend to 40cm long, while Serial ATA
cables can extend up to one meter. Serial ATA supports all ATA and ATAPI
devices.



What is RAID? Source: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html
(rad) Short for Redundant Array of Independent (or Inexpensive) Disks, a
category of disk drives that employ two or more drives in combination for
fault tolerance and performance. RAID disk drives are used frequently on
servers but aren't generally necessary for personal computers.
There are number of different RAID levels:
Source: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html

Level 0 -- Striped Disk Array without Fault Tolerance: Provides data
striping (spreading out blocks of each file across multiple disk drives) but
no redundancy. This improves performance but does not deliver fault
tolerance. If one drive fails then all data in the array is lost.

Level 1 -- Mirroring and Duplexing: Provides disk mirroring. Level 1
provides twice the read transaction rate of single disks and the same write
transaction rate as single disks. Since all files are exactly the same on
both disks (mirroring), if any single disk fails, all data is intact on the
other drive. One need merely replace the failed disk with a new disk,
rebuild the array [copy all data from the good disk to the new disk], and
one is back in business.

Level 5 -- Block Interleaved Distributed Parity: Provides data striping at
the byte level and also stripe error correction information. This results in
excellent performance and good fault tolerance. Level 5 is one of the most
popular implementations of RAID.



Steve
 
You should rethink using RAID 1. All a RAID 1 will protect you from is a
failed hard drive. You won't be protected against viruses or anything wich
corrupts data except a failed hard drive. You will still need a complete
backup. RAID 1 is really meant for companies who can't afford any downtime
that a failed hard drive would bring. If there are any problems they just
switch to the alternate hard drive. I use RAID 0 and have a backup. That way
I get the speed boost and am protected against failure.

Read and understand exactely what a RAID 1 will give you before going ahead.
I don't think thery are worth the expense for home users. A proper backup
gives you compleate protection whereas a RAID 1 only protects against failed
hard drive, think about it.

If you don't mind me asking why are you thinking about RAID 1.
 
My Intel D975XBX motherboard has two raid controllers on it - (1) Intel
Controller controls SATA port 0 through 3 and (2) Silicon Image SATALink
controller for SATA ports 4 through 7. Both can handle RAID 0, 1, 5, or 10.

I will have three SATA drives - only port 1 & 2 will be combined into RAID 1
configuration - the OS will be on the first disk at port 0. The RAID
Controllers do not have to have all drives on it in a RAID so the first disk
on port 0 can be a single standing drive and only the other two will be in
the RAID 1.

My gut feeling is that all the programs & the OS should be on the first disk
since the registry is on the first disk and if the first disk dies (not in
raid so no backup) then the registry is gone and the programs would have to
be reinstalled anyway. However, I just wondered if someone had some other
suggestion.

So far, no one has really answered my question.

Larry
 
Your questions have been answered in the way each person sees fit. As to
where you install programs that is really up to you. It makes no real
difference to Windows where you install the programs. I ask again why are
you thinking about RAID 1? You say your operating system will be on the
first non RAID disk and you are thinking of putting programs on there as
well. Why on earth have a RAID 1 at all. I can see no logical reason for it
whatsoever with your contemplated setup (apart from hard drive failure of
one drive in the RAID). What would it give you that a backup wouldn't apart
from all the lost hard drive space.
 
I realize the requirement for backups & protection for AV, spyware,
firewall, etc.

However, I run several databases, websites & do graphics work which need to
be always available to me - with the low price of disks, a RAID 1 does all
this along with the ease of continued operations. My backup is kept on a
file server on my network.

I understand what RAID 0 & RAID 1 are and the advantages of each and have
considered whether or not I even want a RAID - I have chosen to go with RAID
1 for data.

Larry
 
See my answer to your other post.

Larry

Glen said:
Your questions have been answered in the way each person sees fit. As to
where you install programs that is really up to you. It makes no real
difference to Windows where you install the programs. I ask again why are
you thinking about RAID 1? You say your operating system will be on the
first non RAID disk and you are thinking of putting programs on there as
well. Why on earth have a RAID 1 at all. I can see no logical reason for
it whatsoever with your contemplated setup (apart from hard drive failure
of one drive in the RAID). What would it give you that a backup wouldn't
apart from all the lost hard drive space.
--
Please repost if you find the fault

Glen P
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click to expand...
 
My gut feeling is that all the programs & the OS should be on the first disk
since the registry is on the first disk and if the first disk dies (not in
raid so no backup) then the registry is gone and the programs would have to
be reinstalled anyway. However, I just wondered if someone had some other
suggestion.
Click to expand...

I install Windows on C: and programs on another drive. I also create images
of my Windows partition which includes the Windows registry files. Most
recovery situations are accomplished using an image. Since the image
includes the registry files, it knows about the applications on the other
drive without having to reinstall programs.

If, on the other hand, recovery with an image wasn't practical, then I
would have to reinstall programs as well as a clean install of Windows. The
location of the programs isn't the issue with using images. The size of the
image - whether it will fit on a single DVD or not.

The reason that I don't install programs to the same partition as Windows
is that I'm lazy. A single disk recovery strategy is easy to maintain. Easy
to fit in (a few minutes a week). Multiple disks is more work, more cost in
media and time. Not as likely to get done on a regular basis.

The program partition gets imaged now and then but not as frequently as the
Windows partition. Data is backed up regularly instead of imaged. No idea
why. Old habits, I guess.
 
So far, no one has really answered my question.
Click to expand...

I guess I really didn't answer it either. I have a RAID controller on my
system but use it in IDE mode for additional basic disks.
 
If it was me, I would opt for the raid 5. This allows hot swapping of a bad
drive and will rebuild the drive after replacement. This is, of course,
dependent on if it is a hardware raid.
 
Thank you Sharon - actually your previous post in which you discussed why
you chose a specific place was exactly what I wanted to see - now I have
something to think about.

Larry
 
Thanks for the thought - it is a hardware RAID, unfortunately, the first is
a 74GB drive while the other two are 250GB drives.

Larry
 
Thank you Sharon - actually your previous post in which you discussed why
you chose a specific place was exactly what I wanted to see - now I have
something to think about.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, Lawrence.
 
Lawrence said:
Just a curious question from someone who is completely untutored in Raid
setup.

I am building a new Intel mobo system with integrated hardware raid. I
intend to use three disks - 1st for "operating system" & 2nd & 3rd for a
Raid1 setup for "data". Where do you recommend the installation of
"programs" - 1st or 2nd/3rd?

Larry
Click to expand...
With the Intel motherboard Raid setup you can build your system without
a Raid array then you can migrate any disk to a two disk Raid 0 or 1.
(You install the additional disk then use the Intel software included
with your motherboard to do the setup). Note however that you MUST
configure the BIOS to be RAID ready when you install the OS whether you
make the RAID during installation or use the migration software later.
As to your original question: If you are going to use a RAID 1
configuration, place your most valuable assets on it. You don't want to
have the swap file and replaceable binary programs there since they
don't need premium protection. In spite of what some people will tell
you, RAID 0 setups are okay - disks are dirt cheap. You should still do
regular backups even if you have a sexy RAID installation - simultaneous
hardware failure, viruses, etc.

-- Jeff Barnett
 
Jeff -

Thanks for your comments.

Especially agree with your last paragraph - RAID 1 = "data" will go there.
Regular "backups" will be to an external network drive.

Larry
 
Back
Top