Simple RAID 0, 1 ? from first time nubie...

[kxdude4]

Hey guys!

Just to get it out of the way I have:
MB : ASUS P5ND2 SLI
Intel P4 3.2 GHz Hyper-threading LGA775 800Mhz FSB
4 Gigs DDR2 240 pin

Present set up:
320 Gig SATA Primary

300 Gig Master IDE
Plextor DVD burner Slave

160Gig Secondary IDE master
DVD ROM Slave

MB has 4 SATA plugs as well as both Primary and Secondary IDE
controllers.

I bought a second SATA 320 gig disk identical to my boot drive. I do
a lot of DVD stuff so I'd like to Stripe Set but on the other hand I
wouldn't mind safely and a mirror set. Here's my questions:

Can I add the new HD to make either type of RAID now that I'm already
up and running? I know it's a simple question but I just can't find
the answer. It seems possible for a mirror set but dubious for a
stripe set... But I don't know...

Thanks!!!!!

 

[old man]

mirror yes, stripe no

 

[Rod Speed]

Hey guys!

None of those here, just us rather badly behaved animals.

Just to get it out of the way I have:
MB : ASUS P5ND2 SLI
Intel P4 3.2 GHz Hyper-threading LGA775 800Mhz FSB
4 Gigs DDR2 240 pin

Present set up:
320 Gig SATA Primary

300 Gig Master IDE
Plextor DVD burner Slave

160Gig Secondary IDE master
DVD ROM Slave

MB has 4 SATA plugs as well as both
Primary and Secondary IDE controllers.

I bought a second SATA 320 gig disk identical to my boot drive.
I do a lot of DVD stuff so I'd like to Stripe Set but on the other
hand I wouldn't mind safely and a mirror set.

The most important question is why you want raid 0.

Here's my questions:

Can I add the new HD to make either type of
RAID now that I'm already up and running?

Not easily, but then you are fully backed up arent you ?

I know it's a simple question but I just can't find the answer.
It seems possible for a mirror set but dubious for a
stripe set... But I don't know...

Yes, its not that easy with raid 0

It isnt necessarily that easily with raid 1 either.

And you have everything fully back up dont you ?

 

[Paul]

Hey guys!

Just to get it out of the way I have:
MB : ASUS P5ND2 SLI
Intel P4 3.2 GHz Hyper-threading LGA775 800Mhz FSB
4 Gigs DDR2 240 pin

Present set up:
320 Gig SATA Primary

300 Gig Master IDE
Plextor DVD burner Slave

160Gig Secondary IDE master
DVD ROM Slave

MB has 4 SATA plugs as well as both Primary and Secondary IDE
controllers.

I bought a second SATA 320 gig disk identical to my boot drive. I do
a lot of DVD stuff so I'd like to Stripe Set but on the other hand I
wouldn't mind safely and a mirror set. Here's my questions:

Can I add the new HD to make either type of RAID now that I'm already
up and running? I know it's a simple question but I just can't find
the answer. It seems possible for a mirror set but dubious for a
stripe set... But I don't know...

Thanks!!!!!

This page:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/feature_raid.html

has this manual on it - "ForceWare MediaShield User¹s Guide"
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_28159.html (6MB downloadable manual)

"Array Morphing Questions
* Is it possible to Morph a single bootable drive to a two-disk
stripe array? That is, if I have a single drive in the system
that is not RAID enabled, then decide to add a second drive to
the system, will I then be able to Morph the single bootable
drive to a two-disk stripe array?

If "RAID Enable" in the BIOS RAID Config screen is not enabled
when the OS is installed, it is not possible to convert the SATA
boot drive into a multi-disk bootable RAID array. Therefore, if
you want to retain the capability to Morph a single SATA boot drive
into a multi-disk RAID array at a future time, you must perform
the OS install onto a single disk stripe array. You can do this
by following the instructions in ³Setting Up a Bootable RAID Array²
on page 15 and selecting "RAID Mode" striping and then adding just
your single boot disk. Then install the OS using the F6 install
mechanism as described in Installing the RAID Drivers. Later, when
you want to morph the single disk into a multi-disk RAID array,
follow the instructions in ³Morphing From One RAID Array to
Another² on page 63."

This manual is 157 pages long, and flipping through it, I still
don't know the difference between "rebuilding" and "synchronizing"
an array. You'd think in 157 pages, they could do a little less
"copy/paste" of manual text, and a little more educating. And the
above answer doesn't tell me whether I could build a mirror from
an existing boot drive.

My advice, when you don't know how a RAID really works, is to do
a backup and restore to the new array. Then, you have a backup
(which you should have anyway, because a mirror can get wiped out
too - imagine if the +12V on your power supply, goes to +15V
and burns all the disk drives...).

Also, in light of the lack of underlying explanations in the manual
(such as "reserved sector" versus "system data" and the like), I would
experiment with the array, to be sure you understand how it works.
Make a mirror with two drives (not your boot drive), then break the
mirror by disconnecting one drive. Now try "rebuilding" or on the
next experiment try "resynchronizing", and see if you can figure out
what the options do. Keep a couple of files on the array, and see if
the files get lost or not. Experimenting with tiny disks (like a pair
of old 4GB IDE disks), will keep the run time of the experiments short.

There is nothing worse, than seeing a posting from some poor user,
whose array is broken, they have no backup, and they expect the
USENET community to give them precise instructions to save their
bacon. Most of these poster go home empty handed :-( If you don't do
the necessary experiments now, and learn how to use RAID arrays,
when the day comes that the array dies (which it will), you'll be
stuck. This is one reason I don't use RAID - for my simple mind,
doing a backup is easier to understand, and doesn't make my brain
hurt.

HTH,
Paul

 

[Arno Wagner]

Hey guys!

Just to get it out of the way I have:
MB : ASUS P5ND2 SLI
Intel P4 3.2 GHz Hyper-threading LGA775 800Mhz FSB
4 Gigs DDR2 240 pin

Present set up:
320 Gig SATA Primary

300 Gig Master IDE
Plextor DVD burner Slave

160Gig Secondary IDE master
DVD ROM Slave

MB has 4 SATA plugs as well as both Primary and Secondary IDE
controllers.

I bought a second SATA 320 gig disk identical to my boot drive. I do
a lot of DVD stuff so I'd like to Stripe Set but on the other hand I
wouldn't mind safely and a mirror set. Here's my questions:

Can I add the new HD to make either type of RAID now that I'm already
up and running? I know it's a simple question but I just can't find
the answer. It seems possible for a mirror set but dubious for a
stripe set... But I don't know...

You can allways (allmost) add an additional mirror. In order to
add to stripe, you RAID software/firmware has to support that
particular operation. It does it by basically copying the array
in-place to the new configuration. Most RAID software/firmware
does not support this operation. Also you haave to grow your
partition table afterwards and possibly your filesystems. Again
something that is possible, but usually not supported.

Arno

 

[Bob Davis]

Hey guys!

Just to get it out of the way I have:
MB : ASUS P5ND2 SLI
Intel P4 3.2 GHz Hyper-threading LGA775 800Mhz FSB
4 Gigs DDR2 240 pin

Present set up:
320 Gig SATA Primary

300 Gig Master IDE
Plextor DVD burner Slave

160Gig Secondary IDE master
DVD ROM Slave

MB has 4 SATA plugs as well as both Primary and Secondary IDE
controllers.

I bought a second SATA 320 gig disk identical to my boot drive. I do
a lot of DVD stuff so I'd like to Stripe Set but on the other hand I
wouldn't mind safely and a mirror set. Here's my questions:

Can I add the new HD to make either type of RAID now that I'm already
up and running? I know it's a simple question but I just can't find
the answer. It seems possible for a mirror set but dubious for a
stripe set... But I don't know...

Don't let anyone tell you it can't be done, because it can. I did it on my
Gigabyte mobo, but it wasn't easy. Here are some basic steps:

(1) The problem is that by creating the array you'll wipe your C: drive, so
you'll need to clone it to another drive first. I used Norton Ghost 2003,
the version that works in DOS mode outside of the Windows OS, and it works
like a charm. Using an old IDE is most convenient, as you can use a
standard IDE port. Be forewarned that Ghost needs DOS drivers to read/write
to firewire or USB drives, and I have never been able to get USB to work
properly. Otherwise, Ghost should work with any drive seen by the bios. I
would not feel safe with one clone and would make two, along with a complete
backup elsewhere.
Be paranoid.

(2) After the clone, I enabled the controller in the bios and selected RAID
mode. I used the ICH5R on-chip controller of my GA-8KNXP mobo, but the
procedure should be similar with either your Nvidia or SI controller.
Reboot and be prepared to install drivers for the new hardware, if you
haven't already done this. Double-check Device Manager that the controller
is installed and that it is "working properly."

(3) Power down the system, install your second drive, reboot, enter the
RAID bios as it appears on the screen soon after POST, then set up the
array. Use a 64k chunk (stripe) size unless you're working mostly with
large files, in which case you may want 128k.

(4) Since Ghost may not see the new array without first partitioning and
formating it, I used a Windows ME version of FDISK and FORMAT from a floppy
drive to first partition, then format it. Beware that older versions of
these programs may not work on large drives.

(5) Power down again, temporarily install the cloned drive, and run Ghost
again to restore the clone to the new array. If you do it wrong you may
clone to the wrong drive and end up with two blank drives, so be careful!

(6) Reboot into the bios and make sure the new array is your new boot drive
by checking the boot order.

(7) When you boot into Windows for the first time on the new array it
should be without problems (knock on wood). Again, make sure you're backed
up before starting! This is an invasive procedure and things can go wrong.
I used a different mobo and controller and this worked for me, but don't
blame me if yours burps or otherwise protests during the procedure,
rendering your original Windows installation unusable. Plan ahead and cover
yourself with backups.

 

[Bob Davis]

The most important question is why you want raid 0.

(1) Speed and/or (2) double your drive size using two less-expensive drives.
Risk? Yes, but I just cover myself with multiple clones and backups. I've
used RAID0 for about five years now and have never had a failure of either
hardware or an array, but I'm backed up to the hilt and can be up and
running again in <30 min. if the array fails.

 

[Rod Speed]

I was asking him, not you.

(1) Speed

There arent many situations where that is actually needed anymore.

and/or (2) double your drive size using two less-expensive drives.

Stupid approach if that is all you need.

Risk? Yes, but I just cover myself with multiple clones and backups.

Pointless going to that trouble unless you actually
need the small increase in speed. Very few do.

I've used RAID0 for about five years now and have never had a failure of
either hardware or an array,
Irrelevant.

but I'm backed up to the hilt and can be up and running again in <30 min.
if the array fails.

Makes more sense to not use raid 0 unless you actually
need the small increase in speed. Thats unlikely.

 

[Bill]

There arent many situations where that is actually needed anymore.


Pointless going to that trouble unless you actually
need the small increase in speed. Very few do.

The speed increase in many situations is far from small. Most file
activities that are not CPU or memory intensive can be up to twice as
fast.

For instance, something like zipping up a bunch of large files may only
be 10% faster, but reading an uncompressed disk spool can be 95% faster.
Heck, even something as simple as using a Par2 program to rebuild Rar
files from usenet is twice as fast.

It all depends on your needs. For many people, RAID 0 is a real
performance enhancer and well worth the minimal risk. And for a bit of
safety creating a 4-drive RAID 0+1 array offers the best of both worlds.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

The speed increase in many situations is far from small.
Bullshit.

Most file activities that are not CPU or memory
intensive can be up to twice as fast.

Almost never anything like that, and there is **** all
of that sort of file access on most systems anyway.

For instance, something like zipping up a bunch of large files may
only be 10% faster, but reading an uncompressed disk spool

Which is something **** all ever do.

can be 95% faster.

And hardly ever is.

Heck, even something as simple as using a Par2
program to rebuild Rar files from usenet is twice as fast.

Bare faced lie. And **** all do that anyway, and its a tiny part
of the time required to download them in the first place anyway.

It all depends on your needs. For many people,
RAID 0 is a real performance enhancer

Bare faced pig ignorant lie. For **** all, actually.

and well worth the minimal risk. And for a bit of safety creating
a 4-drive RAID 0+1 array offers the best of both worlds.

At a stupid price. No thanks.

 

[Eric Gisin]

The speed increase in many situations is far from small. Most file
activities that are not CPU or memory intensive can be up to twice as
fast.

For instance, something like zipping up a bunch of large files may only
be 10% faster, but reading an uncompressed disk spool can be 95% faster.
Heck, even something as simple as using a Par2 program to rebuild Rar
files from usenet is twice as fast.

All those example benefit far more from two independent disks, not RAID 0.

It all depends on your needs. For many people, RAID 0 is a real
performance enhancer and well worth the minimal risk. And for a bit of
safety creating a 4-drive RAID 0+1 array offers the best of both worlds.

Bullshit. A 10/15K drive for the OS and a 7.2K drive for data is faster.
You can image the OS to the second drive, which is safer than RAID 1.

 

[Bob Davis]

I was asking him, not you.

Since you were asking the question on a public forum I assumed you were
inviting answers from others. I regret you were offended.

There arent many situations where that is actually needed anymore.

It has worked well for my photo/video work using large files. YMMV.

Stupid approach if that is all you need.

In my view it is not "stupid" for my purposes. Again, your needs will vary.
I just recently set up a second RAID0 array in this computer for my first
archive volume (mostly photos) using two 250gb drives at a total cost of
$200. A single 400gb also about the same, and a single 500gb ~$315. The
upside is speed and economy, the downside the failure of the array. As I
said, if either array fails I can be running again in <30 min. If the drive
of a one-disk volume fails the situation is exactly the same, and the idea
is maintain clones and backups.

Pointless going to that trouble unless you actually
need the small increase in speed. Very few do.

All of my business output is on this computer and its cloned drives and
backups, including six years of digital photographs and 30 years of business
records. If I did not have RAID arrays I would use the same level of
redundancy, so it causes no more trouble that would be expended with a
single-drive setup. Most of my backups are automatic with batch files, and
clones are created once per week, rotating five drives in mobile racks. All
drives are older upgraded drives that are still functional, so there is no
cost penalty. The trouble factor is very low, relatively non-interactive,
and I would do it regardless of whether or not I was using RAID0.

Rod, I've watched this forum for years and note that you respond frequently
and are knowledgeable of the subject. But you know as well as I do that
everyone has their preferences and procedures, and these work best for me.
There is no downside to RAID0 for me, given my level of redundancy
maintained. A failure is a failure, and if you're ready for it the recovery
should be swift and complete. The speed increase is noticeable and
important to me in the type of work I do. I don't recommend it for most of
the people I help
with computer upgrades and problems. Indeed, what you say is probably true
for most people, but there is always a small group of oddballs like me with
special needs.

Irrelevant.

True, and a failure could happen tomorrow, as it could with a single-drive
volume--but the key is to be ready for it. I believe that a cool drive is a
happy drive, and I have dedicated fans on my drive bay, which I'm convinced
helps decrease the possibility of a drive failure.

Makes more sense to not use raid 0 unless you actually
need the small increase in speed. Thats unlikely.

As I've said, it is important to the type of work I do. RAID0 isn't for
everyone, by a long shot. If RAID0 isn't your preferred approach, I would
never call you "stupid" for taking another route.

 

[Bill]

All those example benefit far more from two independent disks, not RAID 0.

Methinks you hath not tried it?

I had my doubts until I saw a RAID 0 system in action.

I think perhaps you're forgetting that reading from one drive, and
writing to the second is still limited by the DTR of the slowest drive.
With a RAID 0 setup the two drives of the array are accessed at the same
time and throughput is much higher. A RAID 0 does not write one segment
to one disk, and then write another segment to the other disk
sequentially. The disk accesses are simultaneous on separate disk
controllers, in parallel. The effective bandwidth is increased with each
increase in array size.

A friend has a 4-disk array that is twice as fast as mine (4x faster
than a single drive). But he reads and writes 9gig DVD images and does
remastering and lots of video encoding, and needs that speed and large
drive space.

I don't, so the cost/performance ratio isn't there for me.

I've also done comparison tests of dual-drive setups compared to two
separate disks on my own system and the RAID 0 is definitely much
faster. I used HDTach to confirm my feelings, and it accurately reflects
the speed increase that I know I'm getting just from daily use.

Bullshit. A 10/15K drive for the OS and a 7.2K drive for data is faster.

Perhaps. But since a 150gig 10k drive is astronomical in price compared
to a pair of 80gig 7200rpm drives, the cost/performance ratio is a major
factor. But then having a pair of 74gig Raptors is much faster than a
pair of 7200rpm drives as well.

Everyone has their own needs and expectations of performance. My friend
with the 4-disk array is using 4 300gig Maxtor drives...that's over a
terabyte of disk space at about 250mb/s.

Sure he could find faster setups, but the price is not feasible.

You can image the OS to the second drive, which is safer than RAID 1.

Not really. Data is maintained on two independent drives, which means
the safety level and risk is identical.

RAID 1 gives you somewhat better integration where you don't have to
worry about the data and constantly backing it up to the second drive.
It's not "better" for risk level, it's just easier.

 

[Bill]

Bullshit.

Aside from you spewing obscenities, do you have anything useful to
contribute?

I've run my system with a single disk, and with a dual disk setup. I can
attest to the performance increase, and it is not bullshit as you seem
to think.

A friend has a 4-disk array and it's 4x faster.

Have you actually tried it?

Almost never anything like that, and there is **** all
of that sort of file access on most systems anyway.

I don't know what your definition of "most systems" may entail, but I
can assure you that for my needs, there is a dramatic performance
increase.

And I specifically stated that it can be UP TO twice as fast. Obviously
a 2kb file read/write won't make any difference. But a 200mb file
read/write can be completely different.

Which is something **** all ever do.

Maybe for you, if all you do is spew obscenities in usenet where disk
activity for small text files is minimal...but not for me.

I will agree that many users who simply read their email, surf to Ebay
and buy a few items, and pay a bill online, it won't make any
difference. But for those who read/write large data files, it can make a
big difference.

Bare faced lie. And **** all do that anyway, and its a tiny part
of the time required to download them in the first place anyway.

Well, as an example, rebuilding two 50mb files at 110mb/s is nearly
twice as fast as one of my drives at 60mb/s.

If you don't do it...that's fine. But trying to berate me won't work.
I'm not a fool.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie. For **** all, actually.

Ok...obviously you're adamant that I'm a liar.

However, I have proof that shows the performance benefits. Would you
like to see it? Or would you just simply say I faked it and call me a
liar again?

Now that I think about it, don't bother answering those questions,
unless you're actually interesting in the results.

At a stupid price.

Stupid price?

Hmm...for less than $400CDN I can create a 400gig RAID 0+1 array that is
fast and has data redundancy. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Sure it costs more than a single 200gig drive. But I like the
performance increase. If you don't need that performance, then yes it is
a poor way to spend your money.

No thanks.

That's fine. I'm not pushing it down your throat.

However, anyone who isn't afraid of the truth is free to test it for
themselves, or do a little research and learn the truth. Heck, even an
old pair of 80gig drives will show similar performance increases, so
almost anyone with a RAID capable motherboard can test it for
themselves.

If you don't like it...that's just fine. I'm certainly not going to stop
using my setup, or tell others not to do so simply because you said so.

:-/

 

[Bob Davis]

Bullshit. A 10/15K drive for the OS and a 7.2K drive for data is faster.
You can image the OS to the second drive, which is safer than RAID 1.

Although 10/15K SCSI drives are undoubltly the performance leaders, they are
not economical alternatives for most people. I've resorted to using my
clones on several occasions in the past five years they've been in use, all
for software or OS snafus that could not be reconciled. If such had
occurred with RAID1, the mirror will also be corrupt. Also, if the volume
becomes infested with a virus, the mirror will also be infected.

I prefer a less intimate level of cloning. If I experience a failure of
either of my striped arrays, I will restore my most recent clone (never more
than one week old), and will update that restore with more recent backups
made to my storage array (D. If the storage array is corrupted, the
originals remain on C: and backups of my archives on J: and K: (firewire
drives powered up only when needed). I also keep one clone of C: and and a
photo-archive backup (firewire) off-site.

This sounds like a lot of trouble, but like I told Rod I would maintain the
same level of redundancy with a single-disk setup. My data is important
enough to take these measures. In fact, it is doesn't involve a great
expenditure of time.

As for speed, RAID0 does make a difference in my photo-editing work.

 

[Bob Davis]

Aside from you spewing obscenities, do you have anything useful to
contribute?

I too was hoping for something more substantive. I am very persuadable in
the face of reasoned responses, and have learned much from rational posts on
these newsgroups.

Maybe for you, if all you do is spew obscenities in usenet where disk
activity for small text files is minimal...but not for me.

I will agree that many users who simply read their email, surf to Ebay
and buy a few items, and pay a bill online, it won't make any
difference. But for those who read/write large data files, it can make a
big difference.

I agree. I've used single and striped volumes in over 24 years of using
computers, and for my photo-editing work the latter is noticeably faster.
Double? No, perhaps on the level of 30-50%, but that's worth it for me. In
another reply on this thread I also outlined the economical side to RAID0 if
you need an upgrade of a given volume. I just bought two WD2500YD drives
for $100 each, totalling $200 for 500gb in RAID0. A 500gb single drive
costs ~$315. This new array has greatly increased the speed of my Photoshop
work (scratch disk) over the 300gb single 7200-rpm SATA this array replaced.

As you said, the performance increase is very noticeable for moving large
files. However, I do believe that for most people RAID0 array is
unnecessary.

However, I have proof that shows the performance benefits. Would you
like to see it? Or would you just simply say I faked it and call me a
liar again?

Now that I think about it, don't bother answering those questions,
unless you're actually interesting in the results.

I wouldn't bother. Just use what works for you and let others have their
opinions. My procedures have been worked out from years of experience, and
they work for me. I really don't care if someone else feels it isn't for
them, but their needs are likely quite different.
For them to use epithets and profanity to make their point is perplexing to
me.

Stupid price?

Hmm...for less than $400CDN I can create a 400gig RAID 0+1 array that is
fast and has data redundancy. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

As I've pointed out, a 500gb RAID0 array is far cheaper than a 500gb
single-disk. If you need 200gb and buy two 200gb drives for a RAID0 array,
I do feel that this is overkill.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Aside from you spewing obscenities, do
you have anything useful to contribute?

Yep, that claim is complete and utter bullshit.

Nothing like many situations, **** all in fact.

I've run my system with a single disk, and with a dual
disk setup. I can attest to the performance increase,

Easy to claim.

and it is not bullshit as you seem to think.

Corse it is and you'll get a similar speed increase using
two physical drives not in raid0 with the input and output
of the operation on different physical drives, and dont
have the risk thats inevitable with raid0.

A friend has a 4-disk array and it's 4x faster.

Complete pack of lies. You NEVER get 4x faster.

Have you actually tried it?

Yep. And plenty of others have posted here when
they are disappointed at how little speed increase
they get with raid0 too with real world PC use.

The modern reality is that **** all normal
PC ops benefit that much from raid0.

I don't know what your definition of "most systems"
may entail, but I can assure you that for my needs,
there is a dramatic performance increase.

You're lying. Nothing like dramatic.

And I specifically stated that it can be UP TO twice as fast.

Its never twice as fast, you're a liar.

Obviously a 2kb file read/write won't make any difference.
But a 200mb file read/write can be completely different.

And **** all do that much.

Maybe for you, if all you do is spew obscenities in usenet
where disk activity for small text files is minimal...but not for me.

You are completely irrelevant. What matters is what the OP is
doing when asking whether he will get much benefit at all with raid0.

I will agree that many users who simply read their email,
surf to Ebay and buy a few items, and pay a bill online,
it won't make any difference. But for those who read/write
large data files, it can make a big difference.

**** all do that in a way thats at all time critical.

I do in fact do that heaps, because I have replaced the VCRs
with a PVR with 4 digital TV capture channels, but that works
fine without raid0, because the speed of reading and writing
the very large data files is entirely determined by the rate at
which the captured data comes into the PC and the rate at
which is used when viewing the files.

And while I do edit those files very crudely to chop out the
crap I dont want, because I normally record great blocks
of hours, so I dont care if the start and stop times slip from
the program schedules, there is no benefit with raid0 over
having the input and output on different physical drives.

Well, as an example, rebuilding two 50mb files at 110mb/s
is nearly twice as fast as one of my drives at 60mb/s.

You're lying, its nowhere near twice as fast. And again, you'll
get the same speed with the input and output files on different
physical drives. And like I said, the time to do that is irrelevant
when it takes much longer to download the component files anyway.

If you don't do it...that's fine.

What matters is what the OP does, not what you or I do.

But trying to berate me won't work.

Lying again. I was just rubbing your nose in the turds in your claims.

I'm not a fool.

Corse you are.

Ok...obviously you're adamant that I'm a liar.

You've just proven that you are.

However, I have proof that shows the performance benefits.

No you havent on that MANY PEOPLE claim.

Would you like to see it?

Taint relevant to that MANY PEOPLE lie.

Or would you just simply say I faked it and call me a liar again?

If you repeat that MANY PEOPLE lie, yes I will while ever
you keep mindlessly repeating that bare faced lie that you
dont actually have a shred of evidence to support.

Now that I think about it, don't bother answering those
questions, unless you're actually interesting in the results.

Go and **** yourself. You have no 'results' on that MANY PEOPLE lie.

Stupid price?

Yep, terminally stupid compared with the cost of a single drive.

Hmm...for less than $400CDN I can create a 400gig
RAID 0+1 array that is fast and has data redundancy.

Terminally stupid compared with the cost of a single drive.

Terminally stupid compared with the cost of a pair of drives
if you actually need redundancy. Much better to use one
as a destination for backups done when the PC is free.

Doesn't sound too bad to me.

You clearly need to get those ears tested.

Sure it costs more than a single 200gig drive. But I like the
performance increase. If you don't need that performance,
then yes it is a poor way to spend your money.

Which is why I asked the OP why he thought he needed raid0, ****wit.

That's fine. I'm not pushing it down your throat.

Lying, again.

However, anyone who isn't afraid of the truth

You wouldnt know what the truth was if it bit you on your lard arse.

is free to test it for themselves, or do
a little research and learn the truth.

That your claims are grossly exaggerated with
the real world of PC use by MOST PEOPLE.

Heck, even an old pair of 80gig drives will show similar
performance increases, so almost anyone with a RAID
capable motherboard can test it for themselves.

And most wouldnt even be able to pick the difference
with a proper double blind trial with their normal PC use.

If you don't like it...that's just fine. I'm certainly
not going to stop using my setup, or tell others
not to do so simply because you said so.

You can stand on your head and whistle dixie too if you like.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eric Gisin wrote

Methinks you hath not tried it?

Pathetic, really.

I had my doubts until I saw a RAID 0 system in action.

I think perhaps you're forgetting that reading from one drive, and
writing to the second is still limited by the DTR of the slowest drive.

Or perhaps not when your examples would be limited by the
speed of the processing of the data, not the slowest drive.

If you're mindlessly copying files around much, you've got
a completely ****ed config that should be fixed instead of
speeding that operation up by using raid0.

With a RAID 0 setup the two drives of the array are
accessed at the same time and throughput is much higher.
A RAID 0 does not write one segment to one disk, and
then write another segment to the other disk sequentially.
The disk accesses are simultaneous on separate disk
controllers, in parallel.

Just as true of two physical drives not in raid0 on separate
controllers, without the risk to the data thats inevitable with raid0.

The effective bandwidth is increased with each increase in array size.
Duh.

A friend has a 4-disk array that is twice as
fast as mine (4x faster than a single drive).

Another bare faced lie. Its nothing like 4x.

But he reads and writes 9gig DVD images and does remastering and
lots of video encoding, and needs that speed and large drive space.

And those ops arent limited by the drive speed.

I don't, so the cost/performance ratio isn't there for me.

I've also done comparison tests of dual-drive setups compared to
two separate disks on my own system and the RAID 0 is definitely
much faster. I used HDTach to confirm my feelings, and it accurately
reflects the speed increase that I know I'm getting just from daily use.

No it doesnt.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.

But since a 150gig 10k drive is astronomical in
price compared to a pair of 80gig 7200rpm drives,

He's not talking about a 150G drive, stupid. He's talking
about a much smaller 10/15K drive for the OS.

the cost/performance ratio is a major factor. But then having a pair of
74gig Raptors is much faster than a pair of 7200rpm drives as well.

He wasnt talking about a pair of anything, stupid.

Everyone has their own needs and expectations of performance.

And plenty like you havent actually got a clue about measuring performance.

My friend with the 4-disk array is using 4 300gig Maxtor drives...
that's over a terabyte of disk space at about 250mb/s.

Sure he could find faster setups, but the price is not feasible.

And the price he paid is stupid too.

Not really.

Fraid so.

Data is maintained on two independent drives,
which means the safety level and risk is identical.

Wrong, as always. Using images protects against viruses
and user stupidity in a way that raid 1 can never do.

RAID 1 gives you somewhat better integration where you don't
have to worry about the data and constantly backing it up to
the second drive. It's not "better" for risk level, it's just easier.

And is useless as protection against viruses,
the system stuffing itself up, and user stupidity.

raid1 aint proper backup, stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

Since you were asking the question on a public forum I assumed you were
inviting answers from others.

I was replying to his questions, not saying
anything about configs in general.

I regret you were offended.

I wasnt offended, I just pointed out that what applys
to your PC use is irrelevant to his. Because most dont
actually do much that will actually benefit from raid0.

It has worked well for my photo/video work using large files. YMMV.

Our mileage is completely irrelevant, its what HE is doing that matters
when considering whether raid0 has any real advantage FOR HIM.
Which is why I asked him what he actually does on that PC.

In my view it is not "stupid" for my purposes. Again, your needs will
vary.

That was JUST a comment on that DOUBLE YOUR DRIVE SIZE.

Raid0 is a stupid approach if that is all you want to do.

I just recently set up a second RAID0 array in this computer for my first
archive volume (mostly photos) using two 250gb
drives at a total cost of $200. A single 400gb also about the same, and
a single 500gb ~$315. The upside is speed and economy, the downside the
failure of the array. As I said, if either array fails I can be running
again in <30 min. If the drive of a one-disk volume fails the situation
is exactly the same, and the idea is maintain clones and backups.

Awfully long winded approach if all you need is the drive space.

Yes, you say you need the better speed too.

All of my business output is on this computer and its cloned drives and
backups, including six years of digital photographs and 30 years of
business records. If I did not have RAID arrays I would use the same
level of redundancy, so it causes no more trouble that would be expended
with a single-drive setup.

You still have a much more complicated config and
you are at significant risk if the raid controller fails etc.

Pointless if you dont actually need the increased speed that raid0
provides.

Most of my backups are automatic with batch files, and clones are created
once per week, rotating five drives in mobile racks. All drives are
older upgraded drives that are still functional, so there is no cost
penalty. The trouble factor is very low, relatively non-interactive, and
I would do it regardless of whether or not I was using RAID0.

Irrelevant to whether the increased complexity and risk thats
inevitable with raid0 is worth it if you dont need the increased speed.

Rod, I've watched this forum for years and note that you respond
frequently and are knowledgeable of the subject. But you know as well as
I do that everyone has their preferences and procedures, and these work
best for me.

Irrelevant to the question I asked the OP.

I did that because I wanted to know whether raid0 would
actually give him any benefit at all, because many just use
it because they can when it wont help what they do any.

There is no downside to RAID0 for me, given my level of redundancy
maintained.

Thats overstating it. There is a real risk
with the level of backup you are doing.

Most do quite a bit of work in a week.

A failure is a failure, and if you're ready for it the recovery should be
swift and complete.

No it wont be if the raid hardware fails.

The speed increase is noticeable and important to me in the type of work
I do.

And I was asking the OP whether that was true for him.

I don't recommend it for most of the people I help
with computer upgrades and problems. Indeed, what you say is probably
true for most people,

Which is why I asked the OP what I did,
to get clear if he is one of those or not.

but there is always a small group of
oddballs like me with special needs.

Sure. Again, thats why I asked the OP, because there are indeed
some that do benefit when using raid0. It is however much fewer
than it used to be, so its important to get that clear from the OP
because of the risks that are inevitable with raid0.

He also doesnt appear to have ANY redundancy whatever,
or any backups either, otherwise he wouldnt have asked
about how to create a raid0 array in the way he did. He
could have just created it in the normal way and restored
from the backups if he actually had full backups.

True, and a failure could happen tomorrow, as it could with a
single-drive volume--but the key is to be ready for it.

Its not clear that you are tho, do you have
the raid hardware redundant too ?

I believe that a cool drive is a happy drive, and I have dedicated fans
on my drive bay, which I'm convinced helps decrease the possibility of a
drive failure.

Its more the reverse, if you dont keep the drive temps
reasonable, that certainly increases the failure rates.

Doesnt help with the failure of the raid hardware tho.

As I've said, it is important to the type of work I do. RAID0 isn't for
everyone, by a long shot.

Which is why I asked the OP why he wanted to have raid0.

If RAID0 isn't your preferred approach, I would never call you "stupid"
for taking another route.

I bet I couldnt even pick it in a proper double blind trial with what
I do where I actually give a damn about how long something
takes, as opposed to it happening while I'm sleeping etc.

Sorry if I came across a bit strong, I've got a VERY blunt style. Some
have unkindly claimed it can be like a slap in the face with a dead fish
|-)

 

[Rod Speed]

I too was hoping for something more substantive. I am very
persuadable in the face of reasoned responses, and have learned much
from rational posts on these newsgroups.




I agree. I've used single and striped volumes in over 24 years of
using computers, and for my photo-editing work the latter is
noticeably faster. Double? No, perhaps on the level of 30-50%, but
that's worth it for me. In another reply on this thread I also
outlined the economical side to RAID0 if you need an upgrade of a
given volume. I just bought two WD2500YD drives for $100 each,
totalling $200 for 500gb in RAID0. A 500gb single drive costs ~$315.

Thats not really a valid comparison because the 500G drives
are currently poor value $/GB. A more valid comparison price
wise is two 300G drives not in a raid0 config.

This new array has greatly increased the speed of my Photoshop work
(scratch disk) over the 300gb single 7200-rpm SATA this array replaced.

Thats a very unusual config tho, the photoshop scratch disk is notorious
for that.

As you said, the performance increase is very noticeable for moving large
files.

But usually its better to avoid moving them at
all than to use raid0 to speed up the moving.

They move instantly on a single physical drive
when you just move them in the folder trees.

However, I do believe that for most people RAID0 array is unnecessary.

Yeah, that was my point, that very few
will get any real benefit from them today.

They used to help with video capture, but now the best approach
is decent digital capture cards and they dont need raid0 anymore.

I wouldn't bother. Just use what works for you and let others have
their opinions. My procedures have been worked out from years of
experience, and they work for me. I really don't care if someone
else feels it isn't for them, but their needs are likely quite
different. For them to use epithets and profanity to make their point is
perplexing to me.

As I've pointed out, a 500gb RAID0 array is far cheaper than a 500gb
single-disk.

As I've pointed out, you should be comparing it
with a pair of 300G drives not in a raid0 config.

Its quite poor value, particularly if you have redundant raid hardware.

If you need 200gb and buy two 200gb drives for a RAID0 array, I do feel
that this is overkill.

No thanks, I'll buy two 300G drives, and that's what I've done.