1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Some questions about Raid 0. its for a new PC.

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by Boris Easten, Dec 26, 2005.

  1. Boris Easten

    Boris Easten Guest

    Some questions about Raid 0. its for a new PC.

    From what i read raid 0 is the fastest version. But not the safest.
    Not realy concerned about safe just want fast :)

    Ill have abackup program saving important stuff to another drive.

    Anyways heres the questions.

    Does raid 0 put any extra stress on the drives. Iam going to use two
    160 gig or 200 SATA 2 drives. 200 gigs if i can get them. But 160 gigs
    X2 will be fine.

    If they work harder would extra cooling help them not to fail. My pc
    is pretty good with the cooling and i have no lost a drive since my 2
    gig Maxtor ages ago.

    Also with raid 0 from what i read i will have 2 160 drives storage.
    320 gigs of storage i can use. And unlike if i raided them to raid 1 i
    would only have 160 gigs while the other drive would be for backup
    purposes.

    This would be the first time i have raided a drive. Was going to to it
    with my old board but never got arround to it. But now iam builidg my
    uber pc i realy have to :)

    Amd 3800 X2, 7800 GT, 2gigs PC3200 LL ram, 2 SATA 2 in Raid 0. And
    everything overcloked as well.

    Thanks for any help.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS.
     
    Boris Easten, Dec 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Boris Easten

    Sven Hager Guest

    Then Raid 0 is the right stuff for you! ;o)
    No, Raid 0 means, that the half of the data is written to the one disk, and
    the other half, to the second disk.
    So you can read from both disk in one time, up to the double data rate.
    (theoretically)
    Extra cooling for harddrives is never the wrong way (7.200rpm)
    and a happy new year
     
    Sven Hager, Dec 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Boris Easten

    Boris Easten Guest

    Thanks man. Got me straight on a few things.

    But hwat striping would i use for 2 160 gig drives and other settings
    ?
     
    Boris Easten, Dec 26, 2005
    #3
  4. Boris Easten

    Cal Vanize Guest

    Its no less safe or risky than relying on a single hard drive. It it
    crashes, data is lost.

    Always a good idea to back up regularly regardless of whether you're
    using RAID0 or not.


    No extra stress.


    WD 160gb SATA 2 drives run cool and they are fast. But they won't run
    any faster than their IDE version. The drive will max out at about
    60mbs regardless of the interface. Its only on small write bursts that
    the interface makes a difference.


    You will end up with a total capacity of around 298gb, not 320gb.

    My suggestion is to create three partitions. Partition 1 should be for
    the operating system and executable program files, partition 2 should be
    5 times teh size of your physical memory and reserved for the swap file
    (change to this partition), partition 3 should be used for data files,
    static information, parameters, etc. The "first" part of a drive is
    typically faster (in WDs, a lot faster!). By partitioning the RAID0
    system in this manner, the faster parts of the hard drives are used
    where speed counts most. Also, by having the swap fil in a dedicated
    partition, it is not fragmented nor does it force other files to be
    fragmented. This minimizes head movement and drive read/write times.
     
    Cal Vanize, Dec 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Boris Easten

    Cal Vanize Guest

    Just go with the system defaults.


     
    Cal Vanize, Dec 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Boris Easten

    Dave Guest

    On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:43:10 -0600, Cal Vanize

    [on RAID 0}
    No it is twice as risky - if either drive crashes then data is lost.
    Twice the number of disks - twice the chance of failure.

    At the end of the day you work out how much your data is worth - if it
    is a lot (like the company accounts!) then mirror - if it is easily
    replaced then stripe. If you want speed and safety do RAID 0+1 which
    takes 4 disks - 2 mirrored striped sets.
     
    Dave, Dec 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Boris Easten

    Cal Vanize Guest

    The original post indicated that speed was of the highest concern and if
    there was a failure, it was not catastrophic. That said, MTBF of a
    modern hard drive is usually in excess of 500,000 hours. Reliability is
    high. I have not lost a RAID0 array and been using them for over 6 years.
     
    Cal Vanize, Dec 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Boris Easten

    VanShania Guest

    Ya, its not safe if your a multibillion dollar insurrance company that only
    keeps data backed up on hard drives. But even if you use raid 1, 3, or 5,
    you still need to back up your data to an external medium like cd-r, dvd-r
    or rw. Not only that, lots of boards come with SMART technology that warns
    you when your hard drive is failing.
     
    VanShania, Dec 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Boris Easten

    Ed Light Guest

    You can do this anyhow by setting no swap (if you have enough memory) or
    moving the swap to another partition, then defragging C: to make a great big
    hole for the swap file, then setting the swap back again set as a permanent
    minimum size that's bigger than any swap use you've noticed in Task Manager
    (I use 1.5 gigs), and setting it to be able to expand when needed. Mine has
    stayed in one piece nicely. However, under certain circumstances I'm not
    sure about I used to see it break up -- maybe it was too small, or maybe sp2
    eliminated that.

    My theory is that with the swap file thus amid the os it will be faster.
    Even when going to the next partition to get data, since there's no extra
    partition in between or beyond the os and data partitions.
    ---
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org

    Fight Spam:
    http://bluesecurity.com



    This minimizes head movement and drive read/write times.
     
    Ed Light, Dec 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Boris Easten

    Ed Light Guest

    I'm no math genius, but say 1 of 50 hd's of a certain type fail. Having 2
    doesn't seem too bad. Oh, wait, then, that's a 4% chance over a 2% chance.
    Right. I guess it depends on how nervy you are!

    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org

    Fight Spam:
    http://bluesecurity.com
     
    Ed Light, Dec 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Boris Easten

    Ed Light Guest

    I was reading where a guy with something like raid 5 had a disk fail and it
    took out the entire array. Apparently some controllers are not perfect.


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org

    Fight Spam:
    http://bluesecurity.com
     
    Ed Light, Dec 26, 2005
    #11
  12. Boris Easten

    Conor Guest

    Hard Drive failure isn't the only source of corruption...
     
    Conor, Dec 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Boris Easten

    Cal Vanize Guest

    But typically a RAID0 array has the same vulnerabilities to corruption
    as a single hard drive.
     
    Cal Vanize, Dec 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Boris Easten

    Conor Guest

    No, it has twice as many.
     
    Conor, Dec 27, 2005
    #14
  15. Boris Easten

    Cal Vanize Guest

    Right. So that gives it a MTBF of 250,000 hours.

    Whatever.
     
    Cal Vanize, Dec 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Boris Easten

    VanShania Guest

    Like I said, thats why you always back up data to a removable storage like a
    4.7 or 8 gb dvd. As long as your data is safe, you don't have to worry if
    something fails. you replace it reformat and away you go. Hopefully,
    lighting won't strike twice
     
    VanShania, Dec 28, 2005
    #16
  17. Boris Easten

    VanShania Guest

    I also want to add that I think any home user using anything other than RAID
    0 is a waste of your computers resources. Since data can easily and cheaply
    backed up using even a good quality cd burner that costs what? $30? why
    waste a good drive backing up data when it can be used for storing your
    favorite movies, patches, etc? Unless your a home user running a business
    that stores customer and store stock information, Raid 0 is all you want to
    know about.
     
    VanShania, Dec 28, 2005
    #17
  18. Boris Easten

    Ed Light Guest

    Re raid 1 -- just think of the total convenience of it. A drive dies, but
    your most recent e-mails and data still live, and you don't have to do any
    restoring.


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org

    Fight Spam:
    http://bluesecurity.com
     
    Ed Light, Dec 28, 2005
    #18
  19. Boris Easten

    VanShania Guest

    Re raid 1 -- just think of the total convenience of it. A drive dies, but
    I do a lot of video editing and gaming myself and I did have a hard drive
    fail on me once. But now that I know how to spot a failing hard drive, which
    occurred before warranty was up, my 120 gb western digital udma 100 drive
    was replaced. But even then, I would gladly have speed and power(raid 0)
    over my cpu sucking cycles to write to another drive everything I saved(raid
    1). I have used only 5 hard drives since 1998 and they are all still in use,
    cept for the one mentioned and included in count. So hard drive reliability
    is the least of my concerns.
     
    VanShania, Dec 28, 2005
    #19
  20. Boris Easten

    JM Guest

    Heck, for that matter, just back up to other hard drives and put them away
    in storage. They can be overwritten if/when the data becomes unnecessary.
    IDE hard drives can be had very, very cheaply. It's ridiculous for even the
    casual home user not to have extra hard drives for use as back up. You can
    use an external enclosure or just hook to an exposed IDE cable and molex
    connector and back up once every couple of weeks. I recently caught some
    100gb Seagate drives for $30USD after rebate. Thirty cents a gb??? Get a
    freeware backup software, a $25 external USB enclosure and away you go.
    IMHO, it even makes burning DVDs look a little inefficient and cumbersome.

    jm
     
    JM, Jan 1, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.