That varies between motherboards. Your motherboard manual will have details on creating arrays to install Windows on. In general, it's a simple matter of entering the RAID BIOS setup screen, create array, select raid mode and initalise it, then reboot, then install windows. You might need the motherboard CD to load the RAID controller drivers when Vista attempts to detect a suitable volume to install itself to.
However you are magnifying the problem with a RAID0 array. It only needs one disc to fail and all your data is lost. In theory you could keep a copy of any important files on both discs if you were using the discs separately(not in a RAID0 array).
Anyway I prefer to have separate discs as I have Vista installed on one and XP on the other.If one disc fails I still have a usable computer. If I was using RAID0 I would not have a useable computer which would be a pain. If my main PC was not a SFF PC I would probably use RAID1 for storage and a smaller disc for software.
Also backing up needs to be carefully done. Having a copy of your important files in separate locations is a good start.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-02-2009 at 02:20 AM.
I use two different hard drive models so this does not really affect me. It is highly unlikely that two different batches of two different models are both going to have issues at the same time. I also do keep a check on the smart data and HDD temperatures too.
Like I said before I prefer to have storage on one drive and running programmes on the other. If one disc fails or has issues I can still use my computer until I sort it out as one disc has XP and the other Vista. Anyway I backup important stuff onto a few externals and a couple of DVDs anway. Also like I said it is important to have some of you backups away from home(at work for example) or even online.
Well not compared to RAID0. If one disc fails I would not have a functioning computer. Considering that both discs will probably be the same model(and same batch) it also exposes you to any issues if a particular batch is faulty. At least this way I can still use my computer. I have backups of my critical stuff anyway at multiple locations so this is the best way for me. Considering anything important that I have not backed up properly has identical copies on both discs and also on an external than there is less risk then a RAID0 array. The likelihood of three different discs of three different models from two different manufacturers failing is tiny.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-02-2009 at 03:04 AM.
You would have to rebuild the RAID array so you would lose all your data. At least with RAID 1,5 and 6 you can recover your data.
I have an OS on each disc so I can always use the computer. Both copies have all the programmes and any important files I need so I still have a usable computer. Reinstalling a boot manger is not that hard. The other way is changing the boot priority in the BIOS(as long as you install each OS independently of each other). However there will be no boot manager in the latter case.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-02-2009 at 03:52 AM.
Yes, but reinstallation is still an issue at some point in recovery. Yes, RAID5 is a better choice if you have enough disks and system downtime is intollerable. But RAID0 can still be ideal as well.. Particularly with certain volumes where array death isn't a huge deal, like operating systems, swap, applications, etc.. And the nice thing about Intel's Matrix RAID is you can create split arrays so you can have OSes on a RAID0 volume, and RAID5 for storing data.
Just a quick question to Astreal.
Do you require other bits as well? Monitor? keyboard? mouse?
Monitor / resolution is a big issues here as that can seriously effect the graphics card you should get.
Also what games do you plan on playing? some games require far less graphics power than others.
No I already have extra bits, I took a chunck out the original budget for the monitor in the first place.
Cat, I need a copy of vista,so as for the case would you recommend a midi or full tower?
Oh and should I use the stock cooler
I would go fo Vista Basic 64 bit OEM. It lacks the fancy graphical effects of Home Premium and windows media centre but the latter functions can done using free software. You should be able to get a copy for £70.
Regarding the case size I personally prefer smaller cases but a larger case would mean more expansion possibilities in the future.
I think that the Antec 300 is a nice case for the price:
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/143854
However it would be probably be better to look for one yourself:
http://www.scan.co.uk/Index.aspx?NT=....283.282.519-0
http://www.ebuyer.com/search?limit=5...ricelow&page=1
You have around £60 to £70 for a case in your budget so you should be able to get something reasonably nice!!
The HD4850X2 is a long card though so you will need a large enough case for it.
Unless you are overclocking much the stock cooler should be OK!! My advice would be to check temperatures first and see if they are OK. If they are not satisfactory I would then buy an aftermarket cooler. The Phenom II quad core cooler is meant to quite decent though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)