Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 29

Thread: HDD setup

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts

    HDD setup

    Have 2 160GB Sata drives set as raid 1. Been reading a lot regarding partions etc. Is suggested that first partion is about 5GB and used solely for operating system, nothing else. Would it be advantageous or not to put my operating system (win XP) on a separate 8.4GB disk I have hanging about on the IDE bus and use the 2 raid drives purely for files? Naturally backing up the operating system somewhere for a hopefully easy restore if ever needed

  2. #2
    Drop it like it's hot Howard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Surrey, South East
    Posts
    11,731
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    42 times in 39 posts
    • Howard's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5B
      • CPU:
      • Core2Duo E6420 2.13GHz
      • Memory:
      • 2x1gb OCZ DDR2 6400
      • Storage:
      • 250GB & 500GB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Inno3d iChill 7900GS
      • PSU:
      • Antec SmartPower 500W
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 330
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x AG Neovo F419
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 20mbit
    No.

    The old 8.4gb drive will most likley be slow.

    Just use your 160GB drives. They'll be nice and new and fast
    Home cinema: Toshiba 42XV555DB Full HD LCD | Onkyo TX-SR705 | NAD C352 | Monitor Audio Bronze B2 | Monitor Audio Bronze C | Monitor Audio Bronze BFX | Yamaha NSC120 | BK Monolith sub | Toshiba HD-EP35 HD-DVD | Samsung BD-P1400 BluRay Player | Pioneer DV-575 | Squeezebox3 | Virgin Media V+ Box
    PC: Asus P5B | Core2duo 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 PC6400 | Inno3d iChill 7900GS | Auzentech X-Plosion 7.1 | 250GB | 500GB | NEC DVDRW | Dual AG Neovo 19"
    HTPC: | Core2Duo E6420 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 | 250GBx2 | Radeon X1300 | Terratec Aureon 7.1 | Windows MCE 2005
    Laptop: 1.5GHz Centrino | 512MB | 60GB | 15" Wide TFT | Wifi | DVDRW


  3. #3
    Theoretical Element Spud1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    7,053
    Thanks
    259
    Thanked
    265 times in 208 posts
    • Spud1's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2x 2.8ghz Quad Core Xeons (octo-core)
      • Memory:
      • 4gb DDR2 FB-Dimm
      • Storage:
      • 1x1TB, 1x320gb, 2x500gb, 1x250gb, 120GB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia Geforce 560Ti
      • PSU:
      • Mac pro PSU
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro Case
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8
      • Monitor(s):
      • 1x22" LG 3D TFT 1x 19" ViewSonic
      • Internet:
      • 80mb BT Infinity
    as howard said =) but i would run in RAID0 as its faster and no less reliable, i run 2x160gig drives in Sata raid0 cos raid1 jus wastes 80 quid=)

  4. #4
    Put him in the curry! Rythmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Twyford, Berks
    Posts
    758
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Spud1
    RAID0 as its faster and no less reliable

    What are you smoking?

    In a RAID 0 array, if a drive fails, you've lost the entire contents of your array. In a RAID 1, if a drive fails, you lose nothing.
    Now go away before I taunt you a second time.

  5. #5
    Drop it like it's hot Howard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Surrey, South East
    Posts
    11,731
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    42 times in 39 posts
    • Howard's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5B
      • CPU:
      • Core2Duo E6420 2.13GHz
      • Memory:
      • 2x1gb OCZ DDR2 6400
      • Storage:
      • 250GB & 500GB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Inno3d iChill 7900GS
      • PSU:
      • Antec SmartPower 500W
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 330
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x AG Neovo F419
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 20mbit
    Yes Rythmic is right, RAID 0 is the data striped alternatively across two discs and RAID 1 mirrors the data across two drives.
    Home cinema: Toshiba 42XV555DB Full HD LCD | Onkyo TX-SR705 | NAD C352 | Monitor Audio Bronze B2 | Monitor Audio Bronze C | Monitor Audio Bronze BFX | Yamaha NSC120 | BK Monolith sub | Toshiba HD-EP35 HD-DVD | Samsung BD-P1400 BluRay Player | Pioneer DV-575 | Squeezebox3 | Virgin Media V+ Box
    PC: Asus P5B | Core2duo 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 PC6400 | Inno3d iChill 7900GS | Auzentech X-Plosion 7.1 | 250GB | 500GB | NEC DVDRW | Dual AG Neovo 19"
    HTPC: | Core2Duo E6420 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 | 250GBx2 | Radeon X1300 | Terratec Aureon 7.1 | Windows MCE 2005
    Laptop: 1.5GHz Centrino | 512MB | 60GB | 15" Wide TFT | Wifi | DVDRW


  6. #6
    F.A.S.T. Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,708
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    72 times in 59 posts
    • Butuz's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z77 MPOWER
      • CPU:
      • I7 3770K @ 4.6
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair XMS 1866
      • Storage:
      • Sandisk SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 3xR9 290
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Dark Power Pro 10
      • Case:
      • Inwin H Frame
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Yes ignore Spud1 he needs to read up about Raid

    Just have the whole lot as one partition. It dopesnt really make much differnece if your running Raid1 - and having one parition makes it easier to replace your hard disks if you ever want to swap your 2 x 160GB's for 2 x 250GB's or whatever. It's personal choice really, up to you.

    Butuz

  7. #7
    Vive le pants! directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI X99A Gaming 7
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 5280k
      • Memory:
      • 32GiB ADATA DDR4
      • Storage:
      • Corsair Neutron XT 960GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G Twin Frozr 5
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX860i
      • Case:
      • NZXT H440
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 17.10, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2713HM
      • Internet:
      • FIOS
    i like my raid 1 arrays. i don't fear that i'll lose my entire collection of chip & dale rescue rangers if a drive dies

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    5GB just for the OS is quite big.

    This is what i do. I allocate 6 GB just for Windows XP. 10GB for all other programs installed so they wont interfere with the OS partition. And a seperate 1.5GB for file paging which makes the system a lot faster!

    The rest of the HDD space is then used to store data.

    Also i think the perfomance gain from running Raid 1 is not worth it. If you're going to run raid, go for raid 0 for max performance...

  9. #9
    F.A.S.T. Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,708
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    72 times in 59 posts
    • Butuz's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z77 MPOWER
      • CPU:
      • I7 3770K @ 4.6
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair XMS 1866
      • Storage:
      • Sandisk SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 3xR9 290
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Dark Power Pro 10
      • Case:
      • Inwin H Frame
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    There is no performance gain in Raid 1. There is usually a performance loss with cheap Raid cards with no cache as everything needs to be written twice.

    The only gain Raid 1 gives, is reliability. You use twice as much hard disk space as you should, and writing to disk is slower.

    Butuz

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I think you can get a bit of a boost in the read performance with RAID 1.

    I'll just check it.

    Yep here it is

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost Circuits
    RAID Level1 mirrors or duplexes the information of any drive by storing an identical copy on a secondary drive. The advantage is full redundancy and fault tolerance, however, there is no performance increase, at least not with respect to write speed. The situation is somewhat different when it comes to reads since data can be accessed in a “zipper-like fashion” from both drives, meaning that alternating blocks of information are transferred from each drive to the controller. This does result in a performance increase, especially in the case of sequential read transfers.

  11. #11
    Happy Now?
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cardiff Home | Manchester Uni
    Posts
    1,326
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    What's wrong with a RAID 0 and DVDR/separate backup drive? Touch wood i havent had a harddisk die in a long time, but its not just the disks - if a BIOS flash decides to screw up your array thatll do it too, ive had that before

    Also - i know 2 drives is 2x as likely as 1, but if 1 goes and you arent RAID'ed then youve lost everything anyway?

    I do see RAID1 as a waste of money sorry, maybe not so much for people with more mission critical needs.
    I dont like sig pics so i turn off sigs Which doesnt help when i dont know what ive written here! DOH!

  12. #12
    Theoretical Element Spud1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    7,053
    Thanks
    259
    Thanked
    265 times in 208 posts
    • Spud1's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2x 2.8ghz Quad Core Xeons (octo-core)
      • Memory:
      • 4gb DDR2 FB-Dimm
      • Storage:
      • 1x1TB, 1x320gb, 2x500gb, 1x250gb, 120GB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia Geforce 560Ti
      • PSU:
      • Mac pro PSU
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro Case
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8
      • Monitor(s):
      • 1x22" LG 3D TFT 1x 19" ViewSonic
      • Internet:
      • 80mb BT Infinity
    Quote Originally Posted by Butuz
    Yes ignore Spud1 he needs to read up about Raid

    Just have the whole lot as one partition. It dopesnt really make much differnece if your running Raid1 - and having one parition makes it easier to replace your hard disks if you ever want to swap your 2 x 160GB's for 2 x 250GB's or whatever. It's personal choice really, up to you.

    Butuz
    ummm .. well...

    using RAID1 loses you a HD - meaning your 120gig of space would cost you £160 insted of £80..

    now unless you have bucketloads of cash most of us cant afford to do this. If i could afford that kind of monkey i'd probly just get RAID5 anyway...

    RAID0 is only less reliable if a drive PHYSICALLY breaks, and this is fairly rare, only happened to me 4 times in the past 10 years. If the array fails but both drives are fine [can sometimes happen depending on the controller] you can just rebuild the array, no problems

    Aslong as you backup your data as you would with a single big HD its no different to having one big 240gig HD - just faster

    i aint the one needin to do some readin

  13. #13
    F.A.S.T. Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,708
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    72 times in 59 posts
    • Butuz's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z77 MPOWER
      • CPU:
      • I7 3770K @ 4.6
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair XMS 1866
      • Storage:
      • Sandisk SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 3xR9 290
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Dark Power Pro 10
      • Case:
      • Inwin H Frame
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Quote Originally Posted by Spud1
    using RAID1 loses you a HD - meaning your 120gig of space would cost you £160 insted of £80..
    Yes, well that is the price you have to pay for Redundancy and increased uptime unfortunatly. Just like you have to sacrifice reliability for the extra speed of Raid0.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud1
    now unless you have bucketloads of cash most of us cant afford to do this. If i could afford that kind of monkey i'd probly just get RAID5 anyway...
    Well - you need 3 or more hard drives plus a raid 5 compatible raid card, which costs an order of magnitude more than just an extrra hard disk and using your motherboards built in raid which is what you can do in raid 0 and 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud1
    RAID0 is only less reliable if a drive PHYSICALLY breaks, and this is fairly rare, only happened to me 4 times in the past 10 years. If the array fails but both drives are fine [can sometimes happen depending on the controller] you can just rebuild the array, no problems
    So you've had on average a HDD fail approx every 2 years. I wouldnt call that reliable! The chances of a 7200rpm IDE hard drive physically failing are high enough as it is, the chances of one of 2 drives failing are too high for me to risk. Thats just me though, I had 2 x IBM Deathstars in Raid 0 years ago, one failed, i lost all. Not gonna do that again!

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud1
    Aslong as you backup your data as you would with a single big HD its no different to having one big 240gig HD - just faster
    Well theres a higher chance of you losing your array due to physical faliure of one of the 2 drives. But apart from that, yes your right backup is so important and you should do backups no matter what raid technology your using.

    Butuz

  14. #14
    Put him in the curry! Rythmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Twyford, Berks
    Posts
    758
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by turkster
    I think you can get a bit of a boost in the read performance with RAID 1.

    I'll just check it.

    Yep here it is
    Yup - unfortunately most cheaper controllers don't do reads from both drives in a RAID 1 array. The ones that do advertise this as "RAID 1.5" (as if RAID 0 wasn't bad enough - it's not redundant!)

    Yes Spudz, I've only had two drives go in the last 8 years (both deathstars), and RAID will only protect your from hardware failure. But theres a lot of people out there who have built up large collections of files (I personnaly have over 70GBs worth I'd hate to lose) - and backing those up to CD, or even DVD, is a pain to say the least. RAID1 allows them to feel a little more secure - though it should never replace backups.
    Now go away before I taunt you a second time.

  15. #15
    F.A.S.T. Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,708
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    72 times in 59 posts
    • Butuz's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z77 MPOWER
      • CPU:
      • I7 3770K @ 4.6
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair XMS 1866
      • Storage:
      • Sandisk SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 3xR9 290
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Dark Power Pro 10
      • Case:
      • Inwin H Frame
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Quote Originally Posted by Rythmic
    Yup - unfortunately most cheaper controllers don't do reads from both drives in a RAID 1 array.
    Yes this is true from what i have seen, all of your ~£40 raid 0/1 cards and the on board motherboard controllers are like this. Thus i stand by my statement that on average Raid1 is slower then just a single hard drive. (Because ill wager most of you have not spend £200+ on an adaptec IDE raid card which will bring performance benefits)

    Butuz

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    LONDON
    Posts
    318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I agree with Spud on this one - as his 1st statement is true:

    RAID0 is indeed no less reliable, however, it is far less fault tolerant ... the idea that RAID1 magically makes your hardware more reliable is a fallacy, it does however guard you somewhat from a critical disk failure (although if both fail you are scuppered).

    If you think you really do need RAID1 I think you should be considering more reliable drives (SCSI or Raptors) - but there is a price penalty in doing so.

    Do proper backups of anything you can't afford to lose and run them in RAID0 for speed and economy of storage

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Help me with a new setup...
    By TomWilko in forum Consumer Electronics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-05-2004, 07:14 PM
  2. hdd question
    By edster in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22-04-2004, 01:21 AM
  3. New SATA HDD setup
    By milgo in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14-02-2004, 03:38 PM
  4. Laptop HDD troubles
    By Trash Man in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-10-2003, 07:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •