Page File to Different Drive + RAID ?'s

S

SonOfMore

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
163
Before we get started let me explain the hardware I have and what I intend to use it for:

Two (2) Deskstar 82.3gb 7200RPM SATA 1.5 hardrives, (Previously used in a RAID 0 setup under Windows XP Pro)
One (1) 160gb Seagate 7200RPM IDE hardrive.

My mobo is this guy:

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherboard/Manual_Model.aspx?ProductID=2533

The mobo supports Raid 0,1,5 and 10.

I was thinking about putting the Deskstars in RAID 0 and just using the Seagate as file storage, with the RAID array handling the OS.

However, after reading the following article I'm wondering if RAID 0 isn't the way to go, considering the increased risk of failure and marginal performance gains:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101

See also:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2974

RAID 1 looks more like the way to go in terms of nominal performance differences with the reliability to boot. The issues comes down to storage space. If I ran a RAID 1 with these two drives it will only leave a small amount of space to store additional non-OS files. Is it important that the game files be installed on the RAID array for the best performance compared to my single IDE drive?

Switching gears slightly, I've also heard of people using a separate hardrive for their paging file to increase performance. Should I still run a RAID 1 setup on

Here's some possible configurations:

1)

RAID 1 (put OS on the array and installed games, keep array as standard page file)
IDE hardrive for additional storage only

2)

RAID 1 (put OS on the array and installed games)
IDE hardrive for additional storage and the page file

3)

Suggest a better setup?

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do. I'm just about broke, so purchasing extra hardrives isn't an option at this time. They keep on increasing in size and coming down in price so this could be a future upgrade. However, in the mean time I really need to get something up and running soon. Given the hardware and usage patterns outlined above, what's the best configuration?
 
When I use a swapfile I try to put it on a second hard drive as long as the drive isnt too old.
I havent used a swap file for must be 3 or 4 months now "without any issue".
My PC suffers less delays and is more responsive, especially returning to windows after playing a game etc.
I have 2GB ram.

I'm not a fan of RAID 0 as you pointed out, the increased chance of failure puts me off.
RAID 1 is not a backup solution, its a failover solution for when a hard drive dies.
It wont protect you from other types of failure so keep important data backed up.
If you install/delete something, it will be installed/deleted from the second drive as well.
RAID 1 offers no performance benefits.

Unless you use a PCI RAID card, you are very unlikely to be able to transfer your RAID array to another motherboard.
So if your motherboard dies you will most likely lose your RAID array.

I would install Windows on the fastest drive.
Its up to you whether you turn the swap file off, some software may need it.
I havent come across any for ages that does need a swap file.

FYI
 
Thanks for the detailed reply.

The new computer I'm building will have 4gigs of RAM, so it sounds like I don't need a swap file? This rig will be used for gaming and Photoshop. I'm trying to remember if the scratch disk within Photoshop has anything to do with the page file?

Last but not least, if I decide to do a new Vista Install on the fastest drive, would there be any benefits to installing the actual programs on a separate drive? I've often times heard of people who install their programs either on a secondary partition or another physical drive altogether. In the past I've just put everything on the same drive/partition. Any thoughts on that?
 
Earlier versions of Photoshop needed a swap file, I dont know if thats changed.
If you get memory allocation errors or anything that remotely sounds like hard drive space or memory error while running it, turn the swapfile on again.

There are many peeps here that want to slay me for saying you might get away without a swapfile. Their arguments are fair but its worth a shot, whatever works best for you.
My PC has never been so stable so it most definitely doesnt introduce stability issues for everyday usage and game playing.
If you do run out of memory, you machine will likely crash, but with 4GB, you'll struggle to make that happen.

If the second hard drive is at least 50% of the speed of the primary windows drive, there is a small benefit to putting apps etc on a second drive.
Using another partition on the same drive will be the same or a little worse than installing them to drive C:. This is because the primary partition you are booting from is likely to be located in the fastest part of the hard drive. If you prevent the fastest part of the drive being used so much by creating another partition starting at a slower area, performance will suffer a bit.
That is offset by the fact that less fragmentation of the Windows partition will occur with a separate partition but if you defrag c: once a week, thats a none issue.
I put my games on other drives and keep all apps and Windows stuff on drive c: as thats fast enough for me.

My Windows partition is 20GB for XP, I'd make it bigger for Vista. The second partition is used to store installers and videos so it doesnt impact daily operation. I use 3 hard drives with a total of 5 partitions incidentally.

Without using a swap file, most of the paging doesnt occur (there is still some paging but not to the disabled swap file) and all Windows dlls etc etc remain loaded. This means the drives are nearly always ready for action without delay and arent slowed down by normal paging activity any more.

I'm off to a beer festival in a few hours :D so I may answer anything further tomorrow.
 
Thanks for the follow up. Why do you set the games on a different hardrive but not your normal applications? As games are only one type of application, wouldn't you want the benefit of having all of your apps segregated if it provides a small performance boost? Or is the only reason why you do it with the games and not your desktop programs is that the game are just much more resource intensive, thus making the switch for programs like Firefox/Word/etc. nominal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top