• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Raid And Partition Questions

C

cu2cool

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
141
I'm planning on doing a fresh reformat, to test out vista beta 2. Installing that OS isn't what's important because if I don't like it, Imma just go back to XP Pro. Anyways, I have 3 different hard drives: a 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s 16Mb Cache, a 160GB SATA 3.0GB/s 8Mb Cahce, and an 80GB IDE hard drive. I want to run all three of these hard drives in the fastest and most effiecient way possible. I'm currently running in JBOD config, but I am hearing that RAID 1+0 would be faster and the most disk utilizing RAID (allows me to use the largest amount of disk space ~490GB). Would this be a wise choice? My RAID options for my motherboard are RAID 0, 1, 0+1, and JBOD. Also, for partitioning would it be best to use Partition Magic or the partition options from the Windows Vista/XP disks?
 
First off, with RAID 0+1, you need 4 identical capacity drives, or you will only get the capacity of your smallest drive. You're a drive short, and even if you did have another, you'd only have 160gb of space (2x the size of your smallest drive).

In your situation, I would install the OS on a partition on your fastest drive (the 250gb), and then use the rest of the space as storage. You didn't really specific what you needed all those drives for.
 
IF you're just testing vista out, why not put it on the 80Gb drive and use your bios to set that as bootable. Then if you like having an OS that slows down your system, you can copy the image to your fastest drive.
 
raid 0+1 is no more efficient on disk space usage than raid 0, you will lose exactly 1/2 to the mirroring portion of the array. Raid 5 has the most disk space efficiency and it only gets better as you add drives.

Also, you want identical drives for raid, not a bunch of random sizes and what not.
 
very informative replies...thx guys. Yea, I only wanted to use maybe like a 100GB partition of my 250GB HD for the Vista OS and then use everything else as storage. I am looking for the setup that alots me the most disk space for storage possible while performing the quickest. I guess since all of my HD's are so different, I should prolly run JBOD. Maybe in the future when I buy all identical HD's I'll tryout the RAID feature....
 
Just out of curiosity why is running them not in an array being avoided as an option?
 
defakto said:
Just out of curiosity why is running them not in an array being avoided as an option?
Click to expand...
If u are reffering to my resolution, it is because my HD's are so different and with my 80GB HD in a RAID 0+1 I would only have ~160GB as I was told, which is not what I want. Or am I wrong? I want to be able to use at least 350GB of my 490GB total for storage use. Let me know if this is possible using a RAID array.

If u are asking me why dont I run JBOD.....I am, but i was just curious to see if running an array could possibly increase my system performance w/out taking away too much of my storage space.
 
JBOD is different from running the disks seperately. JBOD essentially concatenates the disks to one another, so that you would have a single volume, whose size is the sum of the disks, and the blocks of the volume are on the first disk until it's full, then the second, then the third. Make sense?

 
To the OP, JBOD is an array. It works like an ice cube tray, when one drive fills up it starts filling the next. It appears as one drive to the OS, but in actuality is several drives managed by the raid controller. Which is why I was asking, when you say JBOD are you saying you're just running things as several independant disks? or as a JBOD array?
 
defakto said:
To the OP, JBOD is an array. It works like an ice cube tray, when one drive fills up it starts filling the next. It appears as one drive to the OS, but in actuality is several drives managed by the raid controller. Which is why I was asking, when you say JBOD are you saying you're just running things as several independant disks? or as a JBOD array?
Click to expand...
Oh...ok, I was under the influence that JBOD wasn't a RAID array and that it was just the default if you dont use RAID. I guess I'm not on any array right now then. I'm currently using each partition/disk that doesn't have my XP OS on it as storage. I like it this way. I was just curious if setting up an array would be a better choice to run off of without losing too much space for storage.
 
It would depend alot on the type of array you run really. You don't really have the recommended setup for setting up a raid system though, all your drives are different brands and manufacturers which can cause performance problems.
 
In All honesty, with your configuration I would suggest just leaving your disks seperate.

JBOD is pointless. If my memory serves when one disk fails the partition is hosed - But I could be wrong.

For me I would just use the disks seperately however if having more than one harddisk annoys you when you can allways mount a disk as a folder.
 
jnex26 said:
In All honesty, with your configuration I would suggest just leaving your disks seperate.

JBOD is pointless. If my memory serves when one disk fails the partition is hosed - But I could be wrong.

For me I would just use the disks seperately however if having more than one harddisk annoys you when you can allways mount a disk as a folder.
Click to expand...

FYI...
In JBOD when one disk fails, you only lose the data on that one disk.
Kinda like in *nix when you add drives and just mount them into seperate folders. If one fails then you lose the data in that folder and nothing else.



 
On another note, should I bother partitioning my hard drives any more? The only reason I partitioned was so that a.) when I wanna reformat I can move all my data to one partition and reformat my OS drive, and b.) because I am told to believe that the more space used up on the OS partition will slow down system performance. Like the more my C drive is full, the slower my computer would run. Any suggestions?
 
well the most common setup is just one disk for everything. Increasingly common (and what I use) is running one for the OS and programs, and another for storage to differing degrees.

I put everything of importance on the R5 array. In progress torrents, completed torrents, the desktop folder, favorites folder, outlook storage, everything is on the array. I can literally lose the raptor at any time and aside from being annoyed at having to replace it and reinstall, lose absolutely nothing but any savegames I have (very few).

JBOD everything but your smallest drive would be equivilant to what I do, just remember that setting it up my way requires redundancy and a good backup solution for the array. Losing it would be...bad.
 
GLSauron said:
Losing it would be...bad.
Click to expand...

I nominate this statement for the "[H]ard|OCP Understatement of the Year Award"

If we had such a thing, that is. :rolleyes:


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top