I'm soon building a new computer. I want to set up a RAID, but dont want the seagate cheatahs. I go to too many LANS and such for 10k rpm to be battered around. I'm wondering if I can go dual 80 gig SATAS and actually see 160 GB in windows XP. Im going athlon 64 939 pin. I dont want to lose like 20 gigs b/c of that 48 bit thing. Helpy??
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
RAID question for SATA
- Thread starter Mr. Bill
- Start date
mpegripper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,212
i believe if you use stripping raid with two 80gb drives u'll probably see around 145gb after formatting
I have a few suggestions. First, read up online about RAID. Then you'll have a better idea of how to go about it. Second, the Cheetahs are SCSI, not SATA. Your probably thinking of the WD Raptors, which are 10k rpm. Your logic about the LAN parties doesn't make sense, unless your doing something really stupid, like moving your PC around while it's running. The 48bit thing isn't a problem on modern boards, because of the controllers, and XP SP1. You will not have 160 GB exactly, as someone else stated, it will be a little less.
First off, my bad on the cheetah thing. Second off, at the LANs, stuff always breaks in our computers, a reason i dont want somthing expensvie as those drives running at 10k rpm in my computer. So pretty much, if I go like dual 100 gig hard drives, ill see about 180ish? I understand the whole 60 gigs is actually ike 56 or somthin, i got that. Someone told me that windows couldnt take over 137
Mr. Bill said:Someone told me that windows couldnt take over 137
That only matters for single disks over 137GB, not combined totals
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
by my calculation a pair of 100GB drives striped will give you 186.26GBMr. Bill said:First off, my bad on the cheetah thing. Second off, at the LANs, stuff always breaks in our computers, a reason i dont want somthing expensvie as those drives running at 10k rpm in my computer. So pretty much, if I go like dual 100 gig hard drives, ill see about 180ish? I understand the whole 60 gigs is actually ike 56 or somthin, i got that. Someone told me that windows couldnt take over 137
mpegripper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,212
i believe raid 0 is only for 2 drives at a time, so for it u need 2 or 4 drives
mpegripper said:i believe raid 0 is only for 2 drives at a time, so for it u need 2 or 4 drives
Uhm, No!
RAID 0 requires a minimum of 2 drives, however you can use as many as you would like.
RAID 1 also requires a minimum of 2 drives, or equal size logical drives
for example, you can have a mishmash of various sizes, but if you have to "drives" made up of raid sets or jbod clusters, and they are of equal size you can put those into raid 1
further example, take 4 80g drives, create 2 raid0 sets of 160 each, put them into raid1 for a mirror, also known as raid 0+1
probably more information that you needed, but extra information has never hurt anybody.
-Jeff
mpegripper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,212
JeffS said:probably more information that you needed, but extra information has never hurt anybody.
-Jeff
Unless its about 2 ugly people doing it, lol.
sorry for the misleading info, i was just told that by somebody a few years ago and have never tried to do otherwise in my rigs
If you're concerned about hurting a 10k RPM drive during transit, you should take special caution when considering RAID 0. As you should know, if any of the drives in the RAID 0 array were to die or go corrupt, all the data in the array would be in peril. With more drives to potentially jar around during transportation, I would recommend against RAID 0 if you are concerned for your data's safety.