raid question (computers)

[baci2004]

I'm getting ready to build a new machine and I would like to stripe 2 Western Digital RAPTOR 36.7 GB (10,000RPM) 8MB Cache - Serial-ATA drives for my c:/ drive.

The NTFS requires a minimum of 60gigs to run at optimum efficiency. The array I will be using is more than 60gigs and will be treated as one volume by Winshit xp.

So my question is would this count as a 60 gig minimum, or would I need both drives to be 60 gigs+ in order to get the max efficiency?

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm just curious if anyone knows.

Thanks Baci

 

[Peeping Tom]

Your capacity will be limited to that of the smallest volume in the stripe. So, if you use 2 x 60GB, you only get 60GB.

Advice: don't, as you will soon be posting your woes here (and I will remind you about this post when it does happen). Even with a good SCSI controller risks are involved and your proposal is 1000 x riskier. At very best, run the OS on a separate disk and keep your data on the stripe - that way you can still use the machine when the array fails. And don't keep valuable data on an unmirrored stripe.

 

[zzap]

In a raid setup always run the OS on a separate disk. So you will have 3 hard drives… one is just for the OS. Do not use the OS drive for anything else.

 

[TheTao]

SCSI Controllers / Serial ATA Drives...cannnot computer...cannot computer...lol
Serial ATA Controller, Internal, roughly 1500 MB/sec
SCSI Controller, Ultra320 SCSI, Internal, roughly 320 MB/sec

It's a new world Tom - and it sounds like that post you just threw up there warped to the present day from about 1981 - Shortly after Apple release the SCSI standard my friend.

P.S the optimization of NTFS file systems running on volumes larger then 32 Gig is an oxy-moron.

It sounds to me like you should be running a mirror and worrying more about your cluster sizes and your file name formats.

IMHO...
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_punq.asp

 

[Peeping Tom]

You would be better off spending some extra on SCSI and the end result will exceed your expectations. The correct analogy is SCSI = Bobbi, ide software raid = eye magazine.

 

[baci2004]

Thanks guys.

Your capacity will be limited to that of the smallest volume in the stripe. So, if you use 2 x 60GB, you only get 60GB

Okay that answers my first question.

What I would like to do is stripe c:/ with no data just OS, mirror lets say d:/ for data protection. I know this goes against the grain but I don't usually work with large files for the most part.

I want the data to be safe and the OS to scream, is there any way to stripe the 2 raptors and have a third drive in the array to mirror the OS in case of failure?

I haven't fully done my research yet but this is the mobo I'm thinking of using. I think it will meet my requirements.

 

[baci2004]

You would be better off spending some extra on SCSI and the end result will exceed your expectations. The correct analogy is SCSI = Bobbi, ide software raid = eye magazine.

LOL...too expensive.

 

[Peeping Tom]

yea ... computer newbies

blah blah blah ...

 

[canucklehead]

WOW i was reading this and when setting up OSX Server i always set up the OS as a mirrored RAID and then fibre channel to an external RAID for my data.
Even in OSX Client i set up RAIDS for the os so that the production machine can be run even if there is a drive failure.
In have seen RAIDs degraded but i have never seen down time due to OS corruption.

 

[pineappleguy]

Your capacity will be limited to that of the smallest volume in the stripe. So, if you use 2 x 60GB, you only get 60GB.

This statement doesn't make sense. RAID 0 (mirroring) would limit volume size to the smallest volume, but striping combines all volumes into one, so two striped volumes would be the sum of the two sizes.

 

[Rogie]

tsk, tsk, tsk: Geeks in glass houses

SCSI Controllers / Serial ATA Drives...cannnot computer...cannot computer...lol
Serial ATA Controller, Internal, roughly 1500 MB/sec
SCSI Controller, Ultra320 SCSI, Internal, roughly 320 MB/sec

It's a new world Tom - and it sounds like that post you just threw up there warped to the present day from about 1981 - Shortly after Apple release the SCSI standard my friend.

Tao, Tao, Tao,

Please get your facts straight.

1. That's some nasty SATA you have there buddy - SATA standard is actually 150 MB/s, not the 1500 you indicate. Which means current fastest SCSI is roughly 2X faster.
2. Apple never introduced SCSI - that was Shugart (technically SASI but it was the predecessor to SCSI & the ANSI X3T9.2 technical committee). BTW - the first SCSI standard was published in 1986, not 1981. Care to venture another guess?

As for it being a new world - why not suggest Matrix RAID & allow hybrid on the fly benefits of RAID 0 (striping) and RAID 1 (mirroring) using inexpensive SATA hard drives & controllers? You can find out all about this new world starting here: http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imst/sb/cs-012525.htm BTW - this does exactly what Baci is asking about. Look it up, you might learn something.

"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!"
William Shakespeare, "The Tempest" Act V, Scene I

 

[pineappleguy]

Unless you are building a server for a commercial application and need the best possible performance to maintain customer satisfaction, striping drives is probably overkill.

 

[Powershot]

At work I set up a 6 disk 15,000rpm RAID 0+1 array (A three disk strip for performance, mirrored for redundancy). It flies .