RAID 0 or two seperate drives

[saspgmr]

I did some reading but I wasn't sure if any of the previous posts answered this question. If I have 2 hard drives that can be used in a RAID, is it better to create and use a RAID or should I just use the two drives seperately (one for apps and one for video data)? I have a A7N8X Delux motherboard and two Seagate 120 mb SATA drives (if that makes any difference). Thanks in advance for your input.

[DVD_Ripper]

Its relative to what's gonna be on the drives.

If you are going to be maintaining at 25 Gig database that will be supporting 20 people and receive 200 changes an hour ... then RAID 'em.

But if you are just using these drives for temporary DVD / DV and even sytstem os or programs... then keep 'em seperate.

Database above is an example.... my Webserver here at work is on a RAID. it is housing several thousand PDF's, Webex Replays, WMV files and other goodies... if one drive goes down the system stays up.

How bad do you want to protect the stuff you will be keeping... enough to 'give up' one of the drives to support the RAID.

[disturbed1]

If you set up a simple RAID0 config, your read times will be faster, and write times too. But doing a simultaneous read/write, like compiling a DVD project, will be slower than using a single drive.

Compiling from the source files on drive A to drive B will achieve the fastest throughput.

Having a dual RAID0 setup would be a better option. But would take 4 drives.

Most of my PCs have a minum of 3 drives. 20gig system drives, and 2 larger data drives. RAID offered 0 speed advantage to me over using seperate drives on seperate busses. I do have 2 SCSI setups that are raided, but these systems either write or read data, never both at the same time. One is config as a RAID0 using 4 striped drives, the other is RAID0+1 striped and mirrored for speed and redundancy.

Read here about raid levels http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html

[northcat_8]

Actually a Stripe 0 RAID array can be done with 2 or more drives. But if you are using say an 80 GB and 120 GB in the array your RAID drive will only be 160 GB not 200. It is limited by the size of your smaller drive.

I suggest using the Stipe 0 array, but like disturbed said do not read and write to the drive...one or the other is very fast but both is very slow. Also make sure you don't leave important information on there for too either...in a stripe 0 array if you loose one HD you loose all the info on both drives which incidently just happened to me a month or so ago.

Do not put your OS on a stripe 0 array. Once again...loose one HD...you loose all the info on both.

[pyscrow]

1. If you only have the two drives - you cant "raid" them, you can not run Windows XP from a raid drive, it is to unstable (if it will load at all), you need a third drive to stick your OS on.

2. Be very careful, if you dont have the right setup and drivers your system can take a big hit in the performance stakes, as a lot of CPU can be required for a raid system that is not setup right. I have use of two virtually identical systems, (P4 3.0 gig, 1gig memory) one using a raid configuration on a couple of 80gig 7200 8 meg cache drives, weith a 40 gig unit for the OS (work machine), and the other a pair of standard setup 120gig 7200 8meg cache drives (home machine). The non raid machine kills the Raid one in copy times from one drive to the other. The one with the raid on it is unfortunately a work machine so as I dont have the admin password I cant fix it, and the IT nazi does not understand squat, so I am stuck with it!

[andkiich]

If you only have the two drives - you cant "raid" them, you can not run Windows XP from a raid drive, it is to unstable (if it will load at all), you need a third drive to stick your OS on.

Stop with the nonsense!! I have 2 machines that have been running RAID0 on them since Windows XP came out and on Windows 2000 before that. I've put the same configuration on 20 or 30 machines and have had zero problems.

[vandakeg]

have 2 machines that have been running RAID0 on them since Windows XP came out and on Windows 2000 before that. I've put the same configuration on 20 or 30 machines and have had zero problems.

andkiich is exactly right, not only is it possible, but you could even see a significant increase in performace if your OS is on a Raid 0.... Just be aware that you could lose everything if a drive fails.

[northcat_8]

Not questioning whether it is possible or not but.....

With your OS on the RAID drive, how does your system post? On my system the system posts, then finds the array. Without a HD on either of the IDE channels mine won't post.

Are you BIOS settings set to manually select the boot drive? I am assuming you don't let the BIOS automatically find the HD.

[andkiich]

I don't have an IDE channel set up on my RAID machines. One of the options in the BIOS on the motherboad(MSI K3T Ultra) has an option to boot from the raid array. Once you set that, it goes out after the initial boot up post and loads the MBFastTrack Raid Drivers.

Before I started using the MSI boards I was using ABIT.

[disturbed1]

Also, it might be best to do a fresh install.

WinXP and 2000 have some raid drivers installed at boot up, if not, you'll need the drivers on a floppy, and it prompts you for the drivers so Windows can install to the raid array. I believe it's F6 or something like that. It scrolls along the bottom.

My SCSI boot devices are rather old, so WinXP and 2000 both had the drivers pre-installed. 2000 doesn't have a good driver for most newer Promise or High Point devices. If it's SATA RAID, you'll need the driver disc.

My ABIT-TH7RAID has the boot from RAID option too in the bios, as do my SOYO's. I'd imagine that most MOBO's with a built in raid card should have that option.

[Capmaster]

1. If you only have the two drives - you cant "raid" them, you can not run Windows XP from a raid drive, it is to unstable (if it will load at all), you need a third drive to stick your OS on.

Not a true statement at all :P