Raid 0 setup

Message

ducky2802 · #1 Post by **ducky2802** » Tue May 15, 2007 5:44 pm

Hi Everyone,

Can the T60 be setup in XP PRO to run a RAID 0? I have two seagate HDDs, one 120gb, one 80gb. Ideally, Id like to have a dual boot XP Pro (I have another XP Pro with COA), one optimized to run RAID 0 on the 80gb and an 80gb partition of the 120gb, and the other XP Pro to run off of a 40gb partition of the 120gb. I dont know if this is possible, but if it is, then I would be able to just leave the 120gb in the computer and run xp in regular configuration, but if I needed the faster hdd access, I would be able to swap out the optical drive and boot the other XP setup for the raid configuration.

#2 Post by **jdhurst** » Tue May 15, 2007 6:31 pm

Raid 0 is disk striping only. How will that help?
Raid 1 is mirroring. Is that what you want?
... JDH

Redmumba · #3 Post by **Redmumba** » Tue May 15, 2007 6:57 pm

I have the feeling you're just asking about the ability to dual boot, which is moe than possible. Just partition your 80gb drive as one large partition (and install XP pro w/ COA), and then partition the 120gb partition with 40gb for Windows, and the other 80gb as a secondary partition.

RAID really has nothing to do with this.

hoplite · #4 Post by **hoplite** » Tue May 15, 2007 7:50 pm

It sounds like he wants RAID 0 for the speed. I think the OP wants to:

1. Run XP off a single HD most of the time with an optical drive inthe bay.

2. Then when he wants extra HD speed he wants to swap out the optical drive insert another HD and run a RAID 0.

Wiz · #5 Post by **Wiz** » Tue May 15, 2007 8:26 pm

Correct me if i'm wrong, but as far as i know the controller of the Thinkpad doesn't support RAID anyway so i don't think this is possible.

Also when running RAID 0 both HDD's would have to be inserted all the time or the controller will normally complain about a missing disk if one is removed. When a disk is added to an array i don't think you would be able to use the 40gb for a partition without raid 0 like you describe, but i never really tried this so not sure.

Anyway unless i'm wrong about the controller in the Thinkpad's that doesn't support RAID you cannot use RAID 0 in any case.

#6 Post by **tomh009** » Tue May 15, 2007 8:43 pm

There is the option of running software RAID 0 -- it's built into Windows XP.

ducky2802 · #7 Post by **ducky2802** » Tue May 15, 2007 10:18 pm

Thanks for the replies everyone! I am kinda getting the feeling that what I want to do is not possible, but I guess a few clarification points may be of use.

Primarily, I want to keep a 120gb hdd in my computer at all times. It will be partitioned into 40 and 80 gb partitions. The 40gb will have an XP pro (OS #1) with its own product key to give me a fully functioning computer that can use the optical drive like normal. The other 80gb will be striped, so that if I need the speed, I can remove the optical drive, and replace it with another 80gb hdd, also striped. The machine will then be rebooted under another xp pro (OS #2) that hopefully, can read the 80gb striped partition and the ultrabay 80gb hdd to give me a raid 0 configuration. Im wondering if this is possible...

skanky · #8 Post by **skanky** » Wed May 16, 2007 1:28 am

ducky2802 wrote:Primarily, I want to keep a 120gb hdd in my computer at all times. It will be partitioned into 40 and 80 gb partitions. The 40gb will have an XP pro (OS #1) with its own product key to give me a fully functioning computer that can use the optical drive like normal. The other 80gb will be striped, so that if I need the speed, I can remove the optical drive, and replace it with another 80gb hdd, also striped. The machine will then be rebooted under another xp pro (OS #2) that hopefully, can read the 80gb striped partition and the ultrabay 80gb hdd to give me a raid 0 configuration. Im wondering if this is possible...

it doesnt work that way, in a desktop raid array, you need to define the array from the start which means both disks get wiped and you wont be able to run one without the other.

now if the TP could do non software raid 1, then that would be of some use to me.

Wiz · #9 Post by **Wiz** » Wed May 16, 2007 5:11 am

tomh009 wrote:There is the option of running software RAID 0 -- it's built into Windows XP.

Yes i forgot the option to run software raid in Windows even if i would recommend hardware raid if someone really want/need raid. I guess with a laptop that could be hard.

efrant · #10 Post by **efrant** » Wed May 16, 2007 7:07 am

As far as my understanding goes, only a couple of Intel southbridges (the ICH7R and the ICH8R) can support what you are trying to do. (It's basically like what Intel calls Matrix RAID--one stripped partition and one mirrored partition on two hard drives, although you do not want the first partition mirrored.) From what I know about striping/mirroring in WinXP, I do not believe that what you are trying to do is possible.

#11 Post by **jdhurst** » Wed May 16, 2007 7:33 am

Another completely different approach is to get a faster hard drive. I use a 7200-rpm and do not find it limiting in terms of hard drive access speed. That would eliminate some complexities for you. You don't say (or I didn't see on my second read) that you have fast drives.
... JDH

efrant · #12 Post by **efrant** » Wed May 16, 2007 7:37 am

jdhurst wrote:Another completely different approach is to get a faster hard drive. I use a 7200-rpm and do not find it limiting in terms of hard drive access speed. That would eliminate some complexities for you.

True, but you can't compare a faster hard drive with a RAID 0 array. It gives no where near the performance lift as a RAID 0 array would.

hoplite · #13 Post by **hoplite** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:33 am

This is probably a dumb question but...

Are there any throughput limitations when using a hard drive in the drive bay? Or would it equal the throughput of the internal drive?

summa · #14 Post by **summa** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:47 am

Even if you got it to work, RAID 0 probably wouldn't do much if anything for you on the performance side while doubling your risk of data loss. See the real-world RAID 0 tests here: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=2101&p=2

You could get a RAID card and a couple/few drives in an external enclosure to run RAID 1 or RAID 5. I think you'd see a nice boost from that if you didn't mind the extra box . Addonics makes such a card.

efrant · #15 Post by **efrant** » Wed May 16, 2007 10:07 am

summa wrote:Even if you got it to work, RAID 0 probably wouldn't do much if anything for you on the performance side

What are you talking about? I've have been running RAID-0 on my desktop for years, and it is SIGNIFICANTLY faster then the same hard disks running individually... noticable in almost all aspects, e.g., boot-up, application launching, file transfers, file access, etc. (Can't comment on gaming, as I'm not a gamer.) It certainly is not twice as fast but, as I said, it is significantly, noticably much faster.

summa wrote:while doubling your risk of data loss.

Not if you back up your data on a weekly/daily basis...

summa wrote: You could get a RAID card and a couple/few drives in an external enclosure to run RAID 1 or RAID 5. I think you'd see a nice boost from that if you didn't mind the extra box . Addonics makes such a card.

And if your arguement stands, having RAID-1 will certainly not give you ANY boost at all if RAID-0 doesn't give you anything...

summa · #16 Post by **summa** » Wed May 16, 2007 11:01 am

efrant wrote:I've have been running RAID-0 on my desktop for years, and it is SIGNIFICANTLY faster then the same hard disks running individually...

Are you running software RAID or hardware RAID? That might explain the difference between the lab results I cited (software RAID under XP) and your set up. Otherwise, I cannot account for the differences between what you are seeing and the lab test results.

You are right that if RAID 0 doesn't do anything for real world performance in a given setup, then RAID 1 won't either. RAID 1 does theoretically and practically offer performance increases in systems that allow for split seeks where other factors (e.g. software overhead) don't offset in the other direction.

In any case, where practical, an external hardware-based RAID system will certainly outperform a software based solution (not to mention adding the option of using faster drives in 3.5" format). It may also be the only workable solution for the original poster in his circumstances.

As for the risk of data loss, yes, of course backing up ameliorates your risk. But whatever risk you have to begin with under a given backup scenario, RAID 0 doubles it.

efrant · #17 Post by **efrant** » Wed May 16, 2007 11:20 am

summa wrote:Are you running software RAID or hardware RAID?

Hardware (via the Intel ICH7R Southbridge), but according to the article you sourced, they are using hardware RAID as well, no? Since ICH5 (or was it 6), Intel has been implementing hardware RAID (0,1, 10, 0+1, 5) support in its southbridges, so there is no need to buy an additional RAID controller...

summa wrote:As for the risk of data loss, yes, of course backing up ameliorates your risk. But whatever risk you have to begin with under a given backup scenario, RAID 0 doubles it.

Not to argue symantics, but I would tend to say that if I have a RAID-0 array, that would double the risk of array failure, but it would not at all impact risk of data loss (assuming that I back up my data every day)...

#18 Post by **tomh009** » Wed May 16, 2007 11:29 am

efrant wrote:Not to argue symantics, but I would tend to say that if I have a RAID-0 array, that would double the risk of array failure, but it would not at all impact risk of data loss (assuming that I back up my data every day)...

As long as you consider any data since the last backup to be expendable, yes.

The risk doesn't actually quite double. If the risk of drive failure for a single drive is, say, 20% in a given year, then for a two-drive RAID-0 the risk of array failure is 36%, and 49% for a three-drive array.

efrant · #19 Post by **efrant** » Wed May 16, 2007 11:31 am

tomh009 wrote:
efrant wrote:Not to argue symantics, but I would tend to say that if I have a RAID-0 array, that would double the risk of array failure, but it would not at all impact risk of data loss (assuming that I back up my data every day)...
As long as you consider any data since the last backup to be expendable, yes.

The risk doesn't actually quite double. If the risk of drive failure for a single drive is, say, 20% in a given year, then for a two-drive RAID-0 the risk of array failure is 36%, and 49% for a three-drive array.

I stand corrected on both counts!

efrant · #20 Post by **efrant** » Thu May 17, 2007 6:59 am

A liitle off topic, but in case anyone is interested, here is a good article comparing fast hard drives (Raptors) vs slower drives in a RAID-0 array: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/12/ ... index.html

Raid 0 setup

Raid 0 setup

Who is online