RAID ???'s ( first timer)

[BicuspiD]

Hola Amigos!

I am building my new system this weekend, and am using the Asus A7v266-E MB. I have never set up a computer with a RAID array before, and had a few questions.
I plan on running 2 fast ATA-100 40 gig drives and using the Onboard Promise RAID controller to run them in the RAID 0 array. I have another big fast hard drive, that I wanted to install also.

Should I install the OS to the RAID array or the conventional ATA-100 Drive? My thinking was install the individual hard drive, partitioned into 2 as C: (5gig) and D: (55gig), and then the RAID array as E:. I would install the OS (WIN98SE) and nothing else to the C: partition, and use D: for Backups and junk storage, drivers, cabs, etc etc - anything non performance-critical. Then all games and apps would get installed on the RAID setup.

Does this sound efficient or is my thinking all backwards? Any advice would be appreciated.


Richard 'BicuspiD'
ICQ-6099960

[arthur888]

It depends on what OS you will be using, if you are using winNT4 or win2K it's impossible to run a normal setup to put the OS on the RAID array, because these systems don't have the drivers for it and will prompt that the bootup drive is not found :mad: For win98SE it is possible to install on the raid array but read the following:
For your operating system and apps it's important to have low access times so it's a good idea to put them on the single drive (RAID0 has higher access times than single drive but the transfer rate is much better). The raid array is useful for large sequential files and a/v recording etc.

By the way, I hope for you these two fast ATA100 drives you are talking about are not from Maxtor, Maxtor drives do often give problems when used with Promise RAID controllers.

I hope this helps,

Arthur

[BicuspiD]

Thanks for the tips. makes sense, the RAID array will have a longer seek time, but dramatic difference in transfer speed.

The drives I am using are all 3 WD. I am loyal, and I havent had any problems with them since I started using WD back, well, back when I couldn't afford the seagates!

OS will be Win98SE and the system is used 99.7% for gaming ( Ok maybe a LITTLE more than .3% pr0n) :P

For a gaming system, you think I'd be better off with the fastest single drive I can afford though?

Thingz that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmm.........


Richard 'BicuspiD'

[SEALTEAMTHREE]

You'd be better off using one drive for apps, and the other for data. I know that 40 GB for data might seem a little extreme, but over time you will build a massive amount of data. My personal folder with all of my images, sounds, movie files and other executatbles has grown to nearly 23 GB! With RAID 0, you get increased preformance, but if one drive crashes, you have to format both. That means all of your data is dead, because if one drive is unreadable, half of the data won't do any good.

[arthur888]

It's true that if one drive dies (unlikely but certainly not impossible.......) the other one is unusable. And you didn't buy a special RAID card so I think SEALTEAMTHREE mentioned the right solution. Unless you need the sequential speed of RAID0 single drive is just as good. But if you like expirimenting (like I do...;) ) just give it a shot and see if you like it. Good luck

Arthur

[BicuspiD]

Thanks guys

I think I am gonna try running them in RAID 0 config and see what happens. Since the system is brand new I can go back within a few weeks {relatively} painlessly A few other comments I have gotten seem to concur that the increased access time won't be any worse than if it was a cheaper, older single drive, and the throughput will load my Q3 levels faster than the next guy ;)

Thanks for the comments , I really appreciate it.

Arthur888, Eindhoven?? They get some killer metal shows there, its legendary ( I guess a lot of Europe ROCKS more than America)

Thanks again

Richard 'Bicuspid'

[arthur888]

You mean Dynamo Open Air? That used to be right next to my house, but it moved to an other location.......

[D`Sypher]

Raid 0?????

Asus must be the only one in the world to still use Raid 0
The only Raid versions in use today is Raid 1 and raid 5
wich has fault toleranse.

I woldn`t even call it a raid controller if all it supports is raid 0!!!!

I woldn`t use it if I were you

[arthur888]

Why would you need fault tolerance for normal home use? The speed is what makes raid attractive for most users who don't keep important files and matters of national security on their harddrives. It's really nice Asus put this controller on the mobo, I had to buy a separate Promise controller card.

Arthur

[D`Sypher]

If the spee is what matters you wouldn`t use IDE disks at all!
15000 RPM Ultra 160 SCSI disks are about 16 times faster than the fastest IDE disk so they are also faster than IDE raid as stand alone disks!

[arthur888]

16 times???!!?!!?!!??? Show me the benchmarks please.......

By the way: IDE RAID is cheap and fast, SCSI is fast and expensive.

Arthur

[D`Sypher]

arthur888


send me an E-Mail, then I will send you the benchmark I just took
on a UW SCSI disk 5400RPM
( 15000 RPM Ultra 160 is at least 4 times faster)

[D`Sypher]

arthur888


send me an E-Mail, then I will send you the benchmark I just took
on a UW SCSI disk 5400RPM
( 15000 RPM Ultra 160 is at least 4 times faster)


It says: Quantum 30 GB 7200 RPM = 2.93 MB/s
Mine UW SCSI 5400 RPM=125.96 MB/s

[arthur888]

Quote-------------------

It says: Quantum 30 GB 7200 RPM = 2.93 MB/s
Mine UW SCSI 5400 RPM=125.96 MB/s

---------------------------

Quantum 30 GB 7200 RPM = 2.93 MB/s??? Must be something wrong with this drive or your system.

UW SCSI 5400 RPM=125.96 MB/s??? This can never be the STR, must be the data rate between HD cache and controller. STR and access time count, data rate between cache and controller doesn't, as long as it doesn't cut the STR down.

By the way: I don't give my email to everyone, don't know what they will be sending me.....
:rolleyes:

[arthur888]

Quote-------------------

It says: Quantum 30 GB 7200 RPM = 2.93 MB/s
Mine UW SCSI 5400 RPM=125.96 MB/s

---------------------------

Quantum 30 GB 7200 RPM = 2.93 MB/s??? Must be something wrong with this drive or your system. It should be at least 10 times this.

UW SCSI 5400 RPM=125.96 MB/s??? This can never be the STR, must be the data rate between HD cache and controller. STR and access time count, data rate between cache and controller doesn't, as long as it doesn't cut the STR down.

By the way: I don't give my email to everyone, don't know what they will be sending me.....
:rolleyes:


Something must have gone wrong, this post is placed twice, I'm sorry.:(