Raid0 + partitions
 

hello

i was doing some more reserch into the new intel matrix raid as i have just bought a mobo that supports it without knowing :P, iv been running a raid0 with 2 WD 6400ks and has been well and all,

now this new raid controller will let me use raid0 and raid 1 on the same disks at the same time (not 0+1) so i was going to buy another 640 hdd and run raid 0 with half of the total space and raid 1 on the 2nd half.

upon reading up on this i discoverd this website and some tips on incressing performance with this exact setup http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=206&pgno=3


how ever it says on that page to put raid 0 on the inner tracks and raid 1 on the outer, and also partitioning the raid0 1st will use the inner tracks 1st towards the outer.

this is the exact opasite of how i thort this works. i always assumed it use'd the outer 1st and went to the inner, and that also a raid0 performed better on out outer part.

sorry for the long post but if any one could show me the best way to set this up it would be much appreciated.

(3 drives with raid0 and raid 1 on the new intel matrix raid controller that allows raid0 and raid1 on the same disks using different volumes)

This seems entirely pointless IMO, the whole point in Raid 1 is to protect against hard drive failure, put if the mirror is on the same HDD then it isn't providing any backup.
Plus you will increase the work the drive heads have to do, moving backwards and forwards between the partitions, and probably end up with lower performance thean you have now.

Rant over, :p

its not a raid 0+1 its raid 0 and raid 1 on the same disks, raid 0 isnt getting backed up to the raid 1, the raid 1 will only be accessed when i read/write to it if you get what i mean.

So you have two partitons, one running in Raid 0 across to front half of drives, and one running Raid accross back half of drives?
Think I get it now, still dont quite see the point tho. :confused:

It's nothing new. And it isn't completely pointless. You can use a percentage of the disks for a RAID 0 "partition" (lets just call it that) which increases boot times and overall performance. However you can use the other part of the disks as a mirror, saving important files. So in the end you have the performance boost from RAID 0 and the redundancy of RAID 1, when a disk files the OS is lost but the files stored on the second "partition" aren't.

Yea still seems like it would slow the drive down!!

ok well leave the raid 1 out of the equation for a moment, whats the fastest part to put the raid 0 on the inner or the outer? and when you partition them does it start from the inner or outer?

i'd say overall... tooooo complicated to set up...
second it seems like a waste of space. i've got this for a setup. i've got 1 64gig ssd for os iinstal. then i have two seagate barracuda 7200.11 320gig drives in raid 0-this is for games/apps and storage. all my important stuff gets back up to a 1Tb seagate drive i also have in the computer. no complications. no fancy raid arrays, just raid 0. i get insane disc performance and excellent reliability all at the same time.

if the disks dont access the raid 1 partition how does that slow it down? its simply there for backup purposes every week or so, the raid0 does not interact with raid 1 at all, slow down would only occer if and when i backup to the raid 1.

P.S please forget about the whole idea of raid0 and 1 on the same drives and answer my 2nd question if you know the answer, whats the fastest part of the disk for a raid0 and when you partition your drives? also does it start from the inner or the outer with partition 1?

what you should do is just keept he raid array for apps and storage, get another one like i have for back up, and throw and ssd in there for your os. you can't go wrong with the g.skill ssd. thing hits 120-180Mb/s average with 0.02 seek time. windows boot up is very zippy and the os is just smooth, i've had it for almost a month and i still haven't gotten used to it.

thats a nice idea and all but they cost $300 over here, where as the drive is only $99, im not looking to load windows faster, if i was i would have bought I-Ram and booted windows in less then 10 seconds from post to finish.

a simple run down of the setup im wanting to use is
Partition 1 / Partition 2
Disk 1 (320 raid 0 / 320 raid 1)
Disk 2 (320 raid 0 / 320 raid 1)

P.S the last time i checked an SSD was slower at booting windows then hdd due to some issue unless they have since fixed this, im not sure.

I've used 2 Raid 5 setups each with 3HHD's in each with no problems at all.

Yeah it's why i use raid 5, Al though having partitions does not make the raid slower.

thx for your input but this still dosnt answer my question... still trying google to get a straight answer.

im not going to be running a raid 5 nor will it perform anything like a raid 5 does. i dont have a hardware raid controller and thus a raid 5 would slow down quite a lot for redundency i dont need on my raid 0.

it will perform exacly like a compleatly separate raid 0 using 2 hard drives and raid 1 using 2 hard drives.

here is a picture of what it looks like with 2 drives NOTE the raid 0 and raid 1 don't interact with each other at all! it is not the same as 0+1 on the same disks

http://www.techarp.com/article/Intel...atrix_raid.jpg

Games, NON-CRITICAL! :eek: :twitch:

lmao..