setting up raid

[Akumos]

Hi

I have 2; 360GB Seagate Barracuda HDDs and want to set up RAID. Is this possible with these hard drives?

Also, would it make them perform better than my maxtor?

Thanks

 

[Kreij]

Yes, you can RAID the two drives.

Yes, it would most likely be faster than your Maxtor. It depends on the drives (ie, rpm, cache, etc.)

Just remember that in RAID0 (striped), if one drive fails you lose all data.

 

[twicksisted]

for speed on 2 drives you need raid 0
this will make them both act as one large drive (double the size from 320gb to 640gb).
As said above, if one drive fails you lose all the data... but having said that ive never had any issues with my raid 0 falling over

 

[Akumos]

Ok! How is this done then? I've installed the RAID driver which came wtih my motherboard. Is it done from the BIOS?

 

[Asylum]

Yes just boot into bios and setup your raid 0 array!
Make sure to enable raid in your bios!
Then it will ask you to format!!

 

[DRDNA]

The bios may refer to it as striped as well, just a heads up is all.GL

 

[Kreij]

Also remember that if there is any data on the disks prior to RAIDing them together, the data will be lost if not backed up.

 

[trickson]

Yes back up your stuff .
But I can tell you one thing that a RAID0 is way faster than one drive and maxtor is not as good as a Barracuda drive any way . I know I have 2 in RAID0 and man these things are fast !

 

[Kreij]

When I went to Vista 64, I pulled my drives out of RAID0 and put them in RAID1 as I was more interested in the data security than the speed boost. I could tell it was a little slower, but not enough to really negatively affect what I do on the computer.

 

[trickson]

When I went to Vista 64, I pulled my drives out of RAID0 and put them in RAID1 as I was more interested in the data security than the speed boost. I could tell it was a little slower, but not enough to really negatively affect what I do on the computer.

As long as you back you stuff up why worry ? I think the boost is best but I like raw power .

 

[Kreij]

I really don't worry as I have a NAS device. Ironically the NAS is in RAID0.

 

[trickson]

I really don't worry as I have a NAS device. Ironically the NAS is in RAID0.

How fast is it ?

 

[Kreij]

I'm not sure, I never checked it. I put the NAS in RAID0 to get more storage space, not more speed. What I should really do is put the rig back in RAID0 and get a couple of larger drives for the NAS and put it in RAID1.

That, however, would require more effort than I feel like expending at the moment.

 

[trickson]

I'm not sure, I never checked it. I put the NAS in RAID0 to get more storage space, not more speed. What I should really do is put the rig back in RAID0 and get a couple of larger drives for the NAS and put it in RAID1.

That, however, would require more effort than I feel like expending at the moment.

Just run HD tach show us how the NAS stacks up against the RAID0 .

 

[Kreij]

Given that the NAS is connected over a 100mb ethernet line, I doubt it is going to perform too well running HD Tach comapared to the local Sata 2 drives.

 

[trickson]

Given that the NAS is connected over a 100mb ethernet line, I doubt it is going to perform too well running HD Tach comapared to the local Sata 2 drives.

Well give it a run .

 

[Kreij]

I can't at the moment as that's my home rig and I am at work right now.
I'll have to try it when I have a few minutes at home.

 

[HolyCow02]

I'll be putting my two new WD 500's in RAID1 because they are the only drives I will have. My old 160 and 250 are going in my Ubuntu box for my home theater. As I only have a 64 GB SSD other than the two WD's, I'm not taking any chances of losing my files. I'm playing it safe just like you Kreij

 

[Kreij]

I'll be putting my two new WD 500's in RAID1 because they are the only drives I will have. My old 160 and 250 are going in my Ubuntu box for my home theater. As I only have a 64 GB SSD other than the two WD's, I'm not taking any chances of losing my files. I'm playing it safe just like you Kreij

Well, since we both have 8GB of RAM, the extra second or so loading from the HD seems inconsequential to me.

 

[trickson]

Well, since we both have 8GB of RAM, the extra second or so loading from the HD seems inconsequential to me.

Well that still maybe the case but you have to test them to see just how well they perform . You can not just say that it takes an extra second or two if you do not know just how they test out . At least I don't think so .

 

[trickson]

I am not sure about you but I notice a big change when I went to this RAID0 setup I have now . I have always wanted to beat the SCSI and well look I finally DID ! I have always struggled to get close even with 2 WD 10,000 RPM HDD's in RAID0 I failed to but now I have DONE IT !

There is no doubt in my mind for performance minded people out there this is the way to go .

 

[Kreij]

You are absolutely correct, trick. If you buy the fastest HDs that money can buy and put a pair (or more) of them in RAID0, they will be even faster.

Now quick dinking around and RAID some SSDs.

 

[trickson]

You are absolutely correct, trick. If you buy the fastest HDs that money can buy and put a pair (or more) of them in RAID0, they will be even faster.

Now quick dinking around and RAID some SSDs.

LOL Yeah well I payed 80 bucks for these and you can see even with the small amount of money I spent I get BIG results .

 

[vbx]

what is the actual performance increase? Can we compare the same hard drives under raid and not under raid?

 

[trickson]

what is the actual performance increase? Can we compare the same hard drives under raid and not under raid?

Well there in is my problem I never saved the pic I did with just the one HDD . But there are tons of them posted here .. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=26630
If you are willing to go through them all you can clearly get your answer .