Go Back    Forum > Digital Life > Computers

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
03-29-2010, 06:00 PM
manthing manthing is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 329
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
what i want to do is have 2 SATA hard drives configured in RAID0.
at the same time, i want one of the hard drives to be a "normal" drive.

example, say HD1 is 100GB and HD2 is 200GB.

so i partition HD2 into 2 x 100GB.

then i combine HD1 with one of the 100GB partitions on HD2 as my RAID0.
and leave the other 100GB partition on HD2 as is.

is this possible?

i want to keep some data on the non-RAID0 part of HD2 so that even if my RAID0 fails, my data is safe.

yes i know things will be easier if i simply had another HD, even an external one, as my data drive.

but please just answer whether the above setup is possible or not.

thanks.
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
03-30-2010, 02:16 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,310
Thanked 654 Times in 457 Posts
RAID was intended for SCSI discs, and was created when disks spun really slow (4200rpm or below). When used for IDE or SATA, it tends to be abusive to the drives, and is often a reason they seem to always die so quickly. The drives were not made with RAID in mind.

The "R" in RAID stands for "redundant" (redundant array independent/inexpensive disks). RAID level 0 has no redundacy whatsoever, so it's technically not a "RAID". It just using a method based on actual RAID. RAID also comes with major issues in data fragmentation. I've seen many drives lose data from fragmentation, before the array fully failed in an orgy of cascading errors. In some cases, the drives just burnt out from RAID use.

RAID must use identical disks, not only in size, but often in model/speed of the drive. It's not suggested to mix brands, cache, RPMs, etc. You can't non-RAID a part of a disk marked for RAID/JBOD. It's not going to be partitioned in a way you're used to. When you try to mix discs, you're making a JBOD, or "just a bunch of disks". This is just as bad as RAID0, in terms of data integrity and backup.

Current SATA-II 3Gb drives (and depending on the situation, SATA-I 1.5Gb and IDE/PATA drives), are all fine for even the most resource-hungry consumer or typical business use. This included compressed high definition (HD) video and most all standard definition (SD) video.

From my observations from 1995-2010, RAID 0 really was not done very often. In the early/mid 2000s, it gained some popularity by video gamer nerds that didn't know any better -- they falsely assumed it would make game playing faster. That, of course, was mostly ridiculous -- the real bottleneck was the graphics card, RAM and CPU -- and its use often resulted in the gamer losing the entire computer in an inevitable crash. Of course, that same crowd never seemed to back up their data either, so they'd lose everything. I think its use largely peaked a couple of years ago, judging from conversations I've seen in various users forums online. Gamers in general have started to learn more about the tools they use as toys.

Off-hand, there are only THREE groups that I can think of that really have need for the speeds of RAID:
  • Broadcast servers, as used by television stations, video uplink/downlinks (satellite/cable providers), etc
  • Web servers -- including database and intranet servers
  • SDI in/out or uncompressed HD video editing servers or workstations
Many gigabytes (terabytes?) of data are moved at a rapid pace in those settings, and RAID is crucial for both speed AND redundancy. You'll almost never see a RAID0, but rather RAID5, RAID15, RAID10, etc. The discs in use are almost always high-speed 15K SCSI, and designed for RAID use.

RAID 0 is generally not a solution to any problem. So you'd be better off explaining the problem, and we could come up with a real solution.

I use a RAID1 external drive for editing RAW photos, which gives both speed and redundancy improvements over a traditional external disk. It's a pair of SCSI drives and connects to a laptop via eSATA, as it's taken to on-site photo assignments. Even standard def video is not as intensive as trying to load 500 thumbnails from a folder of 15MP NEF files. The unit has a dedicated fan, because RAIDed drives run hot.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
03-30-2010, 03:41 AM
manthing manthing is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 329
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
well, i agree with you, in parts.

personally, i have never ever had a problem using a RAID0 setup.
i have my OS + apps installed on the RAID0.
all my data onto another, separate, drive.

i also have an image of the RAID0 drive.
and have successfully re-installed that drive, from the image, as part of testing.

so as things stand, i'm happy using RAID0.

now do i really need RAID0?
well this is argueable.

in some instances, like when using DVD Shrink, then the extra boost of a RAIDed drive comes in handy.

for most other things, a RAIDed drive is not that relevant at all. at least not for a "home user" like me.

now onto the reason why i posted the question...

my current separate data drive is an old IDE drive.
it is about 7 years old and will probably die soon.

so i want to move that data onto a new SATA II drive.

and was thinking of getting a 500 GB SATA II drive.
then partitioning it into 100GB and 400GB sections.

i thought of using the 100GB of the new drive, and RAID0 it with my existing SATA 100GB drive for my OS + apps.

then using the remaining 400GB for my data, transferred from the old IDE drive.

side note - the data is of the variety that is handy to have and not essential to be stored. things like audio / video files, jpegs etc. things i use to create my own dvds and so it is handy to have to hand, so to speak. but if i lost it, no big deal.

so back to the question - is it possible to partition a drive, then use one partition as part of a RAID0 with another drive, and leave the other partition as a "normal" drive?

and in this scenario, if the RAID0 fails, will the "normal" partition survice?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
03-30-2010, 04:20 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,310
Thanked 654 Times in 457 Posts
Yeah, that won't work. RAID requires the full drive use, it can't just be paired with a partition. It has to be a pair of identical physical disks to be RAID, or a pair of non-identical physical discs to be JBOD.

A SATA II drive by itself would probably be plenty fast for what you're doing.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hard drive space being used, can't figure out by what! admin Computers 0 02-17-2010 01:47 PM
Hard drive took a dive. Please help! wayshway Computers 7 10-03-2008 09:26 AM
Buffalo hard drive any good? ninjastriker Computers 4 02-21-2008 12:43 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 AM