OS or Data on Sata Raid 0 array?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I have the following hardware spec:

Asus P4C800-E mobo
2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
Windows XP Pro

I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
using an IDE adaptor.

I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should the
OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
be on the slower standalone disk.

I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.

Appreciate any opinions.

MH
18 answers Last reply
More about data sata raid array
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    news:Bst6d.71520$wV.41250@attbi_s54...
    > I have the following hardware spec:
    >
    > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > Windows XP Pro
    >
    > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    > using an IDE adaptor.
    >
    > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data.

    Why?

    > I'm wondering, should the
    > OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    > cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
    > may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
    > be on the slower standalone disk.

    So put all on the RAID 0 array.

    > I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
    > IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    >
    > Appreciate any opinions.
    >
    > MH
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> writes:

    > "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    > news:Bst6d.71520$wV.41250@attbi_s54...
    >> I have the following hardware spec:
    >>
    >> Asus P4C800-E mobo
    >> 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    >> 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    >> Windows XP Pro
    >>
    >> I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    >> using an IDE adaptor.
    >>
    >> I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data.
    >
    > Why?

    Um, basic good practice? Make the backups much smaller? That kind of
    thing?
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I see the dilemma. Keeping data separate from OS/App on different physical
    hard drives is a different choice. Can see, in your case, its a tough call.
    "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    news:Bst6d.71520$wV.41250@attbi_s54...
    > I have the following hardware spec:
    >
    > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > Windows XP Pro
    >
    > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    > using an IDE adaptor.
    >
    > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should the
    > OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    > cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
    > may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
    > be on the slower standalone disk.
    >
    > I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
    > IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    >
    > Appreciate any opinions.
    >
    > MH
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > > Windows XP Pro
    > >
    > > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD
    drive
    > > using an IDE adaptor.
    > >
    > > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data.
    >
    > Why?

    Segregating OS and apps from data in different partions is a common way of
    managing disks so that the OS partition can be
    formatted/reinstalled/upgraded independently of the data partition.
    Reinstalling the OS quickly and getting back to work quickly is a key
    requirement for me. I'm a software developer, and I often have the need to
    restore my system to a "fresh" state, so this 2-partition strategy works
    well for me.

    Also, in the case of a RAID 0, a 3 disk (2 logical disk) setup may mitigate
    the increased risk in using RAID 0, since RAID 0 increases risk of data loss
    by having two points of possible failure for the array. In the event of
    disk failure (or just a bad write) in the RAID, whatever is not on the RAID
    would likely be unaffected.

    Again, my question is: Should the RAID 0 array be used for OS/apps or data?
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >
    > "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    > news:Bst6d.71520$wV.41250@attbi_s54...
    > > I have the following hardware spec:
    > >
    > > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > > Windows XP Pro
    > >
    > > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    > > using an IDE adaptor.
    > >
    > > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    Simple, simple.

    In case you want to reformat and reinstall the OS - all on the same
    partition is easy.

    It's also generally easier to manage data on a separate drive /
    partition.

    Valid question.

    Odie
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Mediahead wrote:
    >
    > I have the following hardware spec:
    >
    > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > Windows XP Pro
    >
    > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    > using an IDE adaptor.
    >
    > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should the
    > OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    > cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
    > may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
    > be on the slower standalone disk.
    >
    > I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
    > IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    >
    > Appreciate any opinions.
    >
    > MH

    Good idea - ideal to have os/apps on raid partition. Not a problem to
    have data there to, since once the apps are loaded they should remain
    cached in memory. Ditto with the data, but the downside is you need
    plenty (1GB PLUS) or memory.

    Suggest you experiment for yourself - this group is notorious for
    conflicting opinions.

    Give it 20 minutes or so....


    Odie
    --

    RetroData
    Data Recovery Experts
    www.retrodata.co.uk
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Mediahead <gank@compton.net> wrote:
    >> > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    >> > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    >> > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    >> > Windows XP Pro
    >> >
    >> > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD
    > drive
    >> > using an IDE adaptor.
    >> >
    >> > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data.
    >>
    >> Why?

    > Segregating OS and apps from data in different partions is a common way of
    > managing disks so that the OS partition can be
    > formatted/reinstalled/upgraded independently of the data partition.
    > Reinstalling the OS quickly and getting back to work quickly is a key
    > requirement for me. I'm a software developer, and I often have the need to
    > restore my system to a "fresh" state, so this 2-partition strategy works
    > well for me.

    > Also, in the case of a RAID 0, a 3 disk (2 logical disk) setup may mitigate
    > the increased risk in using RAID 0, since RAID 0 increases risk of data loss
    > by having two points of possible failure for the array. In the event of
    > disk failure (or just a bad write) in the RAID, whatever is not on the RAID
    > would likely be unaffected.

    > Again, my question is: Should the RAID 0 array be used for OS/apps or data?

    If you have a lot of mostly linear larger accesses to data, and a
    current backup of the data, you might benefit from putting the data
    on RAID 0. If you don't have that data access pattern, best not to
    use RAID0 at all, since it does not help much with more random
    accesses.

    If you have significant swap usage, put the swap on its own disk.
    While this is a waste of space it could increase speed significantly.
    You can also use one disk for OS, one for apps and one for data.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Mediahead wrote:
    >>
    >> I have the following hardware spec:
    >>
    >> Asus P4C800-E mobo
    >> 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    >> 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    >> Windows XP Pro
    >>
    >> I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    >> using an IDE adaptor.
    >>
    >> I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should the
    >> OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    >> cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
    >> may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
    >> be on the slower standalone disk.
    >>
    >> I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
    >> IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    >>
    >> Appreciate any opinions.
    >>
    >> MH

    > Good idea - ideal to have os/apps on raid partition. Not a problem to
    > have data there to, since once the apps are loaded they should remain
    > cached in memory. Ditto with the data, but the downside is you need
    > plenty (1GB PLUS) or memory.

    > Suggest you experiment for yourself - this group is notorious for
    > conflicting opinions.

    True.

    The advantage is that you get lots of suggestions you can try.
    The disadvantage is that you might need to try lots of different
    things, because you get lots of suggestions... ;-)==)

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Mediahead wrote:
    > I have the following hardware spec:
    >
    > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > Windows XP Pro
    >
    > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    > using an IDE adaptor.
    >
    > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should the
    > OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    > cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
    > may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
    > be on the slower standalone disk.
    >
    > I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
    > IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    >
    > Appreciate any opinions.
    >
    > MH
    >
    >
    >

    I have a similar setup and usage pattern, with 2x RAID-0 36GB Raptor
    and an 120GB WD drive. I use the 72GB RAID as C: drive for my OS,
    apps, few games, and data. I use the spare D: drive for full backups
    of C: and large, temporary files like movies, ISOs, etc. Luckily,
    everything I need, including a few games, fits in 30-50 gigs. I
    actively delete files I no longer need to keep everything trim.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    news:9oz6d.281653$Fg5.4130@attbi_s53...
    > > > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > > > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > > > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > > > Windows XP Pro
    > > >
    > > > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD
    > drive
    > > > using an IDE adaptor.
    > > >
    > > > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data.
    > >
    > > Why?
    >
    > Segregating OS and apps from data in different partions is a common way of
    > managing disks so that the OS partition can be
    > formatted/reinstalled/upgraded independently of the data partition.
    > Reinstalling the OS quickly and getting back to work quickly is a key
    > requirement for me. I'm a software developer, and I often have the need
    to
    > restore my system to a "fresh" state, so this 2-partition strategy works
    > well for me.
    >
    > Also, in the case of a RAID 0, a 3 disk (2 logical disk) setup may
    mitigate
    > the increased risk in using RAID 0, since RAID 0 increases risk of data
    loss
    > by having two points of possible failure for the array. In the event of
    > disk failure (or just a bad write) in the RAID, whatever is not on the
    RAID
    > would likely be unaffected.
    >
    > Again, my question is: Should the RAID 0 array be used for OS/apps or
    data?

    Both.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Shailesh Humbad" <noreply@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:zDE6d.136183$787.115086@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    > Mediahead wrote:
    > > I have the following hardware spec:
    > >
    > > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > > Windows XP Pro
    > >
    > > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD
    drive
    > > using an IDE adaptor.
    > >
    > > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should
    the
    > > OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    > > cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array,
    they
    > > may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing
    would
    > > be on the slower standalone disk.
    > >
    > > I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual
    Studio,
    > > IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    > >
    > > Appreciate any opinions.
    > >
    > > MH
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I have a similar setup and usage pattern, with 2x RAID-0 36GB Raptor
    > and an 120GB WD drive. I use the 72GB RAID as C: drive for my OS,
    > apps, few games, and data. I use the spare D: drive for full backups
    > of C: and large, temporary files like movies, ISOs, etc. Luckily,
    > everything I need, including a few games, fits in 30-50 gigs. I
    > actively delete files I no longer need to keep everything trim.

    Right, if it's frequently used then put it on the RAID 0 array. Keep good
    backups. Segregation of data for backups purposes can be handled in a
    number of fashions and is NOT relevant to where things live in general.
    Best practice on a workstation is almost always the fastest performing
    practice.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

    >> Also, in the case of a RAID 0, a 3 disk (2 logical disk) setup may
    >mitigate
    >> the increased risk in using RAID 0, since RAID 0 increases risk of data
    >loss
    >> by having two points of possible failure for the array. In the event of
    >> disk failure (or just a bad write) in the RAID, whatever is not on the
    >RAID
    >> would likely be unaffected.
    >>
    >> Again, my question is: Should the RAID 0 array be used for OS/apps or
    >data?
    >
    >Both.

    What are you going to fix your newreader, Rod^Hn? Idiot.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Mediahead wrote:

    > I have the following hardware spec:
    >
    > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > Windows XP Pro
    >
    > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    > using an IDE adaptor.


    what i've read, that won't buy you
    anything much in the way of performance
    (but i don't have any experience with it)


    >
    > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should the
    > OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    > cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
    > may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
    > be on the slower standalone disk.
    >
    > I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
    > IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    >
    > Appreciate any opinions.
    >
    > MH

    if the issue is backup, you're still far
    better off with ide drives and with
    dos ghost. sata is still not ready for
    prime time. ck www.newegg.com coz
    5 weeks ago they had oem NSW2003 with
    dos ghost on it for $20

    bill
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "willbill" <trek@worldwide.net> wrote in message

    > sata is still not ready for prime time.

    Nonsense.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:

    > "willbill" wrote

    >> sata is still not ready for prime time.
    >
    > Nonsense.

    say why

    bill
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    news:Bst6d.71520$wV.41250@attbi_s54...
    >I have the following hardware spec:
    >
    > Asus P4C800-E mobo
    > 2x Raptor 76GB SATA drives
    > 1x Western Digital 80GB SATA
    > Windows XP Pro
    >
    > I'd like to set my Raptors up in a RAID 0 stripeset and retain my WD drive
    > using an IDE adaptor.
    >
    > I'd like to segregate my OS/Apps from my data. I'm wondering, should the
    > OS/Apps go on the Raptor RAID array or the standalone WD? I can see the
    > cost/benefit of each approach - if the OS and apps are on the array, they
    > may operate faster, but all of the data that they would be accessing would
    > be on the slower standalone disk.
    >
    > I use my computer primarily for software development (heavy Visual Studio,
    > IIS and SQL Server usage), and secondarily for gaming.
    >
    > Appreciate any opinions.
    >
    > MH
    >

    Good Question! Exactly what I was going to ask. I have a WD1200JB
    partitioned C through to M. I already have OS, Apps and Data in seperate
    partitions. Now thinking of replacing it with 2 x 74GB SATA Raptors in RAID0
    config.

    I'm still not clear whether there would be any advantage to have the discs
    non RAID with OS and Apps on One drive and Data on the other. Or use RAID 0
    with 3 partitions?

    Sorry if its already been said - if its has then I didnt get it.

    Thanks

    Ian
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    news:9oz6d.281653$Fg5.4130@attbi_s53...
    > Again, my question is: Should the RAID 0 array be used for OS/apps or
    data?

    I really like the idea of OS on the RAID 0 array, and data on a RAID 5
    array. This is what I do myself. On my personal machine, I figure its no
    big deal to replace the RAID 0 array and reinstall windows. However the
    data is VERY important and lives on a RAID 5 array (still a little worried
    about having to deal with problems that may come up with that). I
    periodically make a ghost image too so that replacing the RAID 0 array will
    be somewhat less painful.

    The paging file lives on the RAID 0 array, and that MUST make a difference,
    I just checked and the pagefile is 1.5GB! I have tried adding tons of RAM
    and eliminating the paging file but I seemed to have problems with that
    setup-I think some software needs a paging file. I know the RAID 0 must
    help the OS get its things done faster but never really properly analyzed
    it. I am very happy with performance however.

    In addition to the RAID 5 array for data, I have NTbackup do a nightly
    backup of very important data such as my email database, my documents
    folder, and other data that cannot be replaced for any amount of money. The
    backup is done to a removable 120GB hard drive which is rotated with another
    to a safe place. All in all, most would consider this overkill. But to me
    its perfect, I am comfortable with my data.

    --Dan
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:6HM7d.4138$JG2.530@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > "Mediahead" <gank@compton.net> wrote in message
    > news:9oz6d.281653$Fg5.4130@attbi_s53...
    > > Again, my question is: Should the RAID 0 array be used for OS/apps or
    > data?
    >
    > I really like the idea of OS on the RAID 0 array, and data on a RAID 5
    > array. This is what I do myself. On my personal machine, I figure its no
    > big deal to replace the RAID 0 array and reinstall windows. However the
    > data is VERY important and lives on a RAID 5 array (still a little worried
    > about having to deal with problems that may come up with that). I
    > periodically make a ghost image too so that replacing the RAID 0 array
    will
    > be somewhat less painful.
    >
    > The paging file lives on the RAID 0 array, and that MUST make a
    difference,

    It shouldn't as you shouldn't be using it. Get enough RAM.

    > I just checked and the pagefile is 1.5GB! I have tried adding tons of RAM
    > and eliminating the paging file but I seemed to have problems with that
    > setup-I think some software needs a paging file.

    Yes but with enough RAM it wont use the page file.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware NAS / RAID Western Digital Storage