Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Setting up RAPTOR most efficiently!

Last response: in Systems
Share
November 14, 2006 4:04:42 PM

I have a question on setting up a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive along with a 320gb 7200.10 seagate.

So far i know the basics. I know that I should install windows on the raptor + programs when you first install. The rest I know to use the 320 7200.10 drive for storage and backup.

however I'm confused with this whole raid 0 and page file business. Can someone please help a helpless newb. Please go over it from the start I dont mind if you cover the things i already know ( cause i dont know much). Thanks~
November 14, 2006 4:31:58 PM

You will need two identical drives in order to utilize a RAID 0 array... so based on what you said you'll be using, you're not a good candidate for RAID 0. Here's an article that explains RAID 0...

http://www.acnc.com/raid.html

Personally, I don't feel the benefits outweigh the negatives... using a RAID 0 array doubles your chances (or more!) of losing your data. Is it faster? Sure... I just don't feel the modest speed increase makes up for the added risk.
November 14, 2006 4:43:41 PM

Ok, a paging file is used to allocate a small amount of hard disk space for the RAM, it is only used when the RAM is overloaded and needs a place to stash data teporarily.............funny as it may seem the RAM's sole purpose is take a load off the processor and allow it to make calculations faster.
So it kinda goes like this, CPU gets overloaded and stashes data in the RAM.....
RAM gets overloaded and stashes data on the paging file which is located on the hard-drive....
Paging file gets overloaded............system bottleneck and slowdown occurs until the system clears it's throat....
The paging file is usually 1.5 x the size of the RAM, if you have plenty of RAM (2Gig's or more) the paging file is not usually needed, but can't hurt especially if you have large hard drives.

RAID0 requires at least 2 identical hdd's and is what we call a striped array, it offers a increase in R/W speed and data transfer but offers no redundancy whatsoever, if one of your disks fail then all data is lost.........not good

RAID1 also requires at least 2 identical hdd's but is a mirrored array that stores data on both disks, it's not as fast as RAID0 but offers 100% redundancy, if 1 disk fails you simply replace the failed disk and rebuild the array.......good

RAID0+1 is a striped and mirrored array combining the best of both worlds but requires at least 4 identical hard-drives to implement, however if 1 drive fails the system defaults to a RAID0 array.......better
Related resources
November 14, 2006 4:43:43 PM

Quote:
You will need two identical drives in order to utilize a RAID 0 array... so based on what you said you'll be using, you're not a good candidate for RAID 0. Here's an article that explains RAID 0


so what can i do from the hardware i have right now? Just use the raptor to install the os and programs and the seagate for pure storage?
November 14, 2006 4:49:13 PM

If I were you - I wouldn't touch the setup that you have - the raptor can handle your OS, Programs and Pagefile quickly and efficiently. I am not certain if you would be better off with the PF on the 320Gig drive, but I can help you with your question on RAID0.

With your setup RAID 0 makes no sence whatsoever. You can stop reading here - or continue on.

Raid 0 is simply creating one large logical drive from two or more drives - RAID - known as Redundant Array of Independent Drives is better refered to as AID in the case of RAID0 - there is no redundancy. In your case - you would be merging the two seperate drives of differing technologies - the Raptor is fast, the other is slower with more space. The total storage would be addative - but the speed would be limited by the large drive - eliminating the benefit of the Raptor's high speed.

What has been stated from others is that they see some nice results when they RAID1 two Raptors together. The reason being is that RAID 1 requires 2 like drives, and creates identical copies of the data on two physical disks and presents them to the OS as one logical drive. When you change a document, or install a program, the data gets written in two places at once - which can create slightly longer write times - though it is somewhat insignificant.

The practical upshot of RAID1 is first - data redundancy. You have two copies of the same file - if one drive craps out - then the other is there to give you the file. Another benefit is when you are reading lots of data - such as loading a game, OS, or other substantial chunk of data - with RAID1 - you have two independent (semi-independent) paths to the same data - effectively increasing your bandwidth - though generally not reaching the theoretical doubling of bandwidth.

Ok - RAID1 sounds good right...well in the event of a single hard drive crash - yes - you still have your data on the working drive. Problem is that hard drives generally do not suddenly decide not to work - they decline over time. The problem occurs when a file or program is slowly corrupted due to a bad drive. The version on the good drive can become corrupted as well.

I am speaking from a bit of experience - as my RAID1 boot drive decided to crash. I was able to recover 90% of the data - but my wife was still pleanty pissed off.

So in closeing - RAID1 is also not an option for you as you have two distinctly different drives. If you do get another Raptor to RAID, you will likely have some good read times - and bootup will likely be quicker as well if you RAID1 them. Although RAID1 provides data redundancy, it is no replacement for a regular system backup. My suggestion to you would be - if you get another Raptor - get another 320. RAID1 the Raptors for the speed (still 150Gig) - and RAID0 the 320's for the space. Then create a schedule of backups and write them to the RAID0 space (640Gig).

I hope that this helps.

Cheers.
November 14, 2006 5:06:00 PM

Usually when people talk "tech talk" I dont understand half the things they say. However Avarice you explained it soo clear that i think i understand 90 percent.

OKay im not going to touch my setup.

now i understand from the posts you guys put up i would need 2 identical drives to do raid 0 or 1

But theoretically speaking what are the chances of you losing your data doing raid 0 if I did have two 150gb raptors.

I understand the case of raid 1 once again if i had two identical raptors but i think the benefits does not make up for redundancy of the files eliminating the whole primary purpose of having two 150gb drives. intended to add up to 300.

at this time i dont have enough money to buy another raptor and seagate, so i think ill just be happy with my current setup as using raptor to handle my os and programs and my 320gbdrive for storage.

when i get enough money maybe i'll try raid0 or raid1.

now to ask you a question regarding my current setup. You think it was worth it for me to buy a raptor to implement what im doing right now? (using it as os,programs) is there a noticeable difference since this is a 10,000rpm drive and the seagate is only 7,200?
November 14, 2006 5:21:49 PM

Quote:


But theoretically speaking what are the chances of you losing your data doing raid 0 if I did have two 150gb raptors.


Well, what are the odds of 1 WD Raptor failing? Whatever that number is... DOUBLE IT. Because RAID 0 is dependent on both drives functioning properly, RAID 0 has effectively doubled your chances of losing your data. It's slightly over double if you consider that you're now dependent on a RAID controller as well to maintain the RAID array.

I agree that putting your OS on the Raptor and data (such as MP3s, videos, etc) on the larger drive would be your best bet.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
November 14, 2006 5:25:20 PM

If you're happy with the current load time and overall responsiveness of you computer, you should not go with RAID.
With Raid you will have to re-install windows, load the Raid driver during the installation, overall it wont be as simple as adding another drive.

The HD's dont actually need to be identical, if one of them is bigger the controller will simple ignore the extra storage on the bigger drive, still for compatibility reason you're better with the same model.

The chance of loosing data on raid0 is twice as high because if any of the drive dies, you loose everything. Now in practice with brand new drives, I am not worryed of one of them dying, after ~3-5 years you should start to worry!

As far as 10k vs 7.2K HD, I do feel a good difference in responsiveness, I acutally compare 2 (7200)Hd in raid0 I had to the raptor I used afterwards.

Finally putting the PageFile on another HD is really worth it IMO, especially since you can put that 1GB file on the biggest HD. Also putting it at a constant size, not dynamically managed by the OS is better too. I use 512Meg and it's more then enough!

Right click my computer, properties, advanced tab, in the performance box, click settings, advanced tab then change in the virtual memory box.

Set it to 0 on the C and 512 min and max on the other HD, reboot.
November 14, 2006 5:37:17 PM

Thank you for the compliment. Hopefully I will continue to garner your good graces with this reply.


Let me explain the danger of RAID0 in more detail. RAID0 creates a large 'logical' drive from two or more physical drives. When you write data to a single physical drive - you don't really care too much where the data will land - generally it will all land close together to avoid fragmentation. When you write data to a single logical drive - you don't know if all the data is going to be on disk A, disk B, or a combination of the two (or more).

For all practical purposes - assume that if you have 2 physical disks as a single logical RAID0 - that half of any single file exists on each of the physical disks.

This being said - if you lost half of the data within a file - what value would the file be. The data would essentially be lost.

Another analogy - if you lost every 'even' numbered byte on your hard drive - do you think you could boot your system?

The odds of this happening are greater than zero - and much less than 100. Ok - it can be infered from the Mean Time Between Failure rateing on the drives - but I hate doing statistics.

Now I agree in part on your questioning the cost/performance of having two expensive fast Raptors, but only having half the total space (RAID1) But Redundancy is nice to have - and it is the cost of RAID1. I wouldn't do it - but I don't like to spend money.

Your current setup is fine - I would not change it. You are fortunate that you can afford a fast Raptor as a boot drive. As for a noticable difference - yes - at times you can really see the difference.

Cheers.
November 14, 2006 5:50:33 PM

Quote:
I agree that putting your OS on the Raptor and data (such as MP3s, videos, etc) on the larger drive would be your best bet.


yeah just wanted to know what my options were but for now this is clearly the best solution.

Quote:
Finally putting the PageFile on another HD is really worth it IMO, especially since you can put that 1GB file on the biggest HD. Also putting it at a constant size, not dynamically managed by the OS is better too. I use 512Meg and it's more then enough!


im going to try this i guess the investment on the raptor was actually worth it.

Quote:
Your current setup is fine - I would not change it. You are fortunate that you can afford a fast Raptor as a boot drive. As for a noticable difference - yes - at times you can really see the difference.


LOL im not rich, just a poor computer lover that will sacrifice meals to get the component he really wants.[/quote]
November 14, 2006 6:43:14 PM

Quote:
LOL im not rich, just a poor computer lover that will sacrifice meals to get the component he really wants.

That, my friends, is true love....
November 14, 2006 7:15:38 PM

Quote:
now to ask you a question regarding my current setup. You think it was worth it for me to buy a raptor to implement what im doing right now? (using it as os,programs) is there a noticeable difference since this is a 10,000rpm drive and the seagate is only 7,200?


I go a very similar setup to yours. I think it's a great idea to get a more expensive but faster drive for your OS and applications and a bigger slower one for data and backups. I can tell how much faster things load from my raptor, whether i'm in Websphere publishing a server to Tomcat or loading a map in CounterStrike:Source.

It's a winning combination.
November 14, 2006 8:27:10 PM

Quote:
LOL im not rich, just a poor computer lover that will sacrifice meals to get the component he really wants.

That, my friends, is true love....
No. If it were true love he'd be trying to sell a kidney.
November 14, 2006 8:47:51 PM

Quote:
No. If it were true love he'd be trying to sell a kidney.


The asian black market guy told me i can only sell one.
November 14, 2006 8:49:24 PM

Quote:
No. If it were true love he'd be trying to sell a kidney.


The asian black market guy told me i can only sell one.

True, cause if you sell two you die and he doesn't have to pay you... so technically it's not a sale.
November 14, 2006 9:35:26 PM

Quote:
I have a question on setting up a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive along with a 320gb 7200.10 seagate.

So far i know the basics. I know that I should install windows on the raptor + programs when you first install. The rest I know to use the 320 7200.10 drive for storage and backup.

however I'm confused with this whole raid 0 and page file business. Can someone please help a helpless newb. Please go over it from the start I dont mind if you cover the things i already know ( cause i dont know much). Thanks~


Hi,

I used a Raptor RAID array one time to test my Windows installation and I found it to take much longer to search for a file.

The best setup was a single Raptor. If you need RAID 0, I could see you using it for a drive that doesn't contain the OS.
November 14, 2006 10:30:05 PM

Quote:
The best setup was a single Raptor. If you need RAID 0, I could see you using it for a drive that doesn't contain the OS.


so basically keep the single raptor drive as it is for OS and then raid 0 the seagate by purchasing another seagate right?
November 14, 2006 10:46:53 PM

You can't mix n match RAID arrays on the same OS, well maybe you could hypothetically but realistically no.
RAID0, 1, 0+1....take your pick.......
Either use RAID or don't, TAKE YOUR PICK
Your browser apparently works, go learn about this stuff before posting more non-sense questions and wasting bandwidth.
November 15, 2006 12:03:31 AM

Quote:
I have a question on setting up a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive along with a 320gb 7200.10 seagate.

So far i know the basics. I know that I should install windows on the raptor + programs when you first install. The rest I know to use the 320 7200.10 drive for storage and backup.

however I'm confused with this whole raid 0 and page file business. Can someone please help a helpless newb. Please go over it from the start I dont mind if you cover the things i already know ( cause i dont know much). Thanks~


I wouldn't recommend using 2 HDD's from different manufacturers in the same system. Reason being that each manufactuers "Data Lifeguard Tools" are designed to work only with their drives. Example: You install the WD Data Lifeguard tools to create rescue disks for your PC. When it says to reboot your PC to enable support for drives over 137gb you could very well cause a hardware failure on the Seagate drive and vice-versa.

For RAID or JBOD to work you need at least 2 HDD's that are identical to each other. I could be running RAID or JBOD right now because I have 2 identical Western Digital Caviar SE 250gb HDD's. The problem with both RAID and JBOD is that they offer great leaps in performace at the cost of data safety.

The page file is system critical to Windows XP, but don't worry. When you instal the OS, it automatically takes care of the pagefile for you. A pagefile is "virtual memory" and is an overflow for the RAM when it gets full.

Hope this helps!
November 15, 2006 12:06:58 AM

Yes it did. I think im just going to dedicate the raptor for the OS and Programs and the seagate purely for storage.

Decided not to do raid. but maybe in the future. I got to know alot about raids though this posting. thanks everyone
November 15, 2006 12:14:28 AM

"Yes it did."

In response to what? Now I'm not trying to be a dick but this will help me in future for when another person has the same question. This way I don't rape their eyes with as much data (haha :tongue: ) as before!

Thank you in advance.
November 15, 2006 12:32:26 AM

He was saying "yes it did" in reply to your "hope this helps" you dick................roflmao
November 15, 2006 12:36:46 AM

Quote:
He was saying "yes it did" in reply to your "hope this helps" you dick................roflmao


Yes I did
November 15, 2006 12:50:07 AM

rodney_ws
not to be rude but who is that on your profile pic? isnt that, that dude from baywatch i forget his name. That picture is bothering me alot. i dont like the way he smiles. If thats you im sorry if i offended you but that is a pretty uncomfortable smile.
November 15, 2006 12:57:07 AM

Sorry. A blonde moment for me if there ever was one :lol:  :oops: 
November 15, 2006 1:26:05 AM

Quote:
rodney_ws
not to be rude but who is that on your profile pic? isnt that, that dude from baywatch i forget his name. That picture is bothering me alot. i dont like the way he smiles. If thats you im sorry if i offended you but that is a pretty uncomfortable smile.

you better be careful, he's liable to transport himself right thru that RJ-45 cable and ram your head clean thru your monitor...........lol
November 15, 2006 1:28:48 AM

Quote:
rodney_ws
not to be rude but who is that on your profile pic? isnt that, that dude from baywatch i forget his name. That picture is bothering me alot. i dont like the way he smiles. If thats you im sorry if i offended you but that is a pretty uncomfortable smile.

you better be careful, he's liable to transport himself right thru that RJ-45 cable and ram your head clean thru your monitor...........lol

Score: +5, Funny as hell! roflmao :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
November 15, 2006 2:11:19 AM

mad-dog wrote:
Quote:
rodney_ws
not to be rude but who is that on your profile pic? isnt that, that dude from baywatch i forget his name. That picture is bothering me alot. i dont like the way he smiles. If thats you im sorry if i offended you but that is a pretty uncomfortable smile.


you better be careful, he's liable to transport himself right thru that RJ-45 cable and ram your head clean thru your monitor...........lol

why is that so funny? i dont get it. whats a rj 45 cable?
November 15, 2006 2:20:36 AM

Go to a LAN. Then let us know what you think an RJ-45 networking/high-speed internet cable is.
November 17, 2006 3:17:31 PM

Hi Akajoshx1,

Getting back to the subject of RAID:

There are a few misconceptions in this thread, since RAID 0 arrays can contain drives from different manufacturers, as long as it has the same interface (meaning all IDE or all SATA)

When using drives of different sizes, the array will use the size of the smallest drive to establish a base size, meaning: If you have a 40Gb and a 100GB, the array will limit the the size of each array member drive to 40GB each, resulting in 80GB ......so you would give up some capacity.

Now, on to the JBOD setup. "Just a Bunch of Disks" also known as spanning will use all the space available on each drive, meaning: if you have a 40, 60, 100, and another 100 GB disks, the total space available is 300 GB. However, JBOD isn't considered true RAID...at all!

OK, you might ask: What is the best setup practice?

a) Don't use RAID to install your OS on it. The entire scheme doesn't pan out. Yeah, you'll get more through-put, but your seek times will also increase...so what have you gained? I can also tell you from experience that I have setup my OS on a RAID 0 array. I was left with a feeling that the setup was "iffy" and very prone to crashing. I didn't dwell upon it too much because I'd been advised not to do it...guess I just wanted to see for myself!

b) Before installing the array, follow all the good and logical procedures. Don't use any "iffy" components. Make sure to test any old (or unknown) disks you are going to use. I do agree that is best to use identical drives for a RAID array....but it's not an imperative!

I mostly use RAID for video capture. I have a couple of WD 10K SATA's on a RAID 0, but that's all I use them for. They work very well for video capture and I hardly ever drop frames.

Hope this helps!
November 17, 2006 6:04:10 PM

Thanks Buzz. In the beginning I didnt know what raid was. i just wanted to know the positives and negatives of Raid.

I decided to just use raptor for Os and programs and the seagate for storage. Maybe in the future when i get more money and (knowledge I will try out raid. Thanks for your help though.
November 18, 2006 12:44:19 AM

Quote:


Well, what are the odds of 1 WD Raptor failing? Whatever that number is... DOUBLE IT.


Just to correct this:

If a HD has a failure of 1% and you have 100 of those HD's, does your failure rate become 100%? Whatever the failure rate of a typical raptor is, that is the expected failure rate of those drives (however many are used) in a raid configuration.

ie: a raptor has a .02% chance of failure
you put 4 raptor drives in a raid 0+1
your expected failure rate in .02%
!