Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAID0 (SATA). Separate HD for OS (WinXP) desirable?

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 11, 2006 1:31:20 AM

I have 2 identical 300GB 7200RPM SATA drives that I am about to put into a new system. I've noted on some people's sigs that they have a separate single 30-50GB drive for the OS, with apps installed on the RAID0 array. Is this the most desirable method to use for performance?

Additionally, this new PC will be used primarily for digital photos, graphics. That is, potentially large file sozes. Should I let the RAID0 setup set the stripe size to a default value, or is there a preference for performance?

Thanks- Bruce.
December 11, 2006 2:12:19 AM

installing windows on the raid 0 will give a definate performance boost. I think the reason people use a seperate drive is for security reasons. if one drive fails then your ruined, so its a little safer, one drive vs two, you get it?
December 11, 2006 2:56:50 AM

Another reason to put the OS on a separate drive is so that it can be reinstalled without having to back up and recopy your data.
Related resources
December 12, 2006 1:34:10 PM

Quote:
installing windows on the raid 0 will give a definate performance boost. I think the reason people use a seperate drive is for security reasons. if one drive fails then your ruined, so its a little safer, one drive vs two, you get it?


Thanks- yes I know about the fact that both drives are required to have one good set of data, and having 2 drives increases the probability of failure of one of them. Thanks- Bruce.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
December 12, 2006 2:31:31 PM

I would not suggest Raiding the 300gig for your usage, even if video editing can make use of it, I don't think the risk would be worth the performance.

And yes having a HD for OS/apps/possibly games install is desirable mostly for security reason/re-installation as stated above.

I know it involve a spending money but the best setup for me would be having a 74gig raptor as OS and using the 2X300gig as storage.

You could run the 2 HD as JBOD, Os would see one 600gig, no performance benefit. Not all that usefull either so keeping them separate is fine IMO.
December 13, 2006 1:59:54 PM

Personally I don't see the point in having a seperate drive for OS.

Single OS drive + raid drive setup-
Single drive fails - have to spend hours reinstalling OS and applications and games etc.... but your data is safe
RAID volume fails - you lose all your data but keep the OS. You have to restore all your data, could take hours as well depending on how you've backed it up.

My point is that it is a pain in the arse having to do either so why not just lump them together and get the performance benefits of having the OS on your RAID 0 volume?
December 13, 2006 2:22:13 PM

Thanks for the replies.

Most of the concerns that I read about regarding RAID0 are related to the risk if a HD failure- understandable since both HD's are required to retrieve the data, and doubling the number of drives increases probabilities if failure. I guess that increased risk needs to be weighed against the performance benefits of RAID0. Making no doubt the ideal system a RAID 0+1, with a minimum of 4 HD's?


Quote:

..........
My point is that it is a pain in the arse having to do either so why not just lump them together and get the performance benefits of having the OS on your RAID 0 volume?


This is why I asked the question. Even more so, if I can separately re-install the OS, aren't there many system files included within the OS partition that would be lost, and doesn't that usually imply that the apps need to be re-installed anyway, thereby preserving only data used by the apps, which could be just as easily back up externally?

Thanks- this is my first time with a RAID array, and I'm still pondering whether to do it or not. I've read many articles on it, and have also read the mobo's manual (ASUS A8N-SLI) on both BIOS setup and OS installation (the F6 thing).

Thanks again, Bruce.
!