Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDD Configuration

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 31, 2007 10:16:56 PM

For my new PC, I'm looking at a few different options for HDDs.

1 - 74GB Raptor (OS, Swap, Apps), 2 400 GB Seagate 7200.10 in Raid 0 for data

2 - 74GB Raptor, 1 400 GB Seagate 7200.10

3 - 2 400GB Seagate's

My question is can option # 2 have an extra (identical) disk added on later and put the 2 into Raid 0 without moving the data off the original HDD? Also, can a Raid array be partitioned (Option #3)?

Thanks

More about : hdd configuration

February 1, 2007 1:06:51 AM

1. Can option #2 have an extra (identical) disk added on later and put the 2 into Raid 0 without moving the data off the original HDD?

For most normal RAID controllers, no. However, the Intel Matrix-capable chipsets (975 with ICH7R, or 965 with ICH8) do have the capability to do this migration if the single drive is set up correctly beforehand.

2. Can a Raid array be partitioned (Option #3)?

Yes. A RAID array abstracts the physical drive(s) from the logical drives. The 2-physical drive RAID array appears as a single logical drive to the computer. You can do anything to that logical drive that you can do to a single physical drive, including partition it into multiple partitions.
February 1, 2007 1:39:49 AM

Thanks for your input. Bestbuy has the 74GB Raptors on "clearance" for US$119, so I already bought one right after I posted! Now, I just need to decide if I want to spend the cash on 1 or 2 Seagates. I certainly don't have the need for 800GB right now, but with a new child, I suspect video and pictures will eat up 400GB with a quickness...
Related resources
a b G Storage
February 1, 2007 1:07:40 PM

If your going to be putting pictures and other important stuff on the 400 gig I wouldnt use Raid 0 without a good backup plan. On Raid 0 if you lose one drive you lose everything. Mirror raid is whats best for important stuff.
February 1, 2007 1:33:33 PM

A mate of mine just spent £800 - that's about $1600 - on recovering baby photos and videos from his hard drive after it broke.

Get two seagates. RAID 1 them. DO NOT USE RAID 0. It's just not worth it!
February 1, 2007 2:37:07 PM

Family and gaming don't get along! :wink: Someone suggested the Intel Matrix storage manager. With that, you could get 4 drives and configure them as BOTH RAID 0 and RAID 1! Security AND speed. If you build with an Intel board, just make sure that you understand what it wants for RAM. Buying 2.0v RAM for a 1.8v spec MB=trouble.
February 1, 2007 2:49:09 PM

Quote:
Someone suggested the Intel Matrix storage manager. With that, you could get 4 drives and configure them as BOTH RAID 0 and RAID 1! Security AND speed.


With 4 drives, you can do RAID 0 and RAID 1 with any RAID controller.

The Intel Matrix controllers can give you a RAID 1 section and a RAID 0 section with only 2 drives, not 4.
February 1, 2007 3:51:37 PM

Sorry, I got my facts mixed up. :oops:  With 4 drives you can do RAID 0 and RAID 5. I have not used this, but my next system most likely will.
Intel's website : Intel® Matrix Storage Technology

I hope that the fact that gets across is that nothing important should ever be stored on RAID 0. Nothing.
February 1, 2007 4:06:32 PM

Thanks for the info. I'm still deciding what to do about the data drive. Currently, I don't have a lot of data (~100GB). I'm debating on using a backup software to back my data up to another IDE HDD or go Raid 1. Price will be the ultimate deciding factor, but there are certainly more advantages to RAID1...
February 1, 2007 4:56:13 PM

Quote:
Thanks for the info. I'm still deciding what to do about the data drive. Currently, I don't have a lot of data (~100GB). I'm debating on using a backup software to back my data up to another IDE HDD or go Raid 1. Price will be the ultimate deciding factor, but there are certainly more advantages to RAID1...


Actually there are very few advantages.............

Oh sure if your data drived died mid-day you would lose some of that days work. This would not happen with RAID 1.

However, in RAID 1 if a file was accidentally deleted, corrupted, modified, or file system corruption, then ALL your data would be gone.

RAID 1 is great for keeping certain systems up and running, but if you are planning on using it to ensure your data is safe and sound, it is not a great solution.
February 1, 2007 6:01:42 PM

Zen is quite correct. RAID is not a substitute for backup, they are two different things that aim to solve two different problems.

RAID protects your data against a hard drive failure, and keeps the system operational when a hard drive failure occurs. RAID is also free of any manual process to get this level of protection. Most RAID implementations give you some type of speed advantage as well.

Backup protects against other things, including viruses, spyware, accidental deletion, and giving you the ability to go back in time (i.e. make a lot of changes to a document, and then later decide that you need to go back to an older version). Backup will also protect the data from hard drive failure, but the system is down until it can be rebuilt with a working hard drive and the data must then be restored. Backup involves manual processes to complete the backups in most cases.
February 2, 2007 1:04:22 PM

Greetings, my friend,

1. You will lose the data on the one drive if you add a second drive to make a RAID-0 because the new array has to format.

2. I DO NOT recommend RAID-0 as a data storage place. Been there, done that. Lost a lot. All it takes is to accidentally have something happen to a drive connection and you can lose it all. Once, I had a SATA connector come loose from a drive in a RAID-0 array that I was using as data storgae. I opened the case, found the loose SATA connector, but accidentally bumped the other one loose, too. I have been working inside PC cases for a long time, but call me dumb on this one because I could not tell, suddenly, which connector went to which drive. Using the bends in the cables as best clues, I hooked them up and turned everything on. You know what's coming . . . I had the connections reversed and lost all of the data.

One additinal thought on this: I had thought that saving my data to this RAID array would be so f-a-s-t! Frankly, There was no noticable difference, probably because data writes tend to be relatively small in size, and they are done before you know it.

Where I notoiced the difference in the speed of RAID-0 is in boot time, application start-up time, and loading new game data time, like when entering a new area for instance. Oh, also when installing apps, too.

Hope that anything I said was useful in some way,
best,
mike
February 2, 2007 1:06:03 PM

Oh, I forgot . . . yes, a RAID array can be partitioned.
mike
!