with intel chipset with ich7r 8 & 9 there is a feature called intel matrix tech, it allows to create several arrays on 2 drives.
that meens that if i have 3hds of 250G, i can do for ex. 100G (from all of them) on raid 0 & then on the rest raid 5.
in that way i have fast C:\ with Win & Games & D:\ for the rest of the stuff.
or what i wanna do is several raid 0 arrays on the same 2 250G hds. in that way i create C:, D: & E:, for all of them using only 2 drives.
i didn't knew that i can partitionize a raid array... i tought an arrays is the "raid method" for partitions.
No, an array of disks causes multiple drives to appear logically as one volume. You can do practically anything to that volume that you could to an individual drive that's not in an array and is also seen as one volume.
but as i recall, i talked to someone in this forum about RAID stuff & he said that if i do a partition on or with raid arrays than it will be very slow & cost a lot pf CPU time.
Untrue,this doesn't matter and you MUST create a partition on the arrays. After you define the RAID array, it is then as if you have one empty, unpartitioned and unformatted drive.
at the time i asked about doing a mix:
200G raid 0. the rest 300G is on partitions out side the array. (150G in each drive).
That you cannot do. All the usable space on each drive is dedicated to the array. By that I mean, suppose you had one 250GB drive and one 320GB drive, then you can create the 500GB array but have wasted 70GB of space on the larger drive, space that cannot be used for anything so long as it is a member of the 500GB array.
This is the normal limitation of RAID, but I'm not familiar with all the tricks Intel has come up with, I was under the impression such a thing can be done with a Matrix array but frankly I would be hesitant to use unconventional features that relied on a certain chipset because the odds of failure are already increased running RAID0, but if you then add odds of failure of the motherboard in preventing access to the data, it becomes a more and more risky proposition unless you're spending a heck of a lot of time making more frequent backups.
I hope you also realize that beyond synthetic benchmarks, in real world uses RAID0 often isn't much faster than a single drive, and can be slower than using two independent drives concurrently for some tasks. example