Adding second Raptor for RAID0

[qbackin]

Topic pretty much says it. I have a Raptor running, and my other one is ready to go in.
Can I simply install it, or must I start with fresh Install on both?
Have lots of stuff on it, and dont wanna erase if I dont have to

A8N-E Sli deluxe Mobo

 

[saltedeggman]

Have to create a RAID partition, meaning you have to format the drives (acting as on) after creating the raid array

 

[Jojo7]

You could always create a ghost image of your original drive, set up raid 0 and then ghost back to the array.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Have you read the "Raptors in RAID" article under the Storage tab? It might not be worth the work.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

You have to first reset the drive to zeros(like new), then format the two blank drives together. Simply reformating the exsisting drive won't work. There is a utility on the disk that came with the drive that with blank it.

 

[KoolDrew]

Don't even bother with RAID-0.

 

[qbackin]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Have you read the "Raptors in RAID" article under the Storage tab? It might not be worth the work.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Don't even bother with RAID-0.

Guys thanks for the advice:roll:

But I didnt just buy it and set out to RAID0. It has been sitting in my case unhooked, so now I figure what the hell

 

[Snoop]

Originally posted by: qbackin

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Have you read the "Raptors in RAID" article under the Storage tab? It might not be worth the work.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Don't even bother with RAID-0.

Guys thanks for the advice:roll:

But I didnt just buy it and set out to RAID0. It has been sitting in my case unhooked, so now I figure what the hell

Why not use it as another harddrive? Raid0 is a waste of time.

 

[nick1985]

"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."


--Anandtech.com

 

[Hacp]

It has been said by many that Raid-0 "feels"faster. Maybe that extra millasecond matters to some people.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Hacp
It has been said by many that Raid-0 "feels"faster. Maybe that extra millasecond matters to some people.

But a lot of those people also wear Q-Ray "ionized" bracelets and take Enzyte.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Hacp
It has been said by many that Raid-0 "feels"faster. Maybe that extra millasecond matters to some people.

But a lot of those people also wear Q-Ray "ionized" bracelets and take Enzyte.

http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/515

"What we're trying to say is that you shouldn't assess the performance of RAID 0 with benchmarks that are not made to test the performance of the storage subset. AnandTech and Storage Review's negative verdict on RAID 0 in the desktop environment will likely have a profound influence on the opinions of uninformed users for years to come. A sure loss, since their verdict couldn't stand up to trial."

Ive run RAID arrays before, and the difference in speed is very noticable when I edit video or audio. The system feels smoother because there are no "hiccups" while multitasking with multiple files. The article I linked to is very well written and should hopefully convince power users to switch to RAID.

 

[boomerang]

Here's an answer to your question without all the crap that goes on here concerning RAID.

You cannot just add a drive to create a RAID 0 array. You are going to lose everything on that drive. As was said earlier by Jojo7 you could create an image of your existing drive, create your array in the RAID conrollers BIOS and copy your image back to the array.

You would need a third drive to do this. I, personally, have had bad results with Ghost, but others here swear by it. Myself, I use Acronis.

You don't have to zero the drives. You don't even have to format the drives. The ceation of the array will make the drives unbootable. You can both partition if desired and format from within the Windows installation.

It's your rig and if you want to run RAID, you should run RAID. It's as simple as that.

I'm tired of folks asking RAID related questions here and getting slammed because certain individuals for whatever their reasons think it's just the wrong thing to do.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Actually you might have better AV editing performance from 2 separate drives if you keep the source files on one and output files on the second.

Interesting article, but their use secnarios don't apply to the typical user as well as the AnandTech article does.

It's like a dual-core CPU: some people can really benefit, but most gamers are better off spending the same money on a faster single core or 2 un-RAIDed drives, especially since the chance of losing all data in RAID0 is almost doubled.

(And their subjective results shouldn't be taken very seriously -- some people will say their speakers sound better with $100/foot speaker cable too. They don't.)

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Actually you might have better AV editing performance from 2 separate drives if you keep the source files on one and output files on the second.

Interesting article, but their use secnarios don't apply to the typical user as well as the AnandTech article does.

It's like a dual-core CPU: some people can really benefit, but most gamers are better off spending the same money on a faster single core or 2 un-RAIDed drives, especially since the chance of losing all data in RAID0 is almost doubled.

(And their subjective results shouldn't be taken very seriously -- some people will say their speakers sound better with $100/foot speaker cable too. They don't.)

I see your points, depending on usage some people benefit, some dont. I think Anand's article was to definitive, saying that there is no reason to run RAID on the desktop.

Ive lost data running a RAID array before, and Ive lost data without a RAID array. I did suffer hard crashes more often running RAID, and I killed more drives, My guess is they werent able to handle the stress I was putting them under, nor the heat in my admittidly poorly cooled case I had. Im in between RAID setups right now, but I am now in the good habit of backing things up regularly. Warnings of RAID-0 failures are true.

I noticed an increase in speed with Cool Edit back in the day with my RAID array. It wasnt purely subjective, because I could see in time how long it took to load certain sized files (over a GB back when 256MB of RAM was common), or how long it took to process them with filters (the HD was the bottleneck and not the CPU for alot of that). I noticed an increase when I went to a 3 drive array and yet another with my 4 drive array.

Also worth noting from the link I posted was the difference you would see with a "real" RAID device instead of the ones tested by Anand. I used onboard RAID, and when I moved up to the Adaptec 2400A I saw a huge difference with the same drives.

Worth noting, I did not see much of a difference in gaming, I loaded maps faster than others in online games, but Im sure more RAM would have made a bigger difference.

My point then, is that RAID does have its benefits for some people. Its not a magic cure-all, but it certainly isnt as useless as alot of people here try to make it seem.

 

[twitchee2]

look at the brigth side...you have a really fast storeage drive