Raid 0 Fragments -

[jimmyj68]

I'm running two Hitachi 80Gig drives in a raid 0 array. I have an add-on defrag program from executive software that I planned on using about every month or so depending on how much junk I loaded and unloaded from my drives. Now I find that my raid array drive "c" is severely fragmented every few days. I'm Running the generic Intel raid driver that came with the Intel motherboard (kept updated). is raid striping inherently fragmenting of the data by dividing it up between two drives?

 

[corkyg]

Why are you running RAID 0 with 2 drives? You are very vulnerable to any failure on either drive. If that happens - you lose it all.

I use RAID 0 but only because I have one drive and it is a necessity to use SATA. If I had two drives it would for sure be RAID 1 (mirroring.)

Anyway - with RAID 0, I notice no undue fragmentation. The main culprits for that are temp Internet files and logs.

 

[nick1985]

prepare to be Raid ZerOWNED!

 

[imported_Tick]

Firstly, it doesn't matter if your array is fragmented. Secondly, WTF are you doing with RAID 0?

 

[stevty2889]

Raid-0 aka striping..half the file goes to one drive, half the file goes to the other drive..thats how raid-0 works..so I would imagine that it's gonna look fragmented..

And cokyg, where did you get the idea that raid-0 was neccessary for SATA? It's not, and how do you do raid 0 with a single drive anyway?? Raid-0 takes 2 or more drives and splits the data between them..

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Raid-0 aka striping..half the file goes to one drive, half the file goes to the other drive..thats how raid-0 works..so I would imagine that it's gonna look fragmented..

And cokyg, where did you get the idea that raid-0 was neccessary for SATA? It's not, and how do you do raid 0 with a single drive anyway?? Raid-0 takes 2 or more drives and splits the data between them..

I was to lazy to bother caring about the fact that he made no sense.

 

[jimmyj68]

You know folks - I've been warned a number of times about the risk of raid 0. I didn't listen and did it anyway. Now of course, it's too late I'd have to scrap everything to start over and then I would have more drives than I need. I have a backup wd 80 gig on ide for important stuff (my downloaded music) everything else on my "c" raid drive is either expendable or easily replaced.

I'm gonna replace my DVD Rom drive tmorrow, maybe I'll bite the bullet and do a clean rebuild of XP. Maybe ----- maaybe,,,,,,,,,,, I scuttled the idea of an upgrade now so I'll keep my 865PE Intel board and 3.2 Prescott until next Spring, then I'll go for a new board, and memory, and video card so I can get a dual core pentium (I know - I know, maybe AMD would be a better idea, but I'm a diehard Intel user) and winXP 64.

Thanks to all for your input.

 

[GamerExpress]

Originally posted by: nick1985
prepare to be Raid ZerOWNED!

He likes this saying I think.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: stevty2889

And corkyg, where did you get the idea that raid-0 was neccessary for SATA? It's not, and how do you do raid 0 with a single drive anyway?? Raid-0 takes 2 or more drives and splits the data between them..

That is peculiar to my motherboard. The SATA ports are linked to RAID in the BIOS - they won't work without RAID. (Asus P4PE) Believe me - I have tried. But with a single drive- it really makes no difference.

I suppose I could disable the mobo ports and install a 3rd party PCI card - but why. The SATA drive is used for data only and it works this way.