• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

RAID0 setup, partitioning?

RMSe17

RMSe17

Member
I got a question regarding RAID0 partitioning


By the way RAID0 works, each file is split between 2 drives, correct? If I have 2 120Gb drives, and I split resulting 240Gb array into 2, having 2 120Gb partitions, is the partitioning/raid controller smart enough to split each 120Gb partition into 2 parts, 60Gb on one drive, and 60Gb on another? Or would it slap one 120Gb partition on the first 120Gb drive, and another on the second 120Gb drive, thereby making file splitting impossible, since now each drive in the array has it's own partition, and so each file will not be split between two hard drive, but sit on one of the drives?

From my understanding, in order for RAID0 to work properly, each of the two 120Gb partitions has to be split equally between the two 120Gb drives, so each partition is half on one drive, half on the other...

Or did I not understand how RAID0 works?

Thanks,
RMSe17
 
Well, seeing as no one knew, I tried both out, and ran sandra drive benchamrking tests on both. Found that there is no difference between partitioned and unpartitioned drives, and also found that my WD120Gb unraided gets 36Mb/s average transfer rate, while my 2 identical WD120Gb drives in a RAID0 array get only 43Mb/s average transfer. I thought RAID0 was supposed to be much faster? I am using ASUS P4P800 Delux with VIA RAID controller .

 
Raid0 is not much faster. Thats why most people do not recommend it. As for the paritions, I think partitions technically hurt some of the performance gains, but I doubt in real use there will be a notice.

Basically Raid0 is barely faster than no raid and partitions on raid0 barely hurt performance. In the end its not going to really matter. IMO
 
Yea, there was a minor performance loss of like 1Mb/s or less
and, infact, partitions or no partitions, but the seek time went up to 13ms from 7.x
If I raid them, then my WinXP and my HL2 will end up being on the same raid array, I think I might get faster results by just haveing them as separate drives, and shoving WinXP on one, and HL2 on another drive....
 
Originally posted by: Twsmit
Raid0 is not much faster. Thats why most people do not recommend it. As for the paritions, I think partitions technically hurt some of the performance gains, but I doubt in real use there will be a notice.

Basically Raid0 is barely faster than no raid and partitions on raid0 barely hurt performance. In the end its not going to really matter. IMO
Click to expand...

Wrong. Don't give advice if you don't know the truth. RAID 0 is much faster than non-RAID, especially in situations where the disk access is sequential and/or at bulk transfers. Crap-ass RAID 0 using cheapo onboard RAID controllers, like on gamer-oriented motherboards, is guaranteed to give crappy results. You also risk lots of failures by going with cheapo RAID.

Whether you think so or not, partitions have nothing to do with it.
 
RAID is for configuring drives. Partitioning is for organizing them. If you want to put your docs of a different drive than your OS, and your music on another, then partition. If not, then don't. And RAID0 performance differs a lot depending on what drives you have, and what you are using as a RAID controller.
Tas.
 
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Twsmit
Raid0 is not much faster. Thats why most people do not recommend it. As for the paritions, I think partitions technically hurt some of the performance gains, but I doubt in real use there will be a notice.

Basically Raid0 is barely faster than no raid and partitions on raid0 barely hurt performance. In the end its not going to really matter. IMO
Click to expand...

Wrong. Don't give advice if you don't know the truth. RAID 0 is much faster than non-RAID, especially in situations where the disk access is sequential and/or at bulk transfers. Crap-ass RAID 0 using cheapo onboard RAID controllers, like on gamer-oriented motherboards, is guaranteed to give crappy results. You also risk lots of failures by going with cheapo RAID.

Whether you think so or not, partitions have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...




I ran Raid-0 for about a year, it was an onboard solution, the mobo was an Abit BD7II-Raid, but I doubt he will be using a server Raid controller, so the comparision is accurate.

Everything I have read shows very little benefits outside of synthetic tests and like you said "mass transfers" etc... Day in and day out, there will be few benefits.

As for the partitions correct me if I am wrong, but I was told quite recently that seek times are raised when drives are partitioned. (maybe it was just bad advise)



But bottom line for the guy who started the thread. You can do Raid-0 with partitions, but really on an everyday basis raid-0 is not going to be much faster if at all than 2 independent drives.
 
Don't partition!

Use logical drives instead if you MUST have different volumes.

This may not be supported by your HBA, however.
 
A logical drive and a partition will amount to the same thing - the splitting of a physical volume into defined areas.

Seek times are only raised if you are reading from one partition and the other pretty much concurrently. If you have to worry about it that much though, you haven't thought out why you are partitioning in the first place.

FWIW, if I were to go the raid0 route in the above scenario (and I wouldn't, due to increased risk etc), I would make a small partition say 10gb for OS and some software and give the rest to one partition for data, game installs etc. That would suit my situation.

Your mileage may vary.
 
A logical drive and a partition will amount to the same thing - the splitting of a physical volume into defined areas.
Click to expand...

No they are completely different things on the right *hardware* HBA. This need not apply to the mainstream though.
 
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Wrong. Don't give advice if you don't know the truth. RAID 0 is much faster than non-RAID
Click to expand...

Maybe you should follow your own advice. There are no real world performance gains from using RAID-0.
Click to expand...

<bzzzt> You're both wrong. 😛

There can be huge real-world performance gains from RAID0. Now, is the average home user going to see them? Probably not (except when doing things like copying a big file from one drive to another, or encoding/editing huge video files). Seek time dominates the usage patterns of your average desktop system, not STR.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again!

RAID0 has a place. Problem is 99% of the time it is improperly implemented in an application and the user deems it useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top