Raid '0'

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

snakeman4066

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
37
running Gigabyte mobo Athalon 64 3800 2 G dual channel Ram winXP Pro ser pak 2

I have 37G 10k rpm WD drive as C drive... have 160G as data drive.... thought about getting another 10k rpm drive and set up RAID 0 config for speed... have a couple of questions

-can I just install another 10K drive and select the RAID functions on the mobo re boot and presto chango it happens ??

OR

-do I have to select that option at initial Operating system load...meaning I would have to reload the operating system

does the 2nd disc in the RAID array have to be 37G... can it be 74G??

thanx... hope you have a great Holiday:p
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
21,334
It has to be the same size or larger. There really isn't going to be much of a noticable speed increase and if one drive goes down and you have no backup you are outta luck. If the drive isn't the same size it won't be as efficient, but it will work.
 

SirKenin

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
964
There is a great review on Storage Review backed up by Anandtech about the effectiveness of Raid 0. Basically it sums up as this. There is no noticeable difference between the two, it is unreliable and not worth your wasted time. Anybody that tells you it is faster is only experiencing a placebo effect. The facts state differently. Look the review up. It's good reading.
 

snakeman4066

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
37
is RAID only useful in mission critical apps fault tollerent ... cause none of my apps on this machine qualify... am purely in search of S P E E D...
 

SirKenin

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
964
RAID 5 is excellent for mission critical applications because of the redundancy. RAID 1 mirrors, so it isn't too bad in a home office/small business application. RAID 0 is just pretty much useless.
 

crjdriver

Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Messages
44,642
Agreed; raid0 is not really worth the effort. I have setup many raid0 systems and yes you do see better benchmarks; however in real world apps there is no difference. As an example I built a system for a friend of my son's using two WD sata drives in raid0. The system was the same as mine; nforce4 3500+ 1 gig of ram. There was no noticeable difference between the two systems as far as speed, opening apps, etc.

If you really want to go raid, I always recommend against using the onboard controller. It is just a lite version of a real raid card. If you want raid, buy a real raid card like a promise, adaptec, or highpoint card.
 

snakeman4066

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
37
thanx muchly... i think you just saved me some work... i am purely looking for speed on app opening ...and processing....thought that may be an avenue.. any thoughts on improvements over Gigabyte mob Athalon 64 3800 2G dual channel Ram with 37G 10K as C and big WD as data drive.... a good (not great) vid card...not a gamer
 

crjdriver

Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Messages
44,642
I think that should be fast enough. I am not a gigabyte fan so I would go with another mb like an abit, asus or epox. I would make sure you run an nforce4 ultra chipset board rather than a via based mb; less problems and easier to setup.
 

SirKenin

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
964
And VIA based boards are dogs. Look at the benchmarks. VIA is ALWAYS lagging behind the pack. They always get smoked by Intel and nVIDIA.
 

crjdriver

Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Messages
44,642
Benchmarks mean nothing. It is real world use and stability that matter. Via boards are just more temperamental and take more time to setup. It is hard to beat the unified driver concept of nvidia.

Before the nforce4 chipset, it was a little closer since the nf2 had some real problems with memory and bios corruption. Since the introduction of the nf4, it is no contest.
 

JohnWill

Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
106,728
I'll have to disagree that RAID-0 is not beneficial. I have an ABIT board in this system with RAID-0, and the difference in real world copy operations, I see a significant improvement in speed. If you're going to have two disks anyway, and you have a MB that supports RAID, might as well use it. :)
 

snakeman4066

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
37
John have you ever lost a drive and thus allllllll data ?... Do I have to reload operating system and everything from the get go ??... if that is the case then will get Asus mob with Athlon twin core 3800 + 4 Gig dual channel ram and twin 74G 10k rpm drives + one 300(or so) Gig data drive...
 

SirKenin

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
964
I'm not John, but I lost a RAID 0 array once, not surprisingly on an AMD system. If you lose that array for ANY reason, you're screwed. You just lost everything and you have to start from scratch.

You won't see any performance increase like the reviews and benchmarks say, so don't waste your time and needlessly risk your data.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Top