Vista does not support RAID or Volume Striping

[Leythos]

What the hell is the point of having your data on RAID-0 and NOT the OS?
Are you really thick or what?

Stability - if you want to computer to still run with that increase
chance of failure, when a single drive fails, the OS will be fine and
the computer will still be operational. The data (RAID-0) can be
restored to a single drive or a replacement drive installed and the data
restored.

So, the computer still boots, works, runs fine, and you can either
restore your DATA to a single drive (if one of them still works from the
RAID-0 array) and keep working or you can replace the defective drive...

Most apps, like Photoshop allow for CACHE and SWAP drive configuration -
to that means you can make use of the faster RAID-0 for your WORK
without having to risk the loss of the application and without
performance hit - since loading an app is mostly reads.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

And on 4 different machines I get 5.9 on the drive performance, with low
end motherboard RAID-1 controllers using Dual SATA-I drives, same with
SATA-II drives.

You get 5.9 using RAID-1? What drives are you using? I would have to say
that I think you are lying. In any case, what is your point in this reply?

Now, if you were talking about some application that really shines with
RAID-0, the proper configuration would be OS on RAID-1, DATA for
application on RAID-0, backup RAID-0 to some storage area as needed.

Leythos, I have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot.

ss.

 

[Leythos]

You get 5.9 using RAID-1? What drives are you using? I would have to say
that I think you are lying. In any case, what is your point in this reply?

Standard Seagate SATA-1 or SATA-2 drives or even Western Digital drives,
using the Motherboard RAID controller. I also get 5.8-5.9 on single
drive systems that are well built.

Maybe you might want to consider that you don't know all about hardware
that you think you do.

Leythos, I have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot.

And yet you can't prove anything I've said it wrong.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

Stability - if you want to computer to still run with that increase
chance of failure, when a single drive fails, the OS will be fine and
the computer will still be operational.

You are saying that the data should be kept on RAID-0? While I thank you
for the chuckle, could you explain why?

The data (RAID-0) can be
restored to a single drive or a replacement drive installed and the data
restored.

How is this data going to be restored in any way that is different to any
non-RAID situation? What does this sentence of yours actually mean?

So, the computer still boots, works, runs fine, and you can either
restore your DATA to a single drive (if one of them still works from the
RAID-0 array) and keep working or you can replace the defective drive...

Why? Why is the data on this RAID-0 array? There is only any reason to put
the OS, pagefile, application files, temp folder, and _large_ working files
on a RAID-0 array. The OS can always be restored from an image file, or, if
speed of getting back up and running is not so important, the loss of the OS
and applications is not a big problem, as these things can be reinstalled.

Most apps, like Photoshop allow for CACHE and SWAP drive configuration -
to that means you can make use of the faster RAID-0 for your WORK
without having to risk the loss of the application and without
performance hit - since loading an app is mostly reads.

Yes, I know this, as Photoshop is one of the apps I use most as an
architect. I am also a CAD consultant that deals with high-end
workstations, and the best way to use them in a working environment.

You have a serious misunderstanding of RAID, and obviously you cannot see
it.

ss.

 

[Leythos]

You are saying that the data should be kept on RAID-0? While I thank you
for the chuckle, could you explain why?

No, I'm saying that if you need to work, that loading apps gains little
benefit, but the data that you use benefits from RAID-0, but you need to
ensure that you have good backups.

How is this data going to be restored in any way that is different to any
non-RAID situation? What does this sentence of yours actually mean?

It means that if you RAID-0 your entire system or RAID-0 your OS and you
have a drive failure you can't do crap, the system is down until you
repair it.

If you have only the DATA on the RAID-0, you can use the computer with a
single drive of the RAID-0, after you copy the data back to it. If your
OS is on RAID-0 and a drive fails, it's time to stop working.

Why? Why is the data on this RAID-0 array? There is only any reason to put
the OS, pagefile, application files, temp folder, and _large_ working files
on a RAID-0 array. The OS can always be restored from an image file, or, if
speed of getting back up and running is not so important, the loss of the OS
and applications is not a big problem, as these things can be reinstalled.

But the OS doesn't really benefit from RAID-0 for most users - the data
they use does benefit from RAID-0 in many cases, but once MS Word is
loaded there is little benefit of RAID-0 over RAID-1 since they both
have good READ rates.

Yes, I know this, as Photoshop is one of the apps I use most as an
architect. I am also a CAD consultant that deals with high-end
workstations, and the best way to use them in a working environment.

You have a serious misunderstanding of RAID, and obviously you cannot see
it.

No, you just don't know how to setup a computer with RAID.

If you use PS and AutoCAD and you really know anything about them, you
would know that putting the "Application" files on a RAID-1 or RAID-0
has little impact on their performance. Putting their Cache, temp files,
data files, on a RAID-0 is where you get the performance.

So, you can have a stable system with RAID-1 for the OS or everything,
or you can risk total loss at a might higher failure rate with RAID-0.

Most people here don't have an IT department to come to their rescue,
RAID-0 just means that they will have twice the opportunity for system
loss and data loss, it's that simple.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[dennis@home]

Not a chance, you don't understand failure statistics, you don't
understand RAID.


No, the array will go down with the entire PC and 99% of the time
nothing will be wrong when you boot back up - not to mention that the
array will rebuild itself if there is an issue.


We're in a Windows VISTA News group, we've been talking about RAID as it
relates to users, we've not been talking about systems with multiple
raid controllers or high-end controllers, we're talking about what
people that visit this group might use/find.


Yea, go read your posts again.


Yes, I can, without knowing the application, because it holds completely
true for the scenario I stated above.

Sounds like we will just have to disagree. ;-)

 

[dennis@home]

What I understand is both you and Dennis are two of the biggest
crybabies and pompous jerks I've seen post in any newsgroup in years.
What's so damn funny to me is NEITHER of you buffoons know a damn
thing, but you both keep trying so hard to pretend.

You two have been more fun to watch hitting each other over the head
than watching two monkey fighting over the same banana.

Give us a break and take it to email.

Give us a break and take your pills.

 

[Leythos]

Sounds like we will just have to disagree. ;-)

Works for me.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <#[email protected]> "Synapse Syndrome"

You get 5.9 using RAID-1? What drives are you using? I would have to say
that I think you are lying. In any case, what is your point in this reply?

That actually sounds pretty reasonable, I'm seeing a 5.7 on a single
Seagate 320GB on my desktop. The same drive (I've got four right now)
only scores a 5.2 on an older P4 I have kicking around, I chalk up the
difference to the controllers as the drives are identical, right down to
the date code.

A couple of 750GBs in a RAID-1 array would be substantially faster.

For those playing the home game, the average seek times and rotational
speed of the 320GB and the 750GB are the same. Due to the higher
density of the 750GB, the read speed is actually substantially faster.

Seek times will tend to be faster too if you have the same amount of
data on the drive, since a full 320GB drive would only be using the
fastest 42% of the 750GB drive. In other words, all other factors
remaining the same, larger drives really are faster.

So, if I'm scoring a 5.7 on a single drive without an array, going up to
5.8 or 5.9 with a RAID-0 or RAID-1 array and substantially higher
densities is not unreasonable.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]>

26 hours is quite quick.

26 hours is quick to write 1.3TB of data? That's only 15MB/s, which is
far lower then what most controllers can handle under normal
circumstances. Continuing to serve read/write requests is typically the
only reason it even takes that long.

But it doesn't start untill after you have fitted a new drive (unless you
have hot standbys).
So that adds another 24 hours to it and doubles the chances of the array
failing due to a second fault.

It most definitely does not double the chance of an array failing, we're
dealing with odds of two separate drive failures within 48 hours of each
other (allowing 24 hours to obtain and install a replacement, and 24
more for recovery -- The first is a substantial over estimate in my real
life experience, the second is reasonable in my deal life experience)

The way I see it, there are two possibilities (assuming RAID-1, -10,
-01, or -5)

1) Without RAID, any drive failure is guaranteed downtime from the point
of the failure until the drive is replaced *and* the data is restored
from a backup.

2) With RAID, no single drive failure causes any downtime, so there are
good odds that users won't even notice. It takes at least TWO failures
in a short period of time to cause downtime, at which time the array is
down until the drives are replaced *and* the data is restored.

#1 Guarantees downtime in the event of a drive failure, while #2 makes
no promises you won't have downtime, it gives you reasonable odds.

Maybe I'm weird, but I'll choose uncertain downtime over guaranteed
downtime any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Synapse Syndrome"

What the hell is the point of having your data on RAID-0 and NOT the OS?
Are you really thick or what?

The OS is more or less cached, and once applications are loaded, most
apps don't hit the disk that often anyway.

Consider a really simple case, unzipping a 4.7GB DVD ISO. Where do you
think most of your disk hits will be, loading the unzip routines (which
might already be cached, if you're unzipping several in a row) or
reading 4.7GB of ZIP and writing 4.7GB of ISO?

Around here, we use RAID-0 for data, since you get blazing read and
write speeds, so the ultimate performance is wanted. RAID-1 is more
suited for OS and applications which are written once and read many
times.

RAID-5 is great for backups, and journals, so that the data on the
RAID-0 array can be recovered should it die, since performance is less
important then cost when it comes to disaster planning.

Not everyone will see it this way, but it works well for us.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <#[email protected]> "Synapse Syndrome"

Not necessarily only a 11% benchmark improvement, as 5.9 is the highest
current possible score. I get 5.9 with twin Raptors in RAID-0, and you get
the same score, at the moment, with a 5 disk Ultra-320 SCSI array, for
example.

Which Raptor drives?

 

[dennis@home]

In message <[email protected]>


26 hours is quick to write 1.3TB of data? That's only 15MB/s, which is
far lower then what most controllers can handle under normal
circumstances. Continuing to serve read/write requests is typically the
only reason it even takes that long.


It most definitely does not double the chance of an array failing, we're
dealing with odds of two separate drive failures within 48 hours of each
other (allowing 24 hours to obtain and install a replacement, and 24
more for recovery -- The first is a substantial over estimate in my real
life experience, the second is reasonable in my deal life experience)

Doubling the repair + rebild time most definitely does double the chances of
the array failing.

If it didn't you wouldn't need to repair it.

 

[Leythos]

Doubling the repair + rebild time most definitely does double the chances of
the array failing.

If it didn't you wouldn't need to repair it.

Double is the wrong value, yes, failure chance is increased, but double
would not be accurate.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[dennis@home]

Double is the wrong value, yes, failure chance is increased, but double
would not be accurate.

That depends on where in the time line you start.
It certainly doubles it from the moment of the first fault.

 

[Adam Albright]

That depends on where in the time line you start.
It certainly doubles it from the moment of the first fault.

I though you two kissed and made up?

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]>

Doubling the repair + rebild time most definitely does double the chances of
the array failing.

If it didn't you wouldn't need to repair it.

Lets skip the whole "double" argument, because it's moot.

Without RAID, you are guaranteed downtime when a drive fails. With
RAID, you may or may not have downtime when a drive fails.

See the difference?

 

[Frank]

I though you two kissed and made up?

Are you lonely or what mr prius?
Frank

 

[Leythos]

In message <[email protected]>


Lets skip the whole "double" argument, because it's moot.

Without RAID, you are guaranteed downtime when a drive fails. With
RAID, you may or may not have downtime when a drive fails.

See the difference?

Actually, WITHOUT RAID at all or WITH RAID-0 you are guaranteed downtime
when a drive fails, any drive, and it will happen.

With RAID 1, 1+0, 5, 6 you are going to live through a single drive
failure without data loss.

See the difference?

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[dennis@home]

In message <[email protected]>


Lets skip the whole "double" argument, because it's moot.

Without RAID, you are guaranteed downtime when a drive fails. With
RAID, you may or may not have downtime when a drive fails.

See the difference?

Why can't you?
BTW it depends on what is on the drive whether you suffer down time as well
as the hardware connectivity but we won't go into that here.