Raid 0 and dual boot setup - opinions?

[dc]

Have just received my new Dell 9200.

It comes with two 250gb hdd's set up as a raid 0.

I am looking to set up a dual boot system with Windows XP and Linux,
probably Ubuntu. As more of a software type person I didn't have a
total grasp of what raid 0 was when I ordered the machine. Consequently
I've done some research and I can see now why Partition Magic 8.0 won't
recognise the two physical drives as separate entities!

So my question is this, if I want a dual boot system is it better to
keep the raid and partition accordingly for a dual boot system, or
should I lose the raid and have 1 disk for linux and 1 for windows xp.
Would this noticably impact performance? Any opinions and advice very
welcome.

btw its a core 2 duo system 2.13GHz, 3G RAM.

Thanks in advance

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Have just received my new Dell 9200.

It comes with two 250gb hdd's set up as a raid 0.

I am looking to set up a dual boot system with Windows XP and Linux,
probably Ubuntu. As more of a software type person I didn't have a
total grasp of what raid 0 was when I ordered the machine. Consequently
I've done some research and I can see now why Partition Magic 8.0 won't
recognise the two physical drives as separate entities!

So my question is this, if I want a dual boot system is it better to
keep the raid and partition accordingly for a dual boot system, or
should I lose the raid and have 1 disk for linux and 1 for windows xp.

Would this noticably impact performance?

Didn't you just say that you did some research on RAID0?

 

[dc]

Didn't you just say that you did some research on RAID0?

Does anyone have an opinion about the performance impact of removing
the raid?

All genuine advice/opinions gratefully received.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Have just received my new Dell 9200.

It comes with two 250gb hdd's set up as a raid 0.

I am looking to set up a dual boot system with Windows XP and Linux,
probably Ubuntu. As more of a software type person I didn't have a
total grasp of what raid 0 was when I ordered the machine. Consequently
I've done some research and I can see now why Partition Magic 8.0 won't
recognise the two physical drives as separate entities!

So my question is this, if I want a dual boot system is it better to
keep the raid and partition accordingly for a dual boot system, or
should I lose the raid and have 1 disk for linux and 1 for windows xp.
Would this noticably impact performance? Any opinions and advice very
welcome.

btw its a core 2 duo system 2.13GHz, 3G RAM.

Thanks in advance

The speed impace of RAID0 is not that great, unless you work a lot
with large files. I would advise you to go to non-raided
drives in any case, since a RAID 0 just has about twice the
failure probability than each single disk. And if you keep
important stuff on both disks the RAID 0 looks far, far worse
with regard to reliability.

You don't need to put Windows and Linux on separate disks.
Just put all Windows partitions before the Linux partitions.
It used to be the case that windows stopped searching for more
partitions after finding the first logical it could not identify.
I have a system with a partitioning similar to the following.
This works perfectly fine:


Disk /dev/hda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 1 10 80324+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 * 11 764 6056505 b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda3 765 19457 150151522+ f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/hda5 766 1355 4739175 b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda6 1356 2329 7823654+ b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda7 2330 4221 15197489+ b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda8 4222 6112 15189457 b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda9 6113 6431 2562367 83 Linux
/dev/hda10 6432 6686 2048287 83 Linux
/dev/hda11 6687 7133 3590527 83 Linux
/dev/hda12 7134 19457 98992529+ 83 Linux



The kernels and Grub configuration are on /dev/hda1, since
there was a problem with the BIOS required booting from
the first 500MB. I don't know whether that is still the case,
but why change a working set-up...

You can do a smililar set-up for the second disk.

Arno

 

[dc]

The speed impace of RAID0 is not that great, unless you work a lot
with large files. I would advise you to go to non-raided
drives in any case, since a RAID 0 just has about twice the
failure probability than each single disk. And if you keep
important stuff on both disks the RAID 0 looks far, far worse
with regard to reliability.

You don't need to put Windows and Linux on separate disks.
Just put all Windows partitions before the Linux partitions.
It used to be the case that windows stopped searching for more
partitions after finding the first logical it could not identify.
I have a system with a partitioning similar to the following.
This works perfectly fine:


Disk /dev/hda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 1 10 80324+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 * 11 764 6056505 b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda3 765 19457 150151522+ f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/hda5 766 1355 4739175 b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda6 1356 2329 7823654+ b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda7 2330 4221 15197489+ b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda8 4222 6112 15189457 b W95 FAT32
/dev/hda9 6113 6431 2562367 83 Linux
/dev/hda10 6432 6686 2048287 83 Linux
/dev/hda11 6687 7133 3590527 83 Linux
/dev/hda12 7134 19457 98992529+ 83 Linux



The kernels and Grub configuration are on /dev/hda1, since
there was a problem with the BIOS required booting from
the first 500MB. I don't know whether that is still the case,
but why change a working set-up...

You can do a smililar set-up for the second disk.

Arno

Arno, thanks very much for a sensible reply!

I think I will dispense with the raid as suggested.

I'm looking forward to joining the Linux community....

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Which says absolutely nothing.
Obviously, when a drive dies you are toast in both cases.
The difference is that with 2 drives you only loose the data
on one drive.

Arno, thanks very much for a sensible reply!

Actually, when you have to ask, you don't really know what a sensible
reply is.

I think I will dispense with the raid as suggested.

Actually, he suggested RAID1, but hey.

 

[dc]

Which says absolutely nothing.
Obviously, when a drive dies you are toast in both cases.
The difference is that with 2 drives you only loose the data
on one drive.



Actually, when you have to ask, you don't really know what a sensible
reply is.


Actually, he suggested RAID1, but hey.

Falkirk thanks for your reply.
One of your kinder postings I see.
Lets not get into an argument ok?
Kindness to others is a gift beyond giving.
Even if they are nasty to you.
Replying in a sarcastic fashion is not required.
That only signifies immaturity.

I hope you can see the truth in this.
So perhaps in future you are less bitter towards others.

A change is required.

Won't you try and be a nicer person online?
After all, we are all on this planet together.
Needless animosity serves no purpose.
Know thyself.
Eventually you will understand.
Rest in peace.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Arno, thanks very much for a sensible reply!

You are welcome.

I think I will dispense with the raid as suggested.

I'm looking forward to joining the Linux community....

Good decision. It will require some learning, but I believe
it it worth the effort.

Arno