RAID 0 config

[R Popovich]

Looking for a valid RAID 0 config:
Hardware: Intel D865PERL MB; 80GB IDE for OS; 2-SATA
80GB in RAID 0 for data; 1GB PC3200 dual ch SDRAM/ sys
memory.

Software: Windows 2000 Pro/SP4; Intel application
accel RAID edt. 3.5; FAT 32 file system
After initial assembly and OS setup, loaded and
implemented Intel RAID. W2K Disk Management showed a
basic 157 GB dynamic volume which failed to format due to
size limits on FAT 32. Can I split up the two SATA drives
and make 2 smaller RAID 0 dynamic drives or am I forced to
use NTFS which is slightly slower. Using this computer
for real-time music recording and processing.

 

[Joep]

Looking for a valid RAID 0 config:
Hardware: Intel D865PERL MB; 80GB IDE for OS; 2-SATA
80GB in RAID 0 for data; 1GB PC3200 dual ch SDRAM/ sys
memory.

Software: Windows 2000 Pro/SP4; Intel application
accel RAID edt. 3.5; FAT 32 file system
After initial assembly and OS setup, loaded and
implemented Intel RAID. W2K Disk Management showed a
basic 157 GB dynamic volume which failed to format due to
size limits on FAT 32. Can I split up the two SATA drives
and make 2 smaller RAID 0 dynamic drives or am I forced to
use NTFS which is slightly slower. Using this computer
for real-time music recording and processing.

Okay, and now *what* is that you want from this group?

 

[Bjorn Landemoo]

R

If you can access your RAID 0 from another operating system, or partition
management software, you can create FAT32 partitions larger than 32GB.
Partition Magic, perhaps?

Best regards

Bjorn

 

[Phil Barila]

Looking for a valid RAID 0 config:
Hardware: Intel D865PERL MB; 80GB IDE for OS; 2-SATA
80GB in RAID 0 for data; 1GB PC3200 dual ch SDRAM/ sys
memory.

Sounds like a valid config. What's your question? You need to be aware
that you have no fault tolerance on your data. If either drive fails,
you've lost everything, so back it up.

Software: Windows 2000 Pro/SP4; Intel application
accel RAID edt. 3.5; FAT 32 file system
After initial assembly and OS setup, loaded and
implemented Intel RAID. W2K Disk Management showed a
basic 157 GB dynamic volume which failed to format due to
size limits on FAT 32. Can I split up the two SATA drives
and make 2 smaller RAID 0 dynamic drives or am I forced to
use NTFS which is slightly slower. Using this computer
for real-time music recording and processing.

Why FAT32? As you discovered, you can't format a FAT32 > 32 GB with Windows
2000 or XP. You can format it with Win98 / Win Me, and probably 3rd party
tools. Once it's formatted, Windows 2000 will work with it quite well, with
the exception that FAT32 has a 2 GB file size limit. You can't work around
that, so if your media files get bigger than that, you will have to break
them up. But what is the need for going to all that trouble?

You state that NTFS is "slightly slower". Do you have a workload analysis
that shows that FAT32 can provide sufficient bandwidth, but NTFS can't? Or
do you think "faster is better", regardless of the side effects? If that's
your thinking, FAT16 is even faster, though it only holds 2 GB per volume,
so you'll run out of drive letters really fast. If you do have data showing
that your bandwidth requirements exceed what NTFS on your hardware can
handle, but not FAT32, you are too close to the margin with FAT32, and
you'lll end up getting intermittent failures, anyway, and you need to
seriously consider more capable hardware.

Phil
--
Philip D. Barila Windows DDK MVP
Seagate Technology, LLC
(720) 684-1842
As if I need to say it: Not speaking for Seagate.
E-mail address is pointed at a domain squatter. Use reply-to instead.