raid options

[smokiibear]

I have an installation currently using a 10K Raptor, which is going
bad. I keep all my data on a second hardrive. I'm considering a raid
option for os and program files only.

I have a Norton Ghost image of my current setup. Can I recover this
image directly to a raid setup? What raid is best? Should I consider
something different?

Thanks.

Also...what is perpendicular recording technology and how is it useful?

 

[Frank McCoy]

I have an installation currently using a 10K Raptor, which is going
bad. I keep all my data on a second hardrive. I'm considering a raid
option for os and program files only.

I have a Norton Ghost image of my current setup. Can I recover this
image directly to a raid setup? What raid is best? Should I consider
something different?

FIRST recover the data to a good working drive.
THEN worry about RAID methods of safeguarding the data.

Thanks.

Also...what is perpendicular recording technology and how is it useful?

Only useful to the people making disk drives.
Don't concern yourself with the technology.
If a new drive uses it or not, it will still appear the same to YOU.

 

[peter]

perpendicular recording tech.........aligns the magnetic particles that
make up the info in this manner......iiiii
normal HD tech records in a longtitudal manner....___ __ ___ ___

peter

 

[Rebecca]

FIRST recover the data to a good working drive.
THEN worry about RAID methods of safeguarding the data.

Translated: I don't know how to answer, or comprehend, your question, but
I'll attempt to belittle you anyway.

 

[John Weiss]

I have an installation currently using a 10K Raptor, which is going
bad. I keep all my data on a second hardrive. I'm considering a raid
option for os and program files only.

I have a Norton Ghost image of my current setup. Can I recover this
image directly to a raid setup? What raid is best? Should I consider
something different?

A pair of Raptors in RAID 1 would work nicely; that's what I have.

It depends on the RAID controller, but you SHOULD be able to do what you want.
Essentially, recover the Ghost image to a single HD. Add the second HD to the
system and tell the RAID controller to build the mirror. You MIGHT be able to
recover the image directly to a new RAID 1 pair. Check your controller docs
for specifics.

Also...what is perpendicular recording technology and how is it useful?

It aligns the magnetic media differently on the platter for greater data
density. In theory, greater density results in faster access. Seagate seems
to have pulled it off, too, with their 7200.10 series. However, platter
rotation speed is still a primary physical limitation...

 

[Frank McCoy]

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Rebecca"

Translated: I don't know how to answer, or comprehend, your question, but
I'll attempt to belittle you anyway.

Nope. Just VERY serious advice.
Once recovered, then I'd suggest looking at the various RAID and other
methods of either manual or automatic backup to safeguard data.

Me personally, I just use a copy utility to make periodic backups.
Mirroring, or RAID level one is not only handy, but easily implemented
on some motherboards.
If you can afford the extra drives and the logic, then RAID 5 gives the
best overall safety and reliability along with reasonable performance
.... again, in my opinion.

But the first method, doing periodic copies, is the cheapest and
easiest.

But FIRST recover the data to a good working drive while you still can.
That's what I would do; and as fast as humanly possible, before there
isn't any data to recover.

 

[Rebecca]

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Rebecca"

Nope. Just VERY serious advice.
Once recovered, <snip junk that has nothing to do with the OP>

Do you comprehend what this means at all?

OP: "I keep all my data on a second hardrive."

Yet, you go on about recovering data before the OP even thinks about
farting. Do yee how accurate my translation was now? ( <--- Rethorical
question. The answer is already known. )

 

[John Weiss]

Do you comprehend what this means at all?

OP: "I keep all my data on a second hardrive."

Yet, you go on about recovering data before the OP even thinks about farting.
Do yee how accurate my translation was now? ( <--- Rethorical question. The
answer is already known. )

In context of the question, I comprehend it as meaning the OP THINKS she keeps
all her data on another HD...

How much "data" in the way of application data is kept by default on the boot
drive? How many people know how much of what kind of data is stored there?
How much of it cannot be moved to another HD by the average home user?

 

[Rebecca]

In context of the question, I comprehend it as meaning the OP THINKS
she keeps all her data on another HD...

Why _assume_ the OP is stupid? Is the underlying reason you do that indicate
some deficiency of your own? I recognize Frank is deficient, are you too?

 

[John Weiss]

Why _assume_ the OP is stupid? Is the underlying reason you do that indicate
some deficiency of your own? I recognize Frank is deficient, are you too?

I don't assume the OP is stupid, just that she is an average user.

OTOH, I can now conclude beyond a shadow of doubt that you are nothing but an
irritating troll.

 

[chrisv]

I don't assume the OP is stupid, just that she is an average user.

OTOH, I can now conclude beyond a shadow of doubt that you are
nothing but an irritating troll.

That would be another incorrect assumption.

 

[relic]

I don't assume the OP is stupid, just that she is an average user.

I'm an average user. If I wrote that my data was on another drive, it would
be exactly that. Why assume others are lying or stupid?

OTOH, I can now conclude beyond a shadow of doubt that you are
nothing but an irritating troll.

Let's see... a typical troll would belittle a poster instead of helping;
why, that's you and Frank.

 

[Frank McCoy]

Rebecca is both knowledgeable and helpful; she just reacts to people like
you and Frank belittling people for no reason.

Oh ... Doesn't like competition?

 

[relic]

Oh ... Doesn't like competition?

Competition? To You? Did you miss "knowledgeable and helpful"?

 

[smokiibear]

I cannot believe you guys have time for this bickering. Do you guys
actually have families or hobbies? I appreciate the "effort" to help,
though.

John, Frank....It's true, I'm not an idiot. All my DATA...yes...ALL
my DATA is on a second drive. I loose absolutely nothing of
importance when my os crashes. I have no need to recover anything.

The age old idiom....assume makes an ass out of "u" and "me"

Anyhow, I've got my raid 0 setup...but I'm thinking I should have done
a raid 1. Most important to me is performance...then redundancy. My
only question at this point is does the raid 0 outperform the raid 1,
and if so, by how much?

 

[Bob Fry]

sb> Anyhow, I've got my raid 0 setup...but I'm thinking I should
sb> have done a raid 1. Most important to me is
sb> performance...then redundancy. My only question at this point
sb> is does the raid 0 outperform the raid 1, and if so, by how
sb> much?

If you want performance then stay with RAID 0. RAID 1 should be
noticeably slower than RAID 0.

Are doing you doing your RAID from the motherboard? Then you're not
getting real RAID though I think RAID 0 should still be a performance
improvement. Google "fake raid" or "fraid" and see the comments.
Most will be from the linux world but they still apply to Windows.

For redundency, an external USB 2.0 or IEEE 1394 drive with nightly
backups (image of OS, data copy of data) works well.

 

[Frank McCoy]

I cannot believe you guys have time for this bickering. Do you guys
actually have families or hobbies? I appreciate the "effort" to help,
though.

John, Frank....It's true, I'm not an idiot. All my DATA...yes...ALL
my DATA is on a second drive. I loose absolutely nothing of
importance when my os crashes. I have no need to recover anything.

The age old idiom....assume makes an ass out of "u" and "me"

Anyhow, I've got my raid 0 setup...but I'm thinking I should have done
a raid 1. Most important to me is performance...then redundancy. My
only question at this point is does the raid 0 outperform the raid 1,
and if so, by how much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

For performance, RAID-0.
For safety, RAID-1.

Never do the twain meet, until you get to RAID-5; which requires a
*minimum* of three drives, and a controller that supports the mode.
Five drives gives better performance/price, for almost as good safety.

Many motherboards these days support two and only two RAID drives; which
essentially means either RAID-0, striped, giving one big drive, but no
backup, or RAID-1 which gives continuous backup, but you're using a
whole drive to mirror your main one.

With drives these days being HUGE, I personally prefer the
instant-backup of RAID-1; with the assumption that if I need more drive
space I'll just buy bigger drives.

If you can afford a RAID controller and three to seven drives, then
probably RAID-5 is the way to go.

If running a *huge* RAID array with eight or more drives, then RAID six
gives even better safety. By then, with today's drives, you're
generally in the multi-terabyte range.

Just my opinion of course, other people's milage probably varies
considerably.

 

[Pecos]

I cannot believe you guys have time for this bickering. Do you guys
actually have families or hobbies? I appreciate the "effort" to help,
though.

John, Frank....It's true, I'm not an idiot. All my DATA...yes...ALL
my DATA is on a second drive. I loose absolutely nothing of
importance when my os crashes. I have no need to recover anything.

The age old idiom....assume makes an ass out of "u" and "me"

Anyhow, I've got my raid 0 setup...but I'm thinking I should have done
a raid 1. Most important to me is performance...then redundancy. My
only question at this point is does the raid 0 outperform the raid 1,
and if so, by how much?

What motherboard/Northbridge/Southbridge do you have? Is the motherboard
based on an Intel chipset?

As to your question about what RAID level is fastest take a look at 'RAID
Properties':

http://support.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/cs-020811.htm

The biggest difference in performance between RAID 0 (striping) and RAID
1 (mirroring) is writing to the volume. RAID 1 is much slower. If you
are doing mostly reading, RAID 1 can still be a good option for you.

Also, you can do RAID 0, RAID 1 or a combination of the two with only two
drives using Intel Matrix RAID.

Intel Matrix Storage Technology is available on 'select' motherboards
with the Intel ICH7R, ICH7M-DH or ICH8R, ICH8DH, ICH8DO Southbridge
chipsets and the 965, 975X, 955X, 945G ,945P, 945PM and 945GM Express
Northbridge chipsets. Check the specs on your motherboard.

http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.htm

There are also hardware based RAID solutions out there for a price.

I know you said that you have no data of importance on your RAID 0
volume, but I would definitely recommend RAID 1 in addition to or in
place of RAID 0 if you have *any* data at all that you don't want to
lose. You are essentially doubling the risk of data loss in a RAID 0
array setup and a hard drive can go bad without warning at any time.

For a quick table noting the different RAID levels, strategies,
advantages/disadvantages and the downside of RAID from my experience:

http://www.mindspring.com/~anorton1/Foxconn_975X7AB-8EKRS2H.html#RAID

Happy Reading!