Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnrr6

Morphing a RAID 0 with Nvidia's RaidManager----anybody try it????

Recommended Posts

I want to make my RAID array on my NF4 Ultra rig bigger.

 

The simple solution seems to be using the Nvidia RaidManager utility to simply add identical disks to the array up to 4 disks total in the array....

 

Nvidia calls it "Morphing"

 

I have two Hitachi 80 gig SATA IIs in RAID 0 now

 

At newegg----I can get two more for $100 total.....

 

You can add bigger drives----but the array will only recognize the drives as 80 gigs each (the smallest drive in the existing array)

 

This would give me a little more breathing room on my NF4 righ with an array of 320 total .

 

The other option is to buy two Seagate 300 gig SATA IIs for less than $200 total----Put them on the nvidia RAID controller as an additional RAID 0 array----and then purchase Acronis for $50-----then clone the 1st array onto the second using Acronis

 

Then reformat the old array as a non-boot RAID 0 and just use it for additional storage.

 

Total cost would be around $250 for a machine with 760 gigs storage----but it seems a little more----and maybe a lot more work.

 

320 gigs in one array for $100----and seems totally simple to do.

 

or 760 gigs for $250----with a more complcated process

 

Anybody ever do this "morphing" thing with an Nvidia RAID controller???

 

Acronis has a trial version for a few days----would it do what I want without having to purchase it since I'll basically only use it once.

 

Advice appreciated-----John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iv played around with nvidia raid morphing when i wanted to add 2 more 74 GB rapters to my system raid...

 

but it didnt work out to well....

 

a 4 disk RAID 0 isnt that productive...

 

RAID 0 reads/writes to all drives in the raid at the same time...

 

this doesnt really improve the preformance all that much... if you want to add 2 more drives to your RAID 0 that you already have setup, you should go raid 5... you get striping and redundancy this way...

 

If you are looking for storage and speed i would keep the 80 GB RAID 0 you already have and pickup the 2 300 GB drives as a seprate RAID 0. Run 2 diff RAID 0 on the 4 port nvidia raid controller 2x80 raid 0, 2x300 raid 0

 

this way you keep your system raid intact and you get more storage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iv played around with nvidia raid morphing when i wanted to add 2 more 74 GB rapters to my system raid...

 

but it didnt work out to well....

 

a 4 disk RAID 0 isnt that productive...

 

RAID 0 reads/writes to all drives in the raid at the same time...

 

this doesnt really improve the preformance all that much... if you want to add 2 more drives to your RAID 0 that you already have setup, you should go raid 5... you get striping and redundancy this way...

 

If you are looking for storage and speed i would keep the 80 GB RAID 0 you already have and pickup the 2 300 GB drives as a seprate RAID 0. Run 2 diff RAID 0 on the 4 port nvidia raid controller 2x80 raid 0, 2x300 raid 0

 

this way you keep your system raid intact and you get more storage...

 

Excellent idea-----just leave the Boot Array alone----no fooling with Acronis or RaidManager. And less wear and tear on the drives.....Basically the same results.

 

Does this sound right???

1. Enable SATA 3 and SATA 4 in the MoBo Bios----shut down

2. Physically Hook up the two drives------Boot up

3. Go into the RAID Bios and set up the additional two drives as a RAID 0---save

4. Done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest burningrave101
a 4 disk RAID 0 isnt that productive...

 

RAID 0 reads/writes to all drives in the raid at the same time...

 

this doesnt really improve the preformance all that much... if you want to add 2 more drives to your RAID 0 that you already have setup, you should go raid 5... you get striping and redundancy this way...

 

And why wouldn't it improve performance? RAID0 reads and writes to all the drives in the array but the files are split up between the drives. If you only have two drives then the files are split 50/50 between the drives. If you have four then the files are split 25/25/25/25. This improves performance. Four drives striped together are faster then only two drives striped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would always keep one simple single large disk for file and backup storage. You cut your chance of failure in half. Remember, in RAID 0 if you lose one disk your array is toast, along with your data.

 

Use TrueImage to image your current install, add a third 80gb hard drive to the two you have and purchase a 320gb SATA drive for saved stuff and backups.

 

Total Cost:

 

80gb WD Cavier = $46.00 + shipping = $52.00

320gb WD = $120.00 + shipping = $126.00

Acronis True Image = $49.95

 

Grand Total = $227.95

 

Total Storage = 560gb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why wouldn't it improve performance? RAID0 reads and writes to all the drives in the array but the files are split up between the drives. If you only have two drives then the files are split 50/50 between the drives. If you have four then the files are split 25/25/25/25. This improves performance. Four drives striped together are faster then only two drives striped.

 

You are correct----it is faster-----in fact, I think a while back the forum (ex-Roadie or Angry Games) tested RAID 0 with Hitachis and the more they added drives----the faster the array got----blazingly fast if I remember.....

 

I think his point is that all four drives are constantly being accessed therefore lessoning you MTBF...

 

And in my case----since my smallest drive is 80 gigs-----the max I'm going to see by morphing is 320 gigs....

 

Whereas, if I set up another RAID 0 array with say two 300 gig Seagates on the nvidia RAID controller----I wind up with avery fast boot array----and a very fast storage array-----and would come out with basically 760 gigs total (I know it is not actually 760 gigs total as all arrays are less than the total combined advertised drive sizes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would always keep one simple single large disk for file and backup storage. You cut your chance of failure in half. Remember, in RAID 0 if you lose one disk your array is toast, along with your data.

 

Use TrueImage to image your current install, add a third 80gb hard drive to the two you have and purchase a 320gb SATA drive for saved stuff and backups.

 

Total Cost:

 

80gb WD Cavier = $46.00 + shipping = $52.00

320gb WD = $120.00 + shipping = $126.00

Acronis True Image = $49.95

 

Grand Total = $227.95

 

Total Storage = 560gb

 

If I morph the 80 gig sata----it just adds it to the array and I wouldn't need Acronis-----so your solution is even cheaper

 

You are correct in that if one drive in a RAID 0 goes kaput-----you are hosed.....

 

The disadvantage to a two raid solution is that it relys on RAID 0 which has no redundancy.....

 

The advanage is that it's FAST!

 

I guess I could just add the seagates as individual SATA drives....

 

Basically the same storage----probably a tad safer....

 

But not quite as fast and more drive letters and individual drives to contend with.

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, RAID 0 is hella fast but your data is waaaaaay more at risk... with 2 drives you have a greater increase of loosing your data...

 

do it like me...

 

run windows and all installed games/apps in a "system" RAID 0

 

run larger non-RAID hdds as storage drives...

 

if you want to fork out some bucks you can get a 5 disk raid controller for a true RAID 5... but those things are not cheap, and you'd need to buy more hdds... but its ultimate preformance...

 

the new nforce 590 chipset as a 6 disk SATA II controller with TRUE RAID 5 support!!!

 

this is the .!! im am sooooo going to get the next NF590 mobo dfi releases... hopfully soon!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone looked into how adding more sata's in raid0 affect proformance in other area's?

It seems I was readin' somewhere that unlike scsi where each drive has it's own controller independant of cpu. Sata's tend to be more processor dependant?(Doesn't matter I guess. I can't afford Scsi anyway.) But I was wondering how more sata's might affect memory bandwidth or what it might affect? Once again to me at this point it doesn't much matter. I need to add another drive for storage. Barracuda 250-300 storage but I plan to add a seconed page file partition at the front of drive.(see if my superpi's get any faster.) Not really important but I was wondering.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...