Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GutBuster

Setting up a fresh RAID setup. Does this look fine?

Recommended Posts

The reason I do this is because if I have to reinstall my OS all my save games and any data that gets thrown in the "My Docs" directory is saved to your storage drive.

 

And no you would only have 1 documents and settings folder. Thats the beauty of it. There is another advantage to doing this....I just can't remember it at the moment.

 

Awesome! Thanks for all your help and input krazy, it's been a blessing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awesome! Thanks for all your help and input krazy, it's been a blessing!

 

No problem, thats what this forum is here for! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Linux and sharing partitions with windows can be very tricky and sometimes does not work, the last version of unbuntu had such issues.

 

It would be easier to have each OS on a different hard drive.

 

1 = Windows XP / XP 64

2 = Vista 64

 

3 =

Partition 1 = 4GB, XP/XP64/vista can all use this as the page file.

Unpartitioned space = leave for Linux, it will setup the partitions and it's pagefile.

 

4 = Storage, also back up important files to DVD/Flash drive/other PC.

 

By using a RAID 0 config if the boot drives go you will lose everything.

And if the Raid controller fails you may lose both arrays.

 

Also should you wish to reinstall one of the OS's it will be a lot easier.

When you share a drive the last OS you install may change the MBR.

Then if for some reason it goes corrupt the others may be unbootable.

 

By having each one on their own drive you can avoid this, just make sure that you only have 1 drive plugged in at a time when you install each OS.

 

Then if you want to create a bootmenu you can edit the linux bootloader (Grub menu) to list all the drives/OS's to choose from.

 

Obviously that is how I would set up the drives :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the MBR is, but, would it be smart to save the MBR to disc after I install each OS. And say I install XP first, save the MBR, install XP 64 save IT'S MBR file, reload XP's (not 64), then install vista, and reload both of the XP's MBR, to make sure that none of them are altered???? But, like I said, I have no idea what the MBR is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Master Boot Record.

 

A very simple explanation,

 

The MBR is like a list.

It stores information relating to the hard drive partitions.

 

When you boot from a drive it reads the MBR first.

This then tells the PC which partition to boot from.

 

When you install Windows XP it changes the MBR

If you then install XP 64 on another Partition it changes the MBR so that it points to the XP64 partition first.

 

If you backup the XP MBR then install XP 64 and replace the MBR with the XP one you will not be able to boot into XP 64.

 

And depending on when you created the partitions you may lose them by restoring the older MBR.

Altering the MBR is unavoidable.

 

Playing with the MBR is something you should not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Master Boot Record.

 

A very simple explanation,

 

The MBR is like a list.

It stores information relating to the hard drive partitions.

 

When you boot from a drive it reads the MBR first.

This then tells the PC which partition to boot from.

 

When you install Windows XP it changes the MBR

If you then install XP 64 on another Partition it changes the MBR so that it points to the XP64 partition first.

 

If you backup the XP MBR then install XP 64 and replace the MBR with the XP one you will not be able to boot into XP 64.

 

And depending on when you created the partitions you may lose them by restoring the older MBR.

Altering the MBR is unavoidable.

 

Playing with the MBR is something you should not do.

 

The nice thing about Ubuntu if he decides to install it later is that the GRUB boot loader will have all of the OSes listed.

 

Ubuntu = love. Now if i could only play all of the latest games without having to futz around with WINE with poor results....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else have any input before I start here shortly?

 

After sharp posted I'm on the fence as to go raid or use 1 HD per OS (but won't that be wasting a lot of HD space???). I don't know, just really torn at the moment....

 

Won't an OS run faster if it's on a RAID array?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know 2 74 gb WD raptors in a raid o array is supposed to nearly if not double the speed. I'm a poor boy and can only afford one for now but just bought one to replace my dying 36gb raptor, so I'm looking forward to adding another in the future to see what the story really is.

 

But i don't know how they compare with the newer drives that have a 3.0 interface. The raptors by themselves only have a 1.5 interface, but they spin @10,000rpm's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say faster, what do you mean/expect to gain.

- What is it that you believe the RAID array will do for you?

 

And what are you going to use the PC for?

- File server

- Gaming

- Desktop use (Internet/Word/DVDs)

 

The RAID array will only improve loading and windows XP is quite fast with 2GB.

Yes the RAID array should give it a boost but for Desktop use you wont really notice the gains.

 

Gaming, level loading times will be faster.

And it may seem more responsive due to the quick page file access. (only if the game is taking a lot of memory)

 

File server, this is probably the only one that you will really see the gains.

If you have people streaming from your PC or have a multimedia setup (PC>TV) then it will be a lot smoother.

 

And if you are trying to do all of the above at the same time it will help.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say faster, what do you mean/expect to gain.

- What is it that you believe the RAID array will do for you?

 

And what are you going to use the PC for?

- File server

- Gaming

- Desktop use (Internet/Word/DVDs)

 

The RAID array will only improve loading and windows XP is quite fast with 2GB.

Yes the RAID array should give it a boost but for Desktop use you wont really notice the gains.

 

Gaming, level loading times will be faster.

And it may seem more responsive due to the quick page file access. (only if the game is taking a lot of memory)

 

File server, this is probably the only one that you will really see the gains.

If you have people streaming from your PC or have a multimedia setup (PC>TV) then it will be a lot smoother.

 

And if you are trying to do all of the above at the same time it will help.

:)

 

My Rig will be used for:

- Gaming

- Multimedia Development (Graphics, Webpages, Audio Production)

- Basic Net Surfing

 

Sharp, what of you think of this?

- 2x250 in RAID 1 (or RAID 5+0???) For my OS's, basically for redundancy.

- 2x250 in RAID 0, For extra storage.

 

Also, another question. I know, or to my knowledge you CAN'T ghost/image a raid array.... correct? But, can I save an image of my partition and if anything happened and lost my files, could I re-populate/image that partition?

 

Sorry for so many questions, I know your probably thinking I'm a pain in the *** but I just want to make sure I set this up correctly/optimally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah RAID and imaging is not that simple.

 

If the RAID controller does a good job of combining the drives on a hardware level, then when you try to image/restore the image it may work for a RAID 0 array.

 

But, can I save an image of my partition and if anything happened and lost my files, could I re-populate/image that partition?

That will work but you would still be faced with the above issue if it is on the RAID 0 array.

 

I think I have said enough, I don't want to sound like I am forcing you to use a particular setup :)

 

But what about,

2x250 RAID 0 for your OS/games

1x250 for storage

1x250 for pagefile and backups < more efficient pagefile + backups

 

You can always experiment and see which one seems more suitable for your requirements.

 

In my PC I have

1x80GB for windows/programs

1x80GB for storage and pagefile

1x160GB external for backups. (mainly what I have on the storage drive)

 

Over the years I have collected quite a bit of data and if I were to lose it, well I am sure you can imagine how I would feel. :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do most of the sata1 drives (1.5 inteface) of the same kind (x2 in raid o) double the performance or is it just marketing hype from WD for their 74 gb raptors they claim are the only ones that do this.

( Their might be updated info i don't know about yet, just curious to know if somebody knows off the top of their hat and can throw up a quick answer.

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...