Storage Solutions Optimally partitioning a RAID0 config.. Need inputs

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buBleZ

Galvanizer
Hi guys,
I have 2x500GB Seagate 7200.12 in RAID0 config. I have tested this for dual boot and it works like a charm. But I am confused as to what would be the optimal partitions to get the max performance.

My RAID0 usage will be like this:
1. Win XP professional
2. Windows 7
3. Games/apps and maybe HD movies/editing

My current setup of this RAID0 array is 100GB partition for win XP, 100GB for Win 7 and the rest for games/movies. The OS partitions are where the apps reside too.
While reading over web there were several arguments that having a smaller OS partition, another partition for swap file + apps and maybe one more for games gives better performance. There are both supporters and contradicts to this.
Having a dual boot OS is a must for me. so need your inputs on what is the best combination of partitions to have.
 
Good luck with that RAID0. Yesterday I had TWO out of five drives fail in my RAID5 at the same time. One drive failed completely and doesn't detect anymore. The second drive developed a block of 80 bad sectors. Fortunately I was able to rebuild the array with the remaining working and one partially damaged drive at the expense of whatever data was stored in those 80 sectors (I still don't know what files were affected)... RAID0 is a time bomb. Wake up one morning, and 1TB of data is gone.

Anyway for maximum performance use a DEDICATED partition for the swap file. Create all the other partitions and in the last few GB create a separate partition and immediately set the pagefile to that partition. That way the pagefile is completely defragmented and resides in the outer edge of the platters for fastest speed.
 
Torch said:
Good luck with that RAID0. Yesterday I had TWO out of five drives fail in my RAID5 at the same time. One drive failed completely and doesn't detect anymore. The second drive developed a block of 80 bad sectors. Fortunately I was able to rebuild the array with the remaining working and one partially damaged drive at the expense of whatever data was stored in those 80 sectors (I still don't know what files were affected)... RAID0 is a time bomb. Wake up one morning, and 1TB of data is gone.

Anyway for maximum performance use a DEDICATED partition for the swap file. Create all the other partitions and in the last few GB create a separate partition and immediately set the pagefile to that partition. That way the pagefile is completely defragmented and resides in the outer edge of the platters for fastest speed.
Click to expand...

thank u.. How about using Intel matrix raid to create RAID 0 for the OS partitions and RAID 1 for data/media on the same 2 drives?

Also while making partitions for swap in the last few GBs can I make a single partition for both XP and win7 swaps? If so what would be the recommended size?
also as you mentioned data on the outeredges are faster as they are close to read heads does it make sense to put OSes in partitions that are created at the end as well?
 
The outer edges have faster sustained read speeds. But its only a marginal increase of around 10MBps compared to the inner edge.

If the Matrix Manager supports creating multiple volumes from the same array of physical disks, then yes you can make a RAID0 volume and a RAID1 volume from the same 2 disks. A volume is the virtual harddisk that is seen in Windows. Each volume is partitioned. RAID mode is for each volume, not partition.
 
buBleZ said:
Hi guys,
I have 2x500GB Seagate 7200.12 in RAID0 config. I have tested this for dual boot and it works like a charm. But I am confused as to what would be the optimal partitions to get the max performance.

My RAID0 usage will be like this:
1. Win XP professional
2. Windows 7
3. Games/apps and maybe HD movies/editing

My current setup of this RAID0 array is 100GB partition for win XP, 100GB for Win 7 and the rest for games/movies. The OS partitions are where the apps reside too.
While reading over web there were several arguments that having a smaller OS partition, another partition for swap file + apps and maybe one more for games gives better performance. There are both supporters and contradicts to this.
Having a dual boot OS is a must for me. so need your inputs on what is the best combination of partitions to have.
Click to expand...

I too have purchased 2 x 500GB(7200.12, ST3500418AS) and have configured them in RAID0...:ohyeah:

but there is one problem when I ran Passmark Performance Test the results were not promising..:no:
Here Have a look

500 GB HDD(ST3500418AS) SINGLE
2x500_SINGLE.jpg


2 x 500 GB HDD(ST3500418AS) RAID 0
2x500_RAID0.jpg


can u run the test and post reults here
 
Ok I will dl passmark and post the results here. If you have time try also HDtune, hdtach, ATTO. I think i found a optimal partition setup for my drives.. I will post the setup with pics, benchmarks probably by night.

Can you post ur config? the results seem low
 
You might have selected a bad stripe size. When I had RAID0 on two ancient 250GB drives I was getting 133MBps sustained read speed.

Results of my current setup:

passmark.jpg


8===============>
 
Dude Let me admit you have one hell of a config there

My config is as below

AMD Sempron 2800+

who knows what mother board its some MSI board

2 GB DDR PC3200 RAM

2x500 GB RAID 0

are the low speed coz of my config or is there any other problem

BTW what strip size have u selected
 
I can't change the stripe size on my card, its locked to 64K for RAID5.

Are you using Windows' Disk Manager to create a RAID array or are you creating it though the BIOS? The BIOS one will be better. Large stripe size is better for big file transfers.
 
@ Torch ... ur sig mentions that u are using asus ram... mobo with a rocketraid 2320 PCI-E x4 card ... as ur mobo is not having x4 slot ... so where are u installing that card ... ?

or may be the pci-e are compatible with each other ... as the wiki states

" a PCIe card will physically fit (and work correctly) in any slot that is at least as large as it is (e.g., an ×1 sized card will work in any sized slot); "

confirm me mate ... meanwhile quite nice setup and good info regarding all this ...
 
It works in the second 16x slot thats meant for CrossFire.

However you should make sure that the board has enough lanes for the card. Usually lower end boards even with SLi/Crossfire don't have enough lanes.

For example the A8N-SLi has only 20 lanes. 16 lanes for the first 16x slot if you have only one GPU or 8+8 for SLi. And 1 lane for each of the three PCI slots. So you're left with only 1 lane. So the so called 4x slot on that board only runs at 1x. It only runs at 4x if you use onboard video.

The nForce4 Ultra which gave true 16x for each card had sufficient lanes so fortunately it worked well on my old A8N32-SLi Deluxe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom