I've got a vista 64bit (4gig ram) just as a media centre, so it caches all tv etc. Theres no mission critcal data on there, all my mp3s are backed up.

But im running out of disk space. As theres alot of disk activity, I was thinking of RAID-0 two drives. Mobo supports it, so would there be any real world gain?

Or should I just stick 1 large drive in there, and separate the OS from the data?

Yeah twice the throughput?

It's not really going to matter... would be easier to just wack another large drive in.

It might make it a bit faster to boot up etc but if its anything like my HTPC it just stays on and once its going and MC is up running the bits that would benefit from RAID0 have finished running.

My housemate and I spent a bit of cash setting up a 4tb RAID5 array for ours. Although we do have a massive TV ep/movie/mp3 library on it so it would suck if it died hence the array.

would be easier to just wack another large drive in.

true. but i was just going to use clone software, pull out the original drive, clone back to the array. not too hard.

but if its anything like my HTPC it just stays on

true.

changing the subject slightly getting a new computer tonight with 2x Raptor 10000rpm hard drive in it was thinking of Raid 0 just to see what speeds ill get :)

f*** that get 1 x 300gb sas

Yeah twice the throughput?

No, because there is overhead from the raid process.
But yes there will an improvement in throughput.

Raid0 massively increase chances for drive failure.
If the goal is expanding space, similar effect can be achieved using symlinks (available in xp and vista on NTFS drives).
Raid 0 drives have to be the same size. Symlinking they can be all different sizes and speeds.

only ever use raid 0 when you really don't give a f*** about the data on the drives/array

seriously, it will fail and theres no going back
i would use it as a ram drive or maybe a page file etc but thats it

I'm normally a strong advocate of striping Intel based MCE systems, but in this case you seem to be leaning more towards storage mooby - not performance. so just buy some more storage?

if it's not critical then maybe look into setting up an old PC full of older drives running FreeNAS. It's pretty handy, and gives you a place to dump old drives as you upgrade them :P

only ever use raid 0 when you really don't give a f*** about the data on the drives/array

RAID types are chosen for a bunch of different reasons.

RAID 0 (Striping) is listed as having the following advantages:

Recommended Applications
Video Production and Editing
Image Editing
Pre-Press Applications
Any application requiring high bandwidth

Whenever the system volume dies in your machine it's f***ing annoying - personally it's a reminder that I preach back up practices to users yet neglect to do it properly at home.

I know that backing up data to a DVD or fileserver is a good idea, but it's such a 'work' thing. It'd prolly take just 5 mins to make a ghost image of my system partition and put it onto my thumbdrive, but I cbf.

I'll retire these 36gig raptors soon, and throw in a brand spanking new OCZ Vertex. I really should create a backup image of the drive after the machine is set back up, but meh..

I'd never be so lax at work, but for some reason at home I just don't care as much. it doesn't stop me running a stripe however :P

so i guess I both agree and disagree with you tequila





last edited by koopz at 23:33:54 28/May/09

actually, scratch the OCZ Vertex. They're flawed . I shoulda known they were too good to be true :(

gonna haveto save some more for the intel x25-m

I don't think that article is a reason to write the drive/brandname off dude, particularly given that it's a specific controller chip being used in them at this time, in conjunction with a largely winxp-centric filesystem issue that is the root cause

...of a problem that may not even be that bad in the first place. I've got one of these drives so I'll let you know how it's performance pans out - I've already reinstalled various flavours of windows and linux on it and also used the alienware respawn disk to reimage the original o/s onto it and it's been formatted each time so it's getting some use

I've got 4 drives in my HTPC. 1 x 750Gb which is partitioned into OS and recorded TV and 3 x 1.5Tb for ep/movies/pictures/mp3s. I keep a copy of everything on my work NAS just incase but I also image the HTPC so disk failure isn't an issue. No way I'd ever use RAID 0 on a HTPC, no real benefit. I can record multiple shows and watch a HD Movie without a problem. What more does a HTPC have to do?

Raid0 massively increase chances for drive failure.

How does it increase the chance of a drive failure?

I guess there is a 2x chance of the array failing, but the physical drives chance of failure is the same?!?

obviously he meant logical drive, given the context

obviously he meant logical drive, given the context

Even then, its the same chance of having _a_ logical drive failure, just that if either of your physical drives fails, the logical drive is dead.

Its misleading to say it "massively increases" the chance, cause its pretty straight forward really.

Once you have RAID0, if any of the drive in the array fail, you lose the whole array.

in conjunction with a largely winxp-centric filesystem issue that is the root cause

[backflip]

good point.

if Win7 Gold doesn't ship with a tool that tidies up those empty pages someone will surely write one. now that we're living in the land of multiple cpu cores the overhead could be neglible if done well.

What more does a HTPC have to do?

ultimately it's up to you Mass. In the end we pay for what we personally see the value in.

we bought Dad a DVD/Media player from Crazy Clarks for $49 last XMas. Dad barely knows how to check his email, doesn't care about internet, though he loves YouTube :/

Looking back we should have got him a 2nd hand laptop instead.

What more does your HTPC do and how much did you shell out for it? Why did you get a PC for the job over a stand alone media player with network capacity?

In the end - whatever you paid for was exactly what you wanted at the time.. I'm just curious is all

last edited by koopz at 18:43:15 29/May/09

How does it increase the chance of a drive failure?

I guess there is a 2x chance of the array failing, but the physical drives chance of failure is the same?!?

You are that stupid ?

Ok ... the drive fails when you can no longer use it to get data.
ie. Oh look everyone 1 of my drives is physically fine but I have no usable data on it!!!

In a raid 0 system if either drive fails because you lose the ability to get data off the other.

In a series system with 2 devices you basically half the MTBF. ie. This drive is going to last half as long. here's a calc for you mongie

Using any real raid format will increase your MTBF.

Symlinking your drives will no effect on reliability of either drives ability to store data.

In otherwords its not misleading, its very accurate. Ask any of the engineers that lurk here or maths nerds.

In a series system with 2 devices you basically half the MTBF. ie. This drive is going to last half as long.

Sounds very much like you're refering to the physical drive's lifespan there. So, what? is the drive suposedly "aware" that its being used in a RAID 0 array and it magically dies quicker becaue of it?

Are you trying to prove how stupid you are ?

Its a "system". Soon as you go raid0 they become a dependant serial system. ie. if either drive fails the system fails.

And yes its a drive, in the OS it is a drive. Sure its an array blah blah blah blah. But for the purposes of storing data, formating, partitioning its a drive.

Your arguement is like saying "my car will never break down or need servicing, only the gears, brakes, tyres, clutch etc etc ... the car it self however will never need it"

koopz: freewheelin showed me this article today, it's kind of related to that issue you described, might be of interest:
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Windows-7-Disk-Performance-Analyzed/

oh cool - just noticed your post - ta :D