2 Part RAID Question

PART 1:

BACKGROUND ~~ I have 2 identical drives, both Seagate 360GB. When I setup
the RAID yesterday, I had both drives labeled and the second drive formated,
but empty. After the RAID had completed setting up, I noted that the second
hard drive changed from formatted with a label to "UNALLOCATED". The RAID
indicates the total space available at 670. Which would indicate it is
including the second UNALLOCATED hard drive. The RAID Controller and Intel
Matrix Storage Console, both show both HD's and the total available space at
670. The Computer Management / Disk Management, show the second drive, but
UNALLOCATED. The only difference is the My Computer area, wherein the
UNALLOCATED drive is not showing and it is not showing its number anywhere.

QUESTION ~~ Is the second drive's UNALLOCATED designation correct? Why did
it change from Formated and labeled to UNALLOCATED? As always, Thanks for
all the help!


Part 2:

I know there are camps on both sides of the fence, so I come to both with
this question:

I will be using my HP Pavillion Elite m9150f, Intel 2 Core Quad QC6600, 3GB
PC-5300, 2 HD Seagate 360GB @ 7200, to do daily work, which means a lot of
time in MS Office 2007, specifically Excel and Access. I am in the process
of writing a book, so Word will be used in a large scale. Of course daily
backups will be the norm. I will be surfing the internet of course and
finally I will be spending 3-4 hours a day in Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and
Shivering Isles with a bried visit to Neverwinter Nights 2, Mask of the
Betrayor. For those not into the gaming worls, let me give a bried
description. They are all Stand Alone Role Playing Games. Yes they can also
be played over the internet, but I just don't enjoy it as much in that venue.
They are HEAVY duty games which require the top dog CPU's and Video CPUs as
well. So, with that being the consumption of daily use, will the RAID 0 be
of benefit or not. please provide a percentage, such as 80% benefit, 20% no
benefit.

Thanks! ~~ Gunny

I can't give you a percentage because I don't quite understand what you
mean by that. RAID0 will give you huge hard drive performance
increases. That's not an opinion, but a fact. Anything that uses your
hard drive a lot will perform better.

I see that you back up your stuff. You'll need to keep doing that
because RAID0 offers no fault tollerance.

I can't think of a single reason not to go with RAID0 except for the
fact that you need to know how to get it set up. For some of us, it's
easy...for others, not so easy.

I took it one step farther and installed my system on RAID0, and I keep
my data (config settings, email, documents, mp3's, videos, etc) on a
RAID5 array. I'm lazy, and with this config, I don't need to back
anything up.


--
PMcGarr

case: antec p182
psu: corsair 750tx
mobo: asus maximus formula
cpu: intel q6600
ram: 8gb ocz ddr2 800mhz
vga: sapphire radeon hd3870 512mb
tv: sapphire theatrix 650pro
hdd: 2x wd caviar 250gb sata (raid 0)
hdd: 3x wd caviar 500gb sata (raid 5)
os: vista ultimate 64bit

PMcGarr,

Gotcha and Thanks! Now what about the UNALLOCATED HD? Can you look at PART
1 of my main entry. THOUGHTS???

THANKS! Gunny


"PMcGarr" wrote:

>
> I can't give you a percentage because I don't quite understand what you
> mean by that. RAID0 will give you huge hard drive performance
> increases. That's not an opinion, but a fact. Anything that uses your
> hard drive a lot will perform better.
>
> I see that you back up your stuff. You'll need to keep doing that
> because RAID0 offers no fault tollerance.
>
> I can't think of a single reason not to go with RAID0 except for the
> fact that you need to know how to get it set up. For some of us, it's
> easy...for others, not so easy.
>
> I took it one step farther and installed my system on RAID0, and I keep
> my data (config settings, email, documents, mp3's, videos, etc) on a
> RAID5 array. I'm lazy, and with this config, I don't need to back
> anything up.
>
>
> --
> PMcGarr
>
> case: antec p182
> psu: corsair 750tx
> mobo: asus maximus formula
> cpu: intel q6600
> ram: 8gb ocz ddr2 800mhz
> vga: sapphire radeon hd3870 512mb
> tv: sapphire theatrix 650pro
> hdd: 2x wd caviar 250gb sata (raid 0)
> hdd: 3x wd caviar 500gb sata (raid 5)
> os: vista ultimate 64bit
>

PMcGarr wrote:
>
> I took it one step farther and installed my system on RAID0, and I keep
> my data (config settings, email, documents, mp3's, videos, etc) on a
> RAID5 array. I'm lazy, and with this config, I don't need to back
> anything up.
>
>

No backup? I don't think you understand.

RAID0 is less robust than a single HD because any failure of either HD
in that RAIDset will make all files unreadable.

RAID5 is more robust than a single HD, but it only gives protection
against failure of one of the HDs in that RAIDset; there is no protection
against any other hardware failure (CPU, MB, RAM, PS, cable, etc.) and
no protection against software or environmenal glitches.

If you have data that you value, back it up.
--
Cheers, Bob

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:17:42 -0500, PMcGarr
<> wrote:

>
> I can't give you a percentage because I don't quite understand what you
> mean by that. RAID0 will give you huge hard drive performance
> increases. That's not an opinion, but a fact. Anything that uses your
> hard drive a lot will perform better.


It's not a fact at all. It's an opinion, and an incorrect one for the
great majority of users.

The performance difference is usually very slight. In my own case, I
recently took RAID0 off this computer. I perceive *no* performance
decrease at all.



> I see that you back up your stuff. You'll need to keep doing that


Correct.


> because RAID0 offers no fault tollerance.
>
> I can't think of a single reason not to go with RAID0 except for the
> fact that you need to know how to get it set up.


There's a very good reason not to use RAID0. It entails *much* greater
risk. Without RAID0, the loss of one drive means the loss of whatever
is on that drive. With RAID0, the loss of either drive means the loss
of everything on both drives.


> For some of us, it's
> easy...for others, not so easy.
>
> I took it one step farther and installed my system on RAID0, and I keep
> my data (config settings, email, documents, mp3's, videos, etc) on a
> RAID5 array. I'm lazy, and with this config, I don't need to back
> anything up.


Yes you do. If you care about your data, running without a backup is
foolhardy. RAID 1 (mirroring) is *not* a backup solution. RAID 1 uses
two or more drives, each a duplicate of the others, to provide
redundancy. It's used in situations (almost always within
corporations, not in homes) where any downtown can't be tolerated,
because the way it works is that if one drive fails the other takes
over seamlessly. Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup
technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to
simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most
common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc. Most
companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in
place.

The same is true of your RAID5.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I stand by what I said. Obviously people disagree. I have data that I
can't afford to lose, and I back it up and store it off site. I don't
think the OP needed to be taught the importance of backing up. He made
that clear in his post.

Take any drive as is, then take two of those drives in RAID0 and the
RAID set will outperform the single drive. At the very worst, it'll
perform equally, but that's not typically the case. That's a fact, and I
don't really need to defend it.

RAID0, 1, or 5 is not a replacement for backup...no. If I lose a drive
in my RAID5 set, I simply install a new one and I'm good to go. Argue me
all day on the fact that RAID5 is not a benefit. Do that once you get
your non-raid data restored from backup.

We're talking about a regular user that is smarter than to think that
if his computer melts in a fire that he'll still have his data if he has
a raid setup.

This thread is going to go south because it looks like people jumped on
the defensive, and have taken things out of context.

I'll reword this...Generally, RAID0 out performs non-RAID. If there is
a natural disaster, your data might not make it...even with RAID. RAID5
is not a replacement for backup though it'll generally save you from
losing your data, and it'll save you the time of having to restore a
backup.

Also, ANY of the examples given where you will lose data with RAID hold
true for non-RAID. What's the point here? Are you safe from viruses
with non-RAID? Come on guys?!

Seidell, if you want more advice or anything from me, PM me (if that
can be done), or start a new thread. I'd be glad to go into specifics,
but I won't be checking this thread. I have no answer for your "part 1"
question by the way.

Paul


--
PMcGarr

case: antec p182
psu: corsair 750tx
mobo: asus maximus formula
cpu: intel q6600
ram: 8gb ocz ddr2 800mhz
vga: sapphire radeon hd3870 512mb
tv: sapphire theatrix 650pro
hdd: 2x wd caviar 250gb sata (raid 0)
hdd: 3x wd caviar 500gb sata (raid 5)
os: vista ultimate 64bit