Partitioning a RAID 0?

[Vanderburg]

I'm working on pricing out a new build for the next few months, etc, etc and I have a question that I haven't really been able to find much about on Google.

I will be using a 128GB SSD for the boot drive, so that's moot, but that isn't necessary for a storage/gaming drive,. I am thinking about getting 2 500GB drives and using RAID0 for loading times in games, but 500GB is more than I need. 500GB would probably be about right for my storage too, for this machine, so I'm wondering what kind of performance hit I take if I create 2 500GB partitions after striping them, as well as the proper order to do this. (RAID first, then partition or partition, then RAID).

To pre-empt some arguments, I really only need 500GB for each, will not be using SSD and yes, I am aware of the reliability risks of RAID 0, but won't have anything I'd be afraid to lose.

[Sam]

personally, I think it would be simpler to buy a 1TB VelociRaptor then partition that into two 500GB sizes, it would be around the speed of raiding 2 blue drives

[ACK]

So from what I understand, you want to have RAID 0 with two 500GB drives and then to partition the RAID into two 500GB partitions.

The benefits will of course depend on the speed of the drives. It will definitely be faster but as you already know you ad more points of failure.

But, you also say that you only need 500GB so if you want you can go with RAID 1.

Now, about the sequence, you must first create the RAID array and then partition the RAID.

[iainisgod]

It's my understanding that once you put two drives in RAID0 the OS recognizes them as one single drive. So when you make partitions after you have put the drives in the RAID, the partitions will be distributed across both disks. This means that you won't take a performance hit because the data is still stored across multiple drives.

[Draex]

Reliability will not be effected by partitioning the array, nor will performance in my experience. All your effectively doing is sorting the contents of the drive further by introducing another drive letter.

The proper order is Format(Zero/low level if possible) the drives, then raid, then partition.

**I've tried this with 8 Drive Raid0, split into 2 Partitions, not with 2 single drives**

[Vanderburg]

My understanding is RAID0 performance scales linerally, so this should be fine. I'd expect it to be at worst, single drive speeds, if I was hammering both drives hard, and at best full RAID 0 speed. I don't mind being somewhere in the middle.

[Nexus]

Ill just reiterate what others are saying. Raid first then partition. You will get no performance hit by partitioning the array to my understanding.

What I would like to ask is why are you wanting to run raid 0?

If i was in your situation i would get an SSD for cache and an HDD that is big enough for all you media.

[Vanderburg]

Well, I'm considering 2x Momentus XT, which is hybrid enough for me and helps with my budget, which is flexible, but I didn't want to get too crazy. (Please no 'OMGZ Seagate!')

[REULINI]

Ill just reiterate what others are saying. Raid first then partition. You will get no performance hit by partitioning the array to my understanding. What I would like to ask is why are you wanting to run raid 0? If i was in your situation i would get an SSD for cache and an HDD that is big enough for all you media.

why not raid0 ? If you have nothing to lose, then go for it

[Vanderburg]

What I would like to ask is why are you wanting to run raid 0?

Sorry, I totally missed this part of your post. I'm choosing RAID0 because I can, basically. I'm only using the two drives for games and storage, nothing critical and I'd like the performance boost where it's available without spending a ton of money and I don't need a full 1TB for any single logical drive.

[Cheesebaron]

You are saying that the data stored on the drives are of no particular value to you. However imagine this scenario: You went to a LAN party and all of the sudden your one of your HDDs in your RAID0 dies. All your games are stored there. So instead of having fun with your friends, you are swearing over your mishap and spending time on re-acquiring the games you want to play and recovering from the damages.

I would consider running RAID5 with 3 disks and be able to lose 1 disk at a time without loss of data and without a big performance hit.

But if you really don't care about your data, go ahead then.

[Nexus]

Sorry' date=' I totally missed this part of your post. I'm choosing RAID0 because I can, basically. I'm only using the two drives for games and storage, nothing critical and I'd like the performance boost where it's available without spending a ton of money and I don't need a full 1TB for any single logical drive. [/quote']

Still the ssd cahce solution would be faster for loading windows/games or whatever you do most regular and it would make those tasks snappier. Raid 0 only improves sequential read/write performance and considering most disk access is not sequential you would not be getting any tangible performance benefit.

if you really don't want to run an ssd and would prefer going with raid o drives then you should be ok but personally i would never choose that solution now-a-days considering how cheap ssds are becoming

[Eric1024]

I tend to agree with what other people have said in that RAID 0 isn't your best option. As someone else has said, RAID 5 is a good option, and, believe it or not, so is RAID 1 depending on the onboard controller on your mobo (I assume you're using onboard). RAID 1 actually affords you 2x read speeds in a best case scenario, similar to RAID 0. (RAID 1 also give you have capacity so maybe not the best choice, depends on your exact situation).

As an alternative to RAID you could get one HDD and one small ssd (64gb) and use it as a cache, which, from personal experience, I can tell you works well once you give whatever ssd caching program you're using a chance to load all your frequently used games/programs. Similarly you could use a drive that has ssd cache in it already like Momentus XT's, but I've heard mixed reviews about those.

A final choice, as others have said, is a 10k (or if you'd like to get crazy, 15k) rpm drive, such as a velociraptor (or on the insane side, Hitachi 15k600's). Personally this is what I would go with because it's by far the simplest solution with the least points of failure and retains speed.

[Vanderburg]

Yeah, I mean, that's good and all, but reliability is literally of 0 concern to me.I only wish to reduce the load times in some games, etc. I will have those two drives, and I don't want to lose space doing a mirror and I don't want to buy extra drives, because I will have a file server, so RAID0 is definitely what I want, I just was wondering the proper method. I didn't know if you partitioned first, you could arrange each logical drive to have an inside and outside of a platter, so their speeds would be consistent (Or one to have both insides so it would be faster than the other).

[Ethan]

Yeah' date=' I mean, that's good and all, but reliability is literally of 0 concern to me.I only wish to reduce the load times in some games, etc. I will have those two drives, and I don't want to lose space doing a mirror and I don't want to buy extra drives, because I will have a file server, so RAID0 is definitely what I want, I just was wondering the proper method. I didn't know if you partitioned first, you could arrange each logical drive to have an inside and outside of a platter, so their speeds would be consistent (Or one to have both insides so it would be faster than the other).[/quote']

The question there is what are you doing with the different partitions? If you're putting games on one and data on the other, create the games partition first to be on the inside of the disks, then the data on the outside. This should save the faster-access sectors for games. If you're loading programs off both partitions and want them to be the same speed, then there's probably no point partitioning.

How are you partitioning then setting up RAID? RAID Utilities will generally wipe the drives when you create the array.

[Vanderburg]

This was the part of the point of my question, I really don't know if it is doable, or if it would serve any benefit at all, but it was an interesting thought.