Convert to dynamic disk

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:22:14 -0800, Bug Dout
wrote:


RAID has all sorts of pitfalls.

Yes. So does just about everything. RAID0, using 2 or 3 disks, offers a
simple way to get a significant performance boost at little extra
cost. I've never had a disk drive fail in the several years I've had it,
and it's on every day (24/7 the first year, after that, a few hours a
day).

If someone doesn't do backups of their important data, they will
eventually lose that data, RAID or no.

Adopting a knee-jerk response that RAID is bad is stupid. One can easily
find fault with anything we've invented or discovered, including
fire. Use it properly and get the benefits.

I tend to believe both points (pitfalls and benefits), but have some
questions I hope you will respond to...

What type RAID do you have, hardware based or OS (software) based?

Assuming hardware, what are the approximate performance improvements
over a single disk of the same quality/rotating speed, and over
software-based RAID. I don't mean theoretical, I mean real
improvements taht you see in terms of transfer speeds?

TIA

In message someone
claiming to be (GMAN) typed:

In article , Bug Dout wrote:
Paul writes:

I've used RAID5 (for a few months), and RAID0 (for 3+ years) with a
4-disk configuration. Started with XP, and now W7. Works great, and my
D: drive which is the RAID config is really fast, better than an SSD
drive which is C:

Of course I do backups, but then, everyone should.

RAID has all sorts of pitfalls.

Yes. So does just about everything. RAID0, using 2 or 3 disks, offers a
simple way to get a significant performance boost at little extra
cost. I've never had a disk drive fail in the several years I've had it,
and it's on every day (24/7 the first year, after that, a few hours a
day).

If someone doesn't do backups of their important data, they will
eventually lose that data, RAID or no.

Adopting a knee-jerk response that RAID is bad is stupid. One can easily
find fault with anything we've invented or discovered, including
fire. Use it properly and get the benefits.

Raid 0 without a backup plan is bad AND stupid!

RAID-1 without a backup plan is bad AND stupid! So is a RAID-5, or
RAID-6, or a single drive, or a SAN, or a multi-country redundant set of
datacenter servers.

If Google occasionally restores from tape backup, you need a backup too.
After that, it's just a question of your tolerance for downtime.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:40:27 -0500, Paul wrote:

lots of data on it, then fine, use it. But every once in a while,
some person will post here "I have 3TB of movies on a RAID xxx
array, and the disk management software says a drive is failed.
What do I do ?". If you want to run RAID, you practice with
a few megabytes of files on it, until you get the hang of
doing maintenance. And if you set up a four drive array, you
might even buy a fifth (identical) drive, which operates
as your spare. Then you can practice the "what happens if a
drive dies", and get used to the disk management interface.
For example, if you're offered the option to "rebuild",
then it would be fun to see if your small collection of
files survives a "rebuild". Once you're comfortable with
operating a RAID, and can handle simulated failures, then
there will never be a day you have to run screaming to USENET,
for someone to save you :-)

Unless it's RAID 0 what's the big deal? I've lost drives on 1 and 5,
pop in a new one and it rebuilds. Only once has it been any sort of
issue and that was a card with stupid software, the rebuild was only
possible from the BIOS, not the installed software.

Paul nospam needed.com wrote:

....

Dynamic disk ? Just don't do it.

It might be a whiz bang technology for server management, but
on a desktop, it's just a nuisance. This falls under the "KISS"
banner (Keep It Simple Stupid, a term we used to use at work a
lot), where the simpler you keep your configuration, the easier
it is to repair later.

Some crappy disk utilities, may not deal with dynamic very well.
You don't want to find out at the last minute, that the $39.95
program you bought, can't fix a dynamic disk.

For the same reasons, I don't recommend RAID arrays for home
users.

Yup yup yup. When you want to do something with your PC, when you
want to get things done, keeping it simple is the answer. If you
want to mess around, do whatever you like.
--













Paul

Loren Pechtel lorenpechtel hotmail.com wrote:

Paul wrote:

lots of data on it, then fine, use it. But every once in a while,
some person will post here "I have 3TB of movies on a RAID xxx
array, and the disk management software says a drive is failed.
What do I do ?". If you want to run RAID, you practice with
a few megabytes of files on it, until you get the hang of
doing maintenance. And if you set up a four drive array, you
might even buy a fifth (identical) drive, which operates
as your spare. Then you can practice the "what happens if a
drive dies", and get used to the disk management interface.
For example, if you're offered the option to "rebuild",
then it would be fun to see if your small collection of
files survives a "rebuild". Once you're comfortable with
operating a RAID, and can handle simulated failures, then
there will never be a day you have to run screaming to USENET,
for someone to save you :-)

Unless it's RAID 0 what's the big deal?

Probably not that it's a big deal, but that it's not simple as an
SDD drive. And whether it is worth it or not depends on how many
other potential problems you have to deal with. I have always
enjoyed having a fast PC, RAID might be okay, but keeping it
simple is the exact reason I have never wanted to try RAID. The
only reason I desire having two of the same type units is for
troubleshooting hardware or software.

Of course your situation may inspire different needs.
--














I've lost drives on 1 and 5,
pop in a new one and it rebuilds. Only once has it been any sort of
issue and that was a card with stupid software, the rebuild was only
possible from the BIOS, not the installed software.

Charlie Hoffpauir writes:

What type RAID do you have, hardware based or OS (software) based?

It's software based. Drivers have to be loaded for it but for mine those
are available in Windows XP and Win7.

Assuming hardware, what are the approximate performance improvements
over a single disk of the same quality/rotating speed, and over
software-based RAID. I don't mean theoretical, I mean real
improvements taht you see in terms of transfer speeds?

Perhaps for industrial DB apps a HW RAID would be desirable, but for
home use SW RAID is fine. I used HD Tune to test a single disk vs RAID 0
disks, all disks identical (WD 160GB).

Transfer rate [MB/s]:
Param Single RAID0
===== ====== =====
Min 29.3 48.0
Max 62.4 154.0
Ave 51.5 117.3

--
When the pain is great enough, we will let anyone be doctor.
--Mignon McLaughlin, The Neurotic's Notebook, 1960

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:10:12 -0700, Bug Dout
wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir writes:

What type RAID do you have, hardware based or OS (software) based?

It's software based. Drivers have to be loaded for it but for mine those
are available in Windows XP and Win7.

Assuming hardware, what are the approximate performance improvements
over a single disk of the same quality/rotating speed, and over
software-based RAID. I don't mean theoretical, I mean real
improvements taht you see in terms of transfer speeds?

Perhaps for industrial DB apps a HW RAID would be desirable, but for
home use SW RAID is fine. I used HD Tune to test a single disk vs RAID 0
disks, all disks identical (WD 160GB).

Transfer rate [MB/s]:
Param Single RAID0
===== ====== =====
Min 29.3 48.0
Max 62.4 154.0
Ave 51.5 117.3

I'm impressed! I didn't realize that SW RAID could do that well.
My Hitachi (1 TB) drive used for all my data partitions does 65.6
(MIN) & 132.9 (MAX) with an avg of 107.7. I have a couple of used 500
GB Seagates that I can set up in RAID 0.... I think I'll so that and
see if I can get a similar improvement. It may be that you can't get
as much improvement with faster drives to start with.