A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage & Hardrives
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

JBOD vs. RAID 0 with non-identical disks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 16th 03, 09:19 PM
Dayton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default JBOD vs. RAID 0 with non-identical disks

I have a 160GB and a 120GB hard drive in which I want to make one
GIANT drive and then partition into 4 equal partitions reguardless of
which physical disk the partition has to reside on. Essentially
creating 4 70GB partitions. When you use RAID 0 with non-identical
disks, can you use the wasted space to create a separate drive? What
are my options for that extra 40GB? How exactly does JBOD work? Does
it allow for one giant drive? HELP!

Dayton
  #2  
Old October 17th 03, 12:44 AM
Faeandar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Some of it may depend on what you use to do the raid and/or
concatenation.

With RAID 0 you will lose the 40gb in the stripe set, but should be
able to use it in a standalone volume if your raid manager isn't a
pile of crap. You cannot, however, create equal paritions agains the
entire disk space with raid 0. You would get 240gb in raid 0 that you
could do what you want with, but then a 40gb partition that is all
alone. It can be used as well but not as part of the stripe set and
not more than 40gb.

You can concatenate the disks making a single volume and carve 70gb
partitions out of that.

JBOD is exactly what it stands for, Just (a) Bunch Of Disks. you need
some sort of raid manager or volume manager to do anything with them
outside of the physical layout. Without it you would have 2 drives,
one 160gb and one 120gb. That's it.

hope this helps.

~F

On 16 Oct 2003 13:19:49 -0700, (Dayton) wrote:

I have a 160GB and a 120GB hard drive in which I want to make one
GIANT drive and then partition into 4 equal partitions reguardless of
which physical disk the partition has to reside on. Essentially
creating 4 70GB partitions. When you use RAID 0 with non-identical
disks, can you use the wasted space to create a separate drive? What
are my options for that extra 40GB? How exactly does JBOD work? Does
it allow for one giant drive? HELP!

Dayton


  #3  
Old October 17th 03, 04:36 AM
Maxim S. Shatskih
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First disk: 2 simple volumes of 70, and a partition of 20.
Second disk: a partition of 50 and a simple volume of 70.
The "partition of 20" and "partition of 50" must be joined to a volume set.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com


"Dayton" wrote in message
om...
I have a 160GB and a 120GB hard drive in which I want to make one
GIANT drive and then partition into 4 equal partitions reguardless of
which physical disk the partition has to reside on. Essentially
creating 4 70GB partitions. When you use RAID 0 with non-identical
disks, can you use the wasted space to create a separate drive? What
are my options for that extra 40GB? How exactly does JBOD work? Does
it allow for one giant drive? HELP!

Dayton



  #4  
Old October 17th 03, 10:07 PM
Faeandar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Unless I'm missing something here, there's no use of raid0 in the
scenario.

The below will work if using a volume manager and straight
concatenation, but you get zero performance enhancements. In fact it
could actually slow performance. Of course, this may be fine if the
layout is more important.

~F

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:36:18 +0400, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote:

First disk: 2 simple volumes of 70, and a partition of 20.
Second disk: a partition of 50 and a simple volume of 70.
The "partition of 20" and "partition of 50" must be joined to a volume set.


  #5  
Old October 18th 03, 05:15 AM
Maxim S. Shatskih
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The original poster asked for particular layout.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com


"Faeandar" wrote in message
...
Unless I'm missing something here, there's no use of raid0 in the
scenario.

The below will work if using a volume manager and straight
concatenation, but you get zero performance enhancements. In fact it
could actually slow performance. Of course, this may be fine if the
layout is more important.

~F

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:36:18 +0400, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote:

First disk: 2 simple volumes of 70, and a partition of 20.
Second disk: a partition of 50 and a simple volume of 70.
The "partition of 20" and "partition of 50" must be joined to a volume

set.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAID 1 newbie question - non identical disks Matt Fletcher Homebuilt PC's 8 August 10th 04 09:42 PM
P4C800-E Delux: Setting up SATA Drives with RAID Will Asus Motherboards 13 July 12th 04 04:33 AM
P4P800DLX from non-raid to raid Splitskull Asus Motherboards 2 June 2nd 04 10:51 AM
Newbie P4P800 Deluxe Raid John Greenleaf Asus Motherboards 7 February 5th 04 12:59 AM
Gigabyte GA-8KNXP and Promise SX4000 RAID Controller Old Dude Gigabyte Motherboards 4 November 12th 03 08:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.