Yes.

Get two 74GB WD Raptors and configure them in RAID 0. Partition them using FDisk from a Windows ME start-up disk and then format. Make sure that you have the correct drivers on a floppy for your RAID controller so your OS can recognize the array. Install your OS on C: of the RAID array and use the IDE HD for a backup drive. When finished you will have the fastest storage available bar none. Check out Tom's Hardware review of the WD and other SATA drives...

You don't need to do that, XP setup will partition and format without help.

For some odd reason I've had to use FDisk to do the last 5 RAID setups in XP Pro with the Raptor HD's. I like being able to format ALL of the partitions in the array instead of only the one I'm putting the OS on. I also use a seperate partition for my page/swap file...

that don't make sense.

All the raid setups I've ever made, including ones for work using up to six scsi drives, have all been managed within windows setup.

So you're saying I don't even need a different drive than the raptors (that I wanted to buy ) to boot up and install XP, and that XP will do everything by itself when I go to do a fresh install?

Because I have an 80Gb 7200rpm Seagate I would keep on the basic IDE to have windows on and et cetera.

Don't both using the IDE HD for anything more than keeping backups of your data on.

When you put the two raptors on the Raid controller and setup the raid array in the bios just put the windows cd in and go into setup.

During the beginning of the install when it says it's analysing the configuration of the computer and the blue screen appears press F6 when it says across the bottom grey bar (so you can input a thrid-party raid driver).

When you do this just put the floppy you had with your raid controller in and select the windows XP Raid driver from the floppy.

If you don't do this windows won't detect the raptors and will only show your IDE hard disc during the selection of the HD you want to install windows on.

Now I've wanted to ask - I like to have separate partitions, like a separate one for:

Windows
Games
Music
Downloads

So I have two questions. On a RAID array, if I format just the windows one, will it format the other 3 as well?

And also, is it faster having my games on a separate partition or is it best to keep the games with windows?

There's a review of 8 different dual-channel SATA RAID controllers (RAID 0) over at Xbit Labs. There's some useful information in the review. Also, note that the reviewer tested both add-on (PCI cards) as well as motherboard (built-in) controllers. Here's the link -

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/d...lers-raid0.html

Later.

Single partitions are faster.

Ok thanks, so I'll just stick a single partition for all the downloading software and crap and get the rest for the important stuff :D

Now I've wanted to ask - I like to have separate partitions, like a separate one for:

Windows
Games
Music
Downloads

So I have two questions. On a RAID array, if I format just the windows one, will it format the other 3 as well?

And also, is it faster having my games on a separate partition or is it best to keep the games with windows?

I'm pretty sure I've gone over this before but I'll see if I can explain it better this time. In my system I have 4 drives - a Seagate Cheetah (SCSI) and three (3) WD 120GB IDE Special Edition (8MB buffer) drives.

The Cheetah is my XP boot partition and I try to keep it's size down to around 2GB (roughly). I try to avoid installing applications on that partition but obviously things like DLLs, drivers and things I can't specify a destination for end up there just the same. I also have a 2GB parition at the tail end of the Cheetah that I use for the XP swap file.

Two of the 120GB drives are connected to a HighPoint 374 RAID controller and configured as a striped pair (RAID 0). Setting them up in that configuration (at least for the HighPoint controller) is done via the controller's BIOS and after that, the drives appear as one contiguous drive that's accessable via DOS, PQMagic and every other application you can think of. It's performance is VERY snappy and approaches the Cheetah in just about every test (other than random access).

This RAID set is where I install all the applications and games I run along with MP3 files, DVD rips (to convert to SVCD), installation files, etc., and generally anything and everything that I actually want access to on a regular (and rapid) basis. I have the striped pair of drives partitioned into 4 identically sized partitions (roughly 58GB each) and put games on one, MP3s on another, applications on yet another, etc.

The 3rd 120GB drive is used for making backups of the boot partition (via PQMagic), downloads, storing data I don't necessarily need regular access to but is either too big to fit on a CD or I'm just to lazy to back up onto a DVD. I also use it for backups of data off the RAID set. Sometimes I keep movies on it (ripped DVDs) that I want to watch and then end up deleting them after watching them only once (not worth burning). It's more of a "catch-all" drive that just comes in very handy and keeps me from cluttering up my other drives with crap, if you can relate to that idea.

As far as how the striped pair is handled by the operating system, once it's created it acts exactly like any other drive. If I format one of the partitions of the striped pair, for example, none of the other partitions are effected. If I want to delete or resize a partition, it's the same as any other drive. It just appears as a normal drive with normal partitions, fully accessable from both Windoze and DOS. The controller's BIOS loads at boot up and makes the drive(s) appear just like any other drive, although under Windoze it still requires the controller's driver (HPT374).

As to where you store your games relative to the operating system, it doesn't matter at all unless your boot partition resides on a drive that is MUCH faster than the RAID set. Of course, that applies regardless. My Cheetah is a screeming fast 15K RPM ultra-wide 320MB/sec SCSI drive that IDE and SATA drives can't match (performance wise) and if you really NEED that kind of performance in your games, then by all means install them on the fastest drive you own.

I think you'll find though that a striped pair IDE or SATA drives will perform so well that you'll forget all about the TRULY high performance drives out there and stick with the best bang-for-your-buck hardware available (IDE and SATA drives running off a RAID controller).

I DON'T recommend using a RAID set for booting from (boot parition). The reason is that for EVERY byte of data stored on a striped pair of drives, the lower 4 bits (of every 8-bit word) end up on one drive (physically) and the upper 4 bits end up on the other drive. So, every data "word" is split between the two drives (hence the word "striped") and data corruption is always possible. RAID 0 is the LEAST safe mode to run in and if your data is important to you at all, I suggest you back it up as often as it changes. Of course, you could say that about ANY drive or combination of drives and we're all stuck with the same MTBF ratings.

I think as long as you have a good backup of your boot partition and make a fresh backup BEFORE you install that new set of ATi beta drivers or beta chipset drivers (just an example of "risky" stuff), running your boot partition from a RAID array is Ok (as long as your backup is NOT on that same array).

I hope at least some of this helps.

Later.

Well OK. If I go through with this - as I'm not particularly rich - it would be two 120 or 160 Gb 7200rpm drives in the RAID array (I was thinking of Seagates), and for a backup I was going to put my current 80Gb 7200rpm drive on its own on the normal IDE to just stick all that crap (Yes I can relate to your statement ).

I was thinking of putting the boot on the RAID array, and put that in the same partition as the games (I am not lucky enough to own a cheetah drive - them do look extremely cool ), unless you'll tell me there is a much higher risk of failures in RAID than in normal drives. I'm not talking about if one goes so must the other, I mean is there more chance that one actually will break down than if it was in a normal IDE?

And the very last question (for now) - is RAID really worth it?

Well OK. If I go through with this - as I'm not particularly rich - it would be two 120 or 160 Gb 7200rpm drives in the RAID array (I was thinking of Seagates), and for a backup I was going to put my current 80Gb 7200rpm drive on its own on the normal IDE to just stick all that crap (Yes I can relate to your statement ).

I was thinking of putting the boot on the RAID array, and put that in the same partition as the games (I am not lucky enough to own a cheetah drive - them do look extremely cool ), unless you'll tell me there is a much higher risk of failures in RAID than in normal drives. I'm not talking about if one goes so must the other, I mean is there more chance that one actually will break down than if it was in a normal IDE?

And the very last question (for now) - is RAID really worth it?

Risk factors are the same (MTBF = Mean Time Between Failure) for a drive whether it's running in normal IDE/SATA/SCSI mode or in RAID mode. Just pick a drive with a good warrantee that has a high MTBF rating (50000 hours is good, 100000 is twice as good, obviously). No more chance of one breaking than the other in any configuration. In other words, RAID drives don't work any harder than normally aspirated drives.

Is it worth it? Hmmm. Depends on your perspective. Is a 3.2 GHz P4 "worth" more than a 2.4 GHz P4 CPU? There's a big price difference, for sure, and the same thing applies to RAID. Unless your motherboard already has a RAID chip on it, you also have to buy a controller (and they don't exactly give them away). You also need at least 2 drives and those aren't free either.

As to performance "worth", there's a BIG performance boost in running in RAID 0 (striped) mode vs. standard mode so, yes, from a performance perspective, it's worth it. However, what price do you put on performance gains? Is the price difference between a 2.4 P4 and 3.2 P4 worth it? Is waiting 6 seconds for Photoshop 7.0 to load vs. waiting 10 seconds worth anything? Is your time worth that much? I don't know. That's up to you to figure out. It's like any other performance part in that you get what you pay for ... IF you feel it's a good trade (cash for hardware or whatever).

From the aspect of managing the hardware (2 drives in striped mode vs. 2 drives configured normally), there's really no major benefit OR loss because once the drives are configurated (in RAID 0 mode), you treat them the same as you would any other drive(s). Is that worth anything? I guess it could be if you wanted to use a pair of drives and treat them as one (take 2 x 120GB and you get 1 x 240GB striped drive).

The only real reason to run drives in RAID 0 mode is for performance. The other modes provide a variety of redundant fail-safe states that are more useful in server environments but don't have the performance gains of RAID 0 (for the most part). Still, that's an excellent question.

Personally, it just seemed like a good idea (to me) to be able to manage a LOT of storage space efficiently AND get a performance boost as well. From a cost perspective, at the time I really didn't care. This setup has been running without a hitch now for about 1.8 years (not a single problem) and I don't see any reason to doubt that it'll last another year or two. Hard drives DO wear out and eventually they ALL fail. That's just the nature of electro-mechanical devices. It's that friction thing and it's why I make backups.

I would rethink your idea for putting your games on the same partition as the boot partition. Performance wise, there's nothing to gain and everything to lose (putting it all on one partition). Instead, think about creating a smallish partition for JUST your operating system, keeping everything else distributed on other partitions (of the RAID array). That way it makes defragging and maintenance of your boot partition VERY fast and easy. I've experimented a LOT with that scenario over the years and from everything I've learned and tried, keeping your boot partition separate and "squeaky clean" is the only way to fly (best performance).

Besides, with the kind of space you're talking about (minimum 240GB, maximum 320GB), you could certainly afford to partition things ANY way you like AND reap the benefits of a tightly packed, lean and mean boot partition. It'll run like a raped ape. Believe it.

Later.

So you're saying that even my current way of separating boot from games and downloads is good?

What about programs like Photoshop and others? For the moment they stay on my boot partition, but would it be good to think about making a different partition for them or put them with the games?

So you're saying that even my current way of separating boot from games and downloads is good?

What about programs like Photoshop and others? For the moment they stay on my boot partition, but would it be good to think about making a different partition for them or put them with the games?

Fundamentally, the less cluttered your boot partition is (and ultimately Windoze itself), the faster it will boot, the faster it will shut down, the faster it will defrag and the faster it will RUN. Your CPU may very well be the heart of your computer but the OS is the brains. Without it, you've got nothing more than an expensive door stop.

Keeping applications (games, programs, downloaded files, etc.) segregated from the boot partition and effectively categorized, as such, into their own partitions, keeps things nice and simple. If you've got all your games, for example, on a "Games" partition, then when/if you decide to back up all your saved game and config files, they all come from the same partition and the CD or DVD burning software doesn't have to perform seeks to other partitions or drives, which greatly speeds up the process and makes it more efficient and reliable.

In the case of games or applications that create directories in my boot partiation, I use a program called AppMover http://www.funduc.com/app_mover.htm to move those directories where I want them. It updates ALL the registry entries for those directories and works like a champ.

We're talking about efficiency here and how efficient a logical approach to drive partitioning and file layout really is, when it comes right down to it.

Think of it from the perspective of your desk or a dresser where you arrange things logically in order to access them more efficiently (quickly). You put all your socks in one drawer, you skivvies in another (in the case of a dresser), your paper clips, pens, pencils, etc., in a draw, paper in another, files in a file drawer, etc., so that when you want one or of those things, it's always in the same place and you don't have to go searching around for any particular item.

All of this explanation also builds a very good case for defragging your drives on a regular basis. I'm sure you know enough about file fragmentation for me NOT to have to built a case in favor of this practice so I'll just leave it at that. Suffice to say that if your applications are scattered all over several drives or partitions along with other files that are changing or getting updated frequently, things can get very fragmented rather quickly.

To answer your first question, YES --- your current way of separating your boot files (the OS) from games and downloads IS a good idea. I've been doing exactly that for many years and it works, it makes sense and it's very efficient. You CAN take it a step further though.

As I wrote before, I try and avoid putting ANYTHING on my boot partition and keep applications (like Photoshop, Premier, MS Office, etc.) on their own "Applications" partition or drive. I've even gone so far as to move my "My Documents", "Temporary Internet Files" and the "../Local Settings/Temp" directories onto a different partition just to keep to a minimum the storing of "crap" onto the boot partition. Those directories, by their very nature, inevitably end up with more fragmented files and junk than any other locations on a system and managing them in the same way/method as any other set of files just makes sense.

What you end up doing is PAYING ATTENTION to your options during the installation of applications, games and utilities. Where most people just take the default installation path (C:Program FileName of Application), YOU decide where any given piece of software and the corresponding files end up going. You arrange those files in such a way that they are efficiently accessed when you decide to run or use them.

Here's a good example --- I have my Programs menu (Start/Programs) categorized by function. What I mean by that is I have categories (sub-menus/folders) set up (links) for everything I use. Here's my list (some are defaults put there by Windoze) -

Accessories
Admin Tools
Audio
CD Tools
DVD Tools
Games
Graphics Tools
Internet Tools
Office Tools
Startup
Utilities

Within each menu I can even create sub-menus (more categories). For example -

CD Tools -
CD Burning
CD Ripping

I think you'll get the idea from just that one example. During installation (of any particular application), I'll just type where I want a menu item to go and the same thing applies to the actual files themselves (where I want them to end up). The more organized you make things, the more efficiently they are accessed (which makes them run more efficiently).

So, to answer your second question, YES --- it would be good to think about making a different partition for them (programs like Photoshop and others) but I would not put them with your games. Instead, I would create a separate "Games" partition and install all your games there. It just makes more sense.

At any rate, I didn't intend for this RAID discussion to end up being a dissertation on file layout and management and I apologize if in the course of this discussion I suggested that there is only ONE way of doing all this. There isn't. There are MANY ways of setting things up to run logically and efficiently. This is just one way that has worked well for me and I HOPE you were able to at least get an idea of what is possible.

Later.

Don't worry, you only have about 10 years more PC experience than I do and I'll take your word over mine any day.

Don't worry, you only have about 10 years more PC experience than I do and I'll take your word over mine any day.

Actually, I've been working with computers since 1975 (Honeywell and Univac mainframes and minis). I know that dates me (on the OLD side of the scale) but that's Ok. I'm used to being called "the old fart".

Good luck with your RAID endevours.

Later.

Well I gotta buy a new processor, was thinking of the 3.0 P4's, non-prescott, as they have gone real cheap - comparatively - and will make a nice change from my 1500+ :D

Well I gotta buy a new processor, was thinking of the 3.0 P4's, non-prescott, as they have gone real cheap - comparatively - and will make a nice change from my 1500+

Actually, from what I've read on the subject, the P4 2.4C 800 is about the best bang for the buck these days. It'll over-clock with JUST a FSB tweak and stock voltage to around 3.0+ GHz and will easily hit 3.6 GHz water-cooled. I'd call that a bargain (at around $155). Then again, with good DDR and the motherboard to support it, the price starts to go up rapidly. I'm sure though that 3.0 P4 is just loafing along at 3.4-3.6 GHz so maybe that extra $50 is worth it. Guess there's only one way to find out

You still gonna do the RAID thing?

Later.