"forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives became
>>> one
>>> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes sense
>>> since
>>> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>>>
>>> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My score
>>> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.[/color]
>>
>>
>> I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives in
>> RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and would
>> make more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.
>>
>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you
>> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice
>> the chance of losing your data.
>>
>> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same pair
>> of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is still
>> (quite) safe.
>>
>> ss.
>>[/color]
>
>
> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]


That idiot from Spain Alias respned...and as usual he is clueless.
Statistical anomalies are prevalent at low sample rates.
Two children born to the same parents do not have twice the chance of death
as a single child born to monkies.
Its always a numbers game to idiots below the standard deviation of a
population

forty-nine wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:47E5487A-D208-41E0-B5AB-ECFB92312A30@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> Hey ALL,
>>
>> I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard
>> about
>> the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did
>> not
>> apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
>> help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
>> 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the
>> HD's
>> in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So
>> please
>> help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use
>> Office
>> 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
>> Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input!
>> Gunny[/color]
>
>
> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes no
> difference.
> More idiots[/color]

Here's hoping one of those drives fails. Nothing like losing the whole mess
you luser.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
The closest to "computing" that man should go.

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:eOjEF4YgIHA.5036@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
>> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]
>
> ROFL! Why don't you just tattoo 'IDIOT' on your forehead?[/color]

I'm pretty sure it's already there!

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fqvikr210ag@news3.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
> forty-nine wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:47E5487A-D208-41E0-B5AB-ECFB92312A30@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Hey ALL,
>>>
>>> I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard
>>> about
>>> the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did
>>> not
>>> apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like
>>> some
>>> help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB
>>> @
>>> 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the
>>> HD's
>>> in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So
>>> please
>>> help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use
>>> Office
>>> 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
>>> Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input!
>>> Gunny[/color]
>>
>>
>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes no
>> difference.
>> More idiots[/color]
>
> Here's hoping one of those drives fails. Nothing like losing the whole
> mess
> you luser.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> What does Bill Gates use?
> [url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]
>
> Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.
>
> AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
> The closest to "computing" that man should go.
>
> Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
> [url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]
>[/color]


NO idiot... the failure of one critical drive compared to the loss of two
critical drives is the same.

If I have two 2 critical drives, the failure of either one 1 drive results
in loss of data ... what the flock 2 in RAID has to do with it ... is a
moronic low grade mathematical discussion.
You people associate 2 drives with double....incorrect ... study more.

forty-nine wrote:[color=blue]
> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>> message news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...
>>>> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives
>>>> became one
>>>> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes
>>>> sense since
>>>> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>>>>
>>>> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My
>>>> score
>>>> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives
>>> in RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and
>>> would make more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.
>>>
>>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so
>>> you have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There
>>> is twice the chance of losing your data.
>>>
>>> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same
>>> pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition
>>> is still (quite) safe.
>>>
>>> ss.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
>> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
>> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]
>
>
> That idiot from Spain Alias respned...and as usual he is clueless.
> Statistical anomalies are prevalent at low sample rates.
> Two children born to the same parents do not have twice the chance of
> death as a single child born to monkies.
> Its always a numbers game to idiots below the standard deviation of a
> population[/color]

So, 49 *is* your IQ, eh?

Alias

Ther following is a print out on my RAID. Notice, 2 drives = 670. RAID 0 in
place, My computer reports 1 HD @ 320GB.

Thoughts



Intel(R) RAID Technology

Intel RAID Controller: Intel(R) ICH8R/ICH9R SATA RAID Controller
Number of Serial ATA ports: 6

RAID Option ROM Version: 7.5.0.1017
Driver Version: 7.6.0.1011
RAID Plug-In Version: 7.6.0.1011
Language Resource Version of the RAID Plug-In: 7.6.0.1011
Create Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
Language Resource Version of the Create Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
Language Resource Version of the Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive
Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
Modify Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
Language Resource Version of the Modify Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
Delete Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
Language Resource Version of the Delete Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
ISDI Library Version: 7.6.0.1011
Event Monitor User Notification Tool Version: 7.6.0.1011
Language Resource Version of the Event Monitor User Notification Tool:
7.6.0.1011
Event Monitor Version: 7.6.0.1011

Array_0000
Status: No active migration(s)
Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
Size: 670.7 GB
Free Space: 0 GB
Number of Hard Drives: 2
Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
Number of Volumes: 1
Volume Member 1: Volume_0000

Volume_0000
Status: Normal
System Volume: Yes
Volume Write-Back Cache Enabled: No
RAID Level: RAID 0 (striping)
Strip Size: 128 KB
Size: 670.6 GB
Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
Number of Hard Drives: 2
Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
Parent Array: Array_0000

Hard Drive 0
Usage: Array member
Status: Normal
Device Port: 0
Device Port Location: Internal
Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
Model: ST3360320AS
Serial Number: 6QF3BSYL
Firmware: 3.CHN
Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
Size: 335.3 GB
Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
Number of Volumes: 1
Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
Parent Array: Array_0000

Hard Drive 1
Usage: Array member
Status: Normal
Device Port: 2
Device Port Location: Internal
Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
Model: ST3360320AS
Serial Number: 6QF3BZBS
Firmware: 3.CHN
Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
Size: 335.3 GB
Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
Number of Volumes: 1
Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
Parent Array: Array_0000




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:15:01 -0800, Seidell23231
> <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Hey ALL,
> >
> > I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard about
> > the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did not
> > apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
> > help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
> > 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the HD's
> > in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So please
> > help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use Office
> > 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
> > Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input! Gunny[/color]
>
>
>
> RAID0 and RAID1 are two completely different things.
>
> RAID0 is striping. It alternates pieces of a file on multiple drives
> to improve performance. It sounds great, but in practice, the
> performance increase is very small, but the risk to your data is
> greatly increased. Because every file is spread across every drive, if
> any drive dies, *all* your data dies with it.
>
> I no longer use RAID0 on this computer, but I used to. Since getting
> rid of it, I am able to discern no loss of performance.
>
> RAID1 is mirroring. When you use RAID1, every file is written to each
> drive on the RAID array. So, yes, with a two-drive RAID1 array, the
> result is that you have half of the amount of storage you thought you
> had.
>
> Although some people think of RAID1 as a backup technique, that's
> *not* what it is. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of
> the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations
> (almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtime
> can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive
> fails the other takes over seamlessly.
>
> Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan
> in place.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, neither RAID01 nor RAID2 is appropriate for
> home users.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>[/color]

Alias wrote:[color=blue]
> forty-nine wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
>> news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives
>>>>> became one
>>>>> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes
>>>>> sense since
>>>>> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My
>>>>> score
>>>>> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives
>>>> in RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and
>>>> would make more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so
>>>> you have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There
>>>> is twice the chance of losing your data.
>>>>
>>>> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same
>>>> pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition
>>>> is still (quite) safe.
>>>>
>>>> ss.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
>>> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
>>> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> That idiot from Spain Alias respned...and as usual he is clueless.
>> Statistical anomalies are prevalent at low sample rates.
>> Two children born to the same parents do not have twice the chance of
>> death as a single child born to monkies.
>> Its always a numbers game to idiots below the standard deviation of a
>> population[/color]
>
>
> So, 49 *is* your IQ, eh?
>
> Alias[/color]

No but it is certainly higher than your IQ...LOL!
Hey...how is that love affair with that sheep coming along? Everybody
happy I hope...LOL!
Frank

found out why only 1 drive is showing under RAID 0. Per the instructions,
after migrating a system from RAID Ready to RAID 0, the RAID volume contains
the combined capacity of all the hard drives, but the migrated partition
leaves unformatted space at the end of the RAID volume. Also explains the
fix.



"Seidell23231" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Ther following is a print out on my RAID. Notice, 2 drives = 670. RAID 0 in
> place, My computer reports 1 HD @ 320GB.
>
> Thoughts
>
>
>
> Intel(R) RAID Technology
>
> Intel RAID Controller: Intel(R) ICH8R/ICH9R SATA RAID Controller
> Number of Serial ATA ports: 6
>
> RAID Option ROM Version: 7.5.0.1017
> Driver Version: 7.6.0.1011
> RAID Plug-In Version: 7.6.0.1011
> Language Resource Version of the RAID Plug-In: 7.6.0.1011
> Create Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> Language Resource Version of the Create Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> Language Resource Version of the Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive
> Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> Modify Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> Language Resource Version of the Modify Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> Delete Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> Language Resource Version of the Delete Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> ISDI Library Version: 7.6.0.1011
> Event Monitor User Notification Tool Version: 7.6.0.1011
> Language Resource Version of the Event Monitor User Notification Tool:
> 7.6.0.1011
> Event Monitor Version: 7.6.0.1011
>
> Array_0000
> Status: No active migration(s)
> Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> Size: 670.7 GB
> Free Space: 0 GB
> Number of Hard Drives: 2
> Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> Number of Volumes: 1
> Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
>
> Volume_0000
> Status: Normal
> System Volume: Yes
> Volume Write-Back Cache Enabled: No
> RAID Level: RAID 0 (striping)
> Strip Size: 128 KB
> Size: 670.6 GB
> Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> Number of Hard Drives: 2
> Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> Parent Array: Array_0000
>
> Hard Drive 0
> Usage: Array member
> Status: Normal
> Device Port: 0
> Device Port Location: Internal
> Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> Model: ST3360320AS
> Serial Number: 6QF3BSYL
> Firmware: 3.CHN
> Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> Size: 335.3 GB
> Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> Number of Volumes: 1
> Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> Parent Array: Array_0000
>
> Hard Drive 1
> Usage: Array member
> Status: Normal
> Device Port: 2
> Device Port Location: Internal
> Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> Model: ST3360320AS
> Serial Number: 6QF3BZBS
> Firmware: 3.CHN
> Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> Size: 335.3 GB
> Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> Number of Volumes: 1
> Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> Parent Array: Array_0000
>
>
>
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:15:01 -0800, Seidell23231
> > <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Hey ALL,
> > >
> > > I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard about
> > > the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did not
> > > apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
> > > help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
> > > 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the HD's
> > > in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So please
> > > help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use Office
> > > 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
> > > Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input! Gunny[/color]
> >
> >
> >
> > RAID0 and RAID1 are two completely different things.
> >
> > RAID0 is striping. It alternates pieces of a file on multiple drives
> > to improve performance. It sounds great, but in practice, the
> > performance increase is very small, but the risk to your data is
> > greatly increased. Because every file is spread across every drive, if
> > any drive dies, *all* your data dies with it.
> >
> > I no longer use RAID0 on this computer, but I used to. Since getting
> > rid of it, I am able to discern no loss of performance.
> >
> > RAID1 is mirroring. When you use RAID1, every file is written to each
> > drive on the RAID array. So, yes, with a two-drive RAID1 array, the
> > result is that you have half of the amount of storage you thought you
> > had.
> >
> > Although some people think of RAID1 as a backup technique, that's
> > *not* what it is. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of
> > the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations
> > (almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtime
> > can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive
> > fails the other takes over seamlessly.
> >
> > Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan
> > in place.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, neither RAID01 nor RAID2 is appropriate for
> > home users.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >[/color][/color]

Agreed two drive does not offer twice the failure rate. It's almost certain
that one drive will fail first. However the MTBF is probably close to 3
years, and having a single drive will prob fail just about at the same MTBF
time. So it does not double the failure possible in a raid -0 config. If fact
if the home user can manage it, Raid-0 is a significant performance boost
over a single drive config. Double you space with raid -0 and run and
external usb 2 drive to ghost and image, as it should be. :)

"forty-nine" wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> >> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives became
> >> one
> >> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes sense
> >> since
> >> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
> >>
> >> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My score
> >> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.[/color]
> >
> >
> > I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives in
> > RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and would make
> > more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.
> >
> > Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you
> > have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice
> > the chance of losing your data.
> >
> > Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same pair
> > of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is still
> > (quite) safe.
> >
> > ss.
> >[/color]
>
>
> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics
>
>[/color]

"Frank" <fab@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:uGr76HZgIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Alias wrote:[color=green]
>> forty-nine wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
>>> news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives
>>>>>> became one
>>>>>> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes
>>>>>> sense since
>>>>>> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My
>>>>>> score
>>>>>> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives in
>>>>> RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and would
>>>>> make more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so
>>>>> you have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is
>>>>> twice the chance of losing your data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same
>>>>> pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is
>>>>> still (quite) safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> ss.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
>>>> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire
>>>> ?
>>>> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That idiot from Spain Alias respned...and as usual he is clueless.
>>> Statistical anomalies are prevalent at low sample rates.
>>> Two children born to the same parents do not have twice the chance of
>>> death as a single child born to monkies.
>>> Its always a numbers game to idiots below the standard deviation of a
>>> population[/color]
>>
>>
>> So, 49 *is* your IQ, eh?
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
> No but it is certainly higher than your IQ...LOL!
> Hey...how is that love affair with that sheep coming along? Everybody
> happy I hope...LOL!
> Frank
>[/color]

How do those fingers smell??

It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
failure. This is refered toi as MBTF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
Electronic equiptment should have this rating if some form in thoundsands of
hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your will
probably be significantly hindered. lol

"Bob Campbell" wrote:
[color=blue]
> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you
> >> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice
> >> the chance of losing your data.
> >>
> >> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same pair
> >> of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is still
> >> (quite) safe.
> >>
> >> ss.
> >>[/color]
> >
> >
> > How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> > If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?[/color]
>
>
> He didn't say "twice the chance of a failing HD", he said twice the chance
> of losing your data. Which is true with RAID0, since you have more failure
> points.
>
> Yes, if you have 2 houses, your chances of a house you own catching fire has
> gone up. Maybe not double, but certainly higher. Consider if you owned
> every house in the US. Your odds are now 100% that a house you own will
> catch fire.
>[color=green]
> > Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]
>
> Indeed.
>
>[/color]

Corrections to spelling errors sorry....

It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
failure. This is referred to as MTBF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
Electronic equipment should have this rating in some form in thousands of
hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your up
time will
probably be significantly hindered. lol


"Dattron" wrote:
[color=blue]
> It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
> identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
> failure. This is refered toi as MBTF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
> Electronic equiptment should have this rating if some form in thoundsands of
> hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your will
> probably be significantly hindered. lol
>
> "Bob Campbell" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> > news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> > >> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you
> > >> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice
> > >> the chance of losing your data.
> > >>
> > >> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same pair
> > >> of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is still
> > >> (quite) safe.
> > >>
> > >> ss.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> > > If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?[/color]
> >
> >
> > He didn't say "twice the chance of a failing HD", he said twice the chance
> > of losing your data. Which is true with RAID0, since you have more failure
> > points.
> >
> > Yes, if you have 2 houses, your chances of a house you own catching fire has
> > gone up. Maybe not double, but certainly higher. Consider if you owned
> > every house in the US. Your odds are now 100% that a house you own will
> > catch fire.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> >[/color][/color]

OK, final questions. I now have the 2 drives, in RAID 0. Is it wise to
establish partitions? If yes, do I put the same partition on both drives, or
will it be automatically done? Do I ever use the 2nd drive?

"Seidell23231" wrote:
[color=blue]
> found out why only 1 drive is showing under RAID 0. Per the instructions,
> after migrating a system from RAID Ready to RAID 0, the RAID volume contains
> the combined capacity of all the hard drives, but the migrated partition
> leaves unformatted space at the end of the RAID volume. Also explains the
> fix.
>
>
>
> "Seidell23231" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Ther following is a print out on my RAID. Notice, 2 drives = 670. RAID 0 in
> > place, My computer reports 1 HD @ 320GB.
> >
> > Thoughts
> >
> >
> >
> > Intel(R) RAID Technology
> >
> > Intel RAID Controller: Intel(R) ICH8R/ICH9R SATA RAID Controller
> > Number of Serial ATA ports: 6
> >
> > RAID Option ROM Version: 7.5.0.1017
> > Driver Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > RAID Plug-In Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > Language Resource Version of the RAID Plug-In: 7.6.0.1011
> > Create Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > Language Resource Version of the Create Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > Language Resource Version of the Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive
> > Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > Modify Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > Language Resource Version of the Modify Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > Delete Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > Language Resource Version of the Delete Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > ISDI Library Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > Event Monitor User Notification Tool Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > Language Resource Version of the Event Monitor User Notification Tool:
> > 7.6.0.1011
> > Event Monitor Version: 7.6.0.1011
> >
> > Array_0000
> > Status: No active migration(s)
> > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > Size: 670.7 GB
> > Free Space: 0 GB
> > Number of Hard Drives: 2
> > Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> > Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> > Number of Volumes: 1
> > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> >
> > Volume_0000
> > Status: Normal
> > System Volume: Yes
> > Volume Write-Back Cache Enabled: No
> > RAID Level: RAID 0 (striping)
> > Strip Size: 128 KB
> > Size: 670.6 GB
> > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > Number of Hard Drives: 2
> > Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> > Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> > Parent Array: Array_0000
> >
> > Hard Drive 0
> > Usage: Array member
> > Status: Normal
> > Device Port: 0
> > Device Port Location: Internal
> > Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> > Model: ST3360320AS
> > Serial Number: 6QF3BSYL
> > Firmware: 3.CHN
> > Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > Size: 335.3 GB
> > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > Number of Volumes: 1
> > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > Parent Array: Array_0000
> >
> > Hard Drive 1
> > Usage: Array member
> > Status: Normal
> > Device Port: 2
> > Device Port Location: Internal
> > Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> > Model: ST3360320AS
> > Serial Number: 6QF3BZBS
> > Firmware: 3.CHN
> > Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > Size: 335.3 GB
> > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > Number of Volumes: 1
> > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > Parent Array: Array_0000
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:15:01 -0800, Seidell23231
> > > <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey ALL,
> > > >
> > > > I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard about
> > > > the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did not
> > > > apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
> > > > help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
> > > > 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the HD's
> > > > in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So please
> > > > help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use Office
> > > > 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
> > > > Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input! Gunny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > RAID0 and RAID1 are two completely different things.
> > >
> > > RAID0 is striping. It alternates pieces of a file on multiple drives
> > > to improve performance. It sounds great, but in practice, the
> > > performance increase is very small, but the risk to your data is
> > > greatly increased. Because every file is spread across every drive, if
> > > any drive dies, *all* your data dies with it.
> > >
> > > I no longer use RAID0 on this computer, but I used to. Since getting
> > > rid of it, I am able to discern no loss of performance.
> > >
> > > RAID1 is mirroring. When you use RAID1, every file is written to each
> > > drive on the RAID array. So, yes, with a two-drive RAID1 array, the
> > > result is that you have half of the amount of storage you thought you
> > > had.
> > >
> > > Although some people think of RAID1 as a backup technique, that's
> > > *not* what it is. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of
> > > the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations
> > > (almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtime
> > > can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive
> > > fails the other takes over seamlessly.
> > >
> > > Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan
> > > in place.
> > >
> > > As far as I'm concerned, neither RAID01 nor RAID2 is appropriate for
> > > home users.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > >[/color][/color][/color]

Jim wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Frank" <fab@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:uGr76HZgIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
>> Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> forty-nine wrote:
>>>
>>>> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
>>>> news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives
>>>>>>> became one
>>>>>>> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes
>>>>>>> sense since
>>>>>>> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive?
>>>>>>> My score
>>>>>>> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB
>>>>>> drives in RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in
>>>>>> Computer, and would make more of a difference on the WEI
>>>>>> benchmarking score.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything,
>>>>>> so you have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive.
>>>>>> There is twice the chance of losing your data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the
>>>>>> same pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1
>>>>>> partition is still (quite) safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
>>>>> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching
>>>>> fire ?
>>>>> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That idiot from Spain Alias respned...and as usual he is clueless.
>>>> Statistical anomalies are prevalent at low sample rates.
>>>> Two children born to the same parents do not have twice the chance
>>>> of death as a single child born to monkies.
>>>> Its always a numbers game to idiots below the standard deviation of
>>>> a population
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, 49 *is* your IQ, eh?
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>
>>
>> No but it is certainly higher than your IQ...LOL!
>> Hey...how is that love affair with that sheep coming along? Everybody
>> happy I hope...LOL!
>> Frank
>>[/color]
>
> How do those fingers smell??[/color]

OMG! You keep mentioning that and we all see that the very thought of
that excites you doesn't it? You're really into that pedophile crap
aren't you? You're one of those sick son of a bit*h sex offenders aren't
you. Are you on the sex offenders list? What is your full name and ss
number huh? We need to look you up.
Well...?
Frank

Disk Manager under Storage in Computer Management will display the raid-0
drives as one single drive. You can partition and format the drive however
you want assuming your raid-0 configuration is established. Your hardware
raid controller software will indicate if the raid-0 is operational or not.
If the raid-0 is going to be your boot drive on a clean install, the vista cd
will need to boot the system to create the partition and format the raid-0
drive. It's up to you how big you want to make the primary partition.

"Seidell23231" wrote:
[color=blue]
> OK, final questions. I now have the 2 drives, in RAID 0. Is it wise to
> establish partitions? If yes, do I put the same partition on both drives, or
> will it be automatically done? Do I ever use the 2nd drive?
>
> "Seidell23231" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > found out why only 1 drive is showing under RAID 0. Per the instructions,
> > after migrating a system from RAID Ready to RAID 0, the RAID volume contains
> > the combined capacity of all the hard drives, but the migrated partition
> > leaves unformatted space at the end of the RAID volume. Also explains the
> > fix.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Seidell23231" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Ther following is a print out on my RAID. Notice, 2 drives = 670. RAID 0 in
> > > place, My computer reports 1 HD @ 320GB.
> > >
> > > Thoughts
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Intel(R) RAID Technology
> > >
> > > Intel RAID Controller: Intel(R) ICH8R/ICH9R SATA RAID Controller
> > > Number of Serial ATA ports: 6
> > >
> > > RAID Option ROM Version: 7.5.0.1017
> > > Driver Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > RAID Plug-In Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the RAID Plug-In: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Create Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Create Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive
> > > Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Modify Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Modify Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Delete Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Delete Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > ISDI Library Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Event Monitor User Notification Tool Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Event Monitor User Notification Tool:
> > > 7.6.0.1011
> > > Event Monitor Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > >
> > > Array_0000
> > > Status: No active migration(s)
> > > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > > Size: 670.7 GB
> > > Free Space: 0 GB
> > > Number of Hard Drives: 2
> > > Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> > > Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> > > Number of Volumes: 1
> > > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > >
> > > Volume_0000
> > > Status: Normal
> > > System Volume: Yes
> > > Volume Write-Back Cache Enabled: No
> > > RAID Level: RAID 0 (striping)
> > > Strip Size: 128 KB
> > > Size: 670.6 GB
> > > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Number of Hard Drives: 2
> > > Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> > > Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> > > Parent Array: Array_0000
> > >
> > > Hard Drive 0
> > > Usage: Array member
> > > Status: Normal
> > > Device Port: 0
> > > Device Port Location: Internal
> > > Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> > > Model: ST3360320AS
> > > Serial Number: 6QF3BSYL
> > > Firmware: 3.CHN
> > > Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> > > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > > Size: 335.3 GB
> > > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Number of Volumes: 1
> > > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > > Parent Array: Array_0000
> > >
> > > Hard Drive 1
> > > Usage: Array member
> > > Status: Normal
> > > Device Port: 2
> > > Device Port Location: Internal
> > > Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> > > Model: ST3360320AS
> > > Serial Number: 6QF3BZBS
> > > Firmware: 3.CHN
> > > Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> > > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > > Size: 335.3 GB
> > > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Number of Volumes: 1
> > > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > > Parent Array: Array_0000
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:15:01 -0800, Seidell23231
> > > > <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey ALL,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard about
> > > > > the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did not
> > > > > apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
> > > > > help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
> > > > > 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the HD's
> > > > > in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So please
> > > > > help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use Office
> > > > > 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
> > > > > Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input! Gunny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > RAID0 and RAID1 are two completely different things.
> > > >
> > > > RAID0 is striping. It alternates pieces of a file on multiple drives
> > > > to improve performance. It sounds great, but in practice, the
> > > > performance increase is very small, but the risk to your data is
> > > > greatly increased. Because every file is spread across every drive, if
> > > > any drive dies, *all* your data dies with it.
> > > >
> > > > I no longer use RAID0 on this computer, but I used to. Since getting
> > > > rid of it, I am able to discern no loss of performance.
> > > >
> > > > RAID1 is mirroring. When you use RAID1, every file is written to each
> > > > drive on the RAID array. So, yes, with a two-drive RAID1 array, the
> > > > result is that you have half of the amount of storage you thought you
> > > > had.
> > > >
> > > > Although some people think of RAID1 as a backup technique, that's
> > > > *not* what it is. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of
> > > > the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations
> > > > (almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtime
> > > > can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive
> > > > fails the other takes over seamlessly.
> > > >
> > > > Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan
> > > > in place.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I'm concerned, neither RAID01 nor RAID2 is appropriate for
> > > > home users.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > > >[/color][/color][/color]