Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?

I've got a Linux server here with 5x500gig hard drives in a RAID5 array. It
works OK, but I'd like to stick to one OS.

On Jan 19, 6:39*pm, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
> Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?
>
> I've got a Linux server here with 5x500gig hard drives in a RAID5 array. It
> works OK, but I'd like to stick to one OS.

RAID 5 is mainly based on hardware. You need to have the correct
drivers for the RAID controller card. However, RAID 5 is mostly used
for "server" based operating systems, which XP is not. I do not
believe you will find drivers for XP.

Windows works with RAID 5,for more info on RAID & performance,go
to:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...in/ntserv.mspx

"Noozer" wrote:

> Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?
>
> I've got a Linux server here with 5x500gig hard drives in a RAID5 array. It
> works OK, but I'd like to stick to one OS.
>
>
>
>

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23w4nPSvWIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?

Only with the server versions (2000/2003).


Massimo

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message
news:%23w4nPSvWIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?
>
> I've got a Linux server here with 5x500gig hard drives in a RAID5 array.
> It works OK, but I'd like to stick to one OS.


RAID-5 uses a lot of processing power, so your CPU is going to take a big
hit if using software RAID. RAID-5 is usually used on servers, with true
hardware controllers (ie. ones with their own CPU) which are very expensive.

UK -
http://www.google.co.uk/products?sou...Adaptec+RAID-5

US -
http://www.google.com/products?sourc...Adaptec+RAID-5

ss.

"Massimo" <barone@mclink.it> wrote in message
news:%23XOkF0yWIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?
>
> Only with the server versions (2000/2003).

It's in XP as well, but you have to hack to enable it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/...raid_5_happen/

ss.

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
news:un%23ArA1WIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message
> news:%23w4nPSvWIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?
>>
>> I've got a Linux server here with 5x500gig hard drives in a RAID5 array.
>> It works OK, but I'd like to stick to one OS.
>
>
> RAID-5 uses a lot of processing power, so your CPU is going to take a big
> hit if using software RAID. RAID-5 is usually used on servers, with true
> hardware controllers (ie. ones with their own CPU) which are very
> expensive.

Well, the CPU is a P4 running just over 3Ghz. The PC is doing NOTHING except
serving files to the LAN and a 3 user FTP server.

Considering that we already have a 2.5 Terabyte array (2TB usable) running
under Linux, I don't think performance will be notibly different under
Windows.

On Jan 20, 5:39*am, "Synapse Syndrome"
<syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
> "Massimo" <bar...@mclink.it> wrote in message
>
> news:%23XOkF0yWIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> >> Just curious... Can Windows do software RAID5?
>
> > Only with the server versions (2000/2003).
>
> It's in XP as well, but you have to hack to enable it.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/...to_make_raid_5...
>
> ss.

Software RAID 5 should not be considered. Most Windows XP would not
have the "extra" resources (ie: CPU speed and RAM) that would be
required to use this "software RAID 5." RAID 5 should really be set
up with a dedicated hardware RAID controller.

> Software RAID 5 should not be considered. Most Windows XP would not
> have the "extra" resources (ie: CPU speed and RAM) that would be
> required to use this "software RAID 5." RAID 5 should really be set
> up with a dedicated hardware RAID controller.

...and when that hardware controller fails, you MUST find the same model to
have any hope of restoring your RAID array.

With software RAID5, you're using the onboard controllers, which are (for
the most part) interchangable.

On Jan 21, 2:52*pm, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
> > Software RAID 5 should not be considered. *Most Windows XP would not
> > have the "extra" resources (ie: CPU speed and RAM) that would be
> > required to use this "software RAID 5." *RAID 5 should really be set
> > up with a dedicated hardware RAID controller.
>
> ..and when that hardware controller fails, you MUST find the same model to
> have any hope of restoring your RAID array.
>
> With software RAID5, you're using the onboard controllers, which are (for
> the most part) interchangable.

Software RAID seem to usually use Dynamic DISK structutres and if the
"structures" go, the data follows.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:52:35 -0700, "Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here>
wrote:

>> Software RAID 5 should not be considered. Most Windows XP would not
>> have the "extra" resources (ie: CPU speed and RAM) that would be
>> required to use this "software RAID 5." RAID 5 should really be set
>> up with a dedicated hardware RAID controller.
>
>..and when that hardware controller fails, you MUST find the same model to
>have any hope of restoring your RAID array.
>
>With software RAID5, you're using the onboard controllers, which are (for
>the most part) interchangable.
>

However, most RAID5 configurations that are Hardware based are used in
Servers, and those are almost exclusively SCSI. SCSI failure rates,
including RAID controllers, are very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
low.

On Jan 21, 7:23*pm, NoConsequence <n...@none.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:52:35 -0700, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here>
> wrote:
>
> >> Software RAID 5 should not be considered. *Most Windows XP would not
> >> have the "extra" resources (ie: CPU speed and RAM) that would be
> >> required to use this "software RAID 5." *RAID 5 should really be set
> >> up with a dedicated hardware RAID controller.
>
> >..and when that hardware controller fails, you MUST find the same model to
> >have any hope of restoring your RAID array.
>
> >With software RAID5, you're using the onboard controllers, which are (for
> >the most part) interchangable.
>
> However, most RAID5 configurations that are Hardware based are used in
> Servers, and those are almost exclusively SCSI. *SCSI failure rates,
> including RAID controllers, are very very very very very very very
> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
> low. *

Newer SATA RAID controllers are now available with RAID 5.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:31:15 -0800 (PST), smlunatick
<yveslec******.com> wrote:

>On Jan 21, 7:23*pm, NoConsequence <n...@none.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:52:35 -0700, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Software RAID 5 should not be considered. *Most Windows XP would not
>> >> have the "extra" resources (ie: CPU speed and RAM) that would be
>> >> required to use this "software RAID 5." *RAID 5 should really be set
>> >> up with a dedicated hardware RAID controller.
>>
>> >..and when that hardware controller fails, you MUST find the same model to
>> >have any hope of restoring your RAID array.
>>
>> >With software RAID5, you're using the onboard controllers, which are (for
>> >the most part) interchangable.
>>
>> However, most RAID5 configurations that are Hardware based are used in
>> Servers, and those are almost exclusively SCSI. *SCSI failure rates,
>> including RAID controllers, are very very very very very very very
>> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
>> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
>> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
>> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
>> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
>> very very very very very very very very very very very very very very
>> low. *
>
>Newer SATA RAID controllers are now available with RAID 5.

And? I never denied that. It still doesn't change the fact that most
hardware-based RAID controllers are in Servers and are SCSI based.