Early 2009 Pro - Raid 0 without a card?

[nanofrog]

haha sorry, ill explain more. i would wish to keep the same "dual boot" system i currently have, but have both of the partitions across multiple drives so that i see a nice increase in speeds.

i refer to my scenario before..

disk 1 = 500GB, disk1s0 = 250GB, disk1s1 = 250GB
disk 2 = 500GB, disk2s0 = 250GB, disk2s1 = 250GB.

if i combine disk1s0 and disk2s0 into a stripe, that would be a 500GB partition that has the advantage of being somewhat faster (if its on the right tracks). this would be my OSX disc. i would combine disk1s1 and disk2s1 to make another 500GB partition, the performance increase wouldnt be as significant as the OSX but still quite good. this would be for XP.

making any sense lol?? what sort of increase should i expect? from 40MBps to 70mbps? 80? as is discussed, a 3or4 drive RAID is out of question atm. (to increase speeds i would find other areas such as higher overclocking and getting faster/more RAM - thats for another thread though).

It makes sense both technically and financially for the time being. As long as you're aware of the speed differences you'll experience under XP (possibly worse than a single drive @ 50% or less, depending on specific track locations).

As for the speed, the general rule is 2x avg sustained throughput. I can't give a specific number as I don't know what your drives are capable of. But if the avg is say 85MB/s, then a stripe would be ~170MB/s. The inner tracks will be worse of course. You should still be happy with the OS X side, and if the XP install is kept small, that may be decent enough as well.

haha! im into vegemite buns at the moment (not sure if yuu have heard of vegemite before, you would hate it). being poor sucks. i earn enough each week to get to uni, in the holidays i earn enough for my text books.. blah.

It's called peanut butter in the US, but I certianly know what it is, and how much of a staple food it is for college students. Any thing cheap and fast.

great way to wreck my hopes and desires! my uni fees are going into what we call "HECS", (pronounced "hex"), its like a loan sort of.. we dont pay a cent for it until we start earning around $30k Aus per year, it comes out as a 2% tax... so you dont really notice it. so hopefully i can afford a nice server farm a few short years after i finish eheh.

It's a bit different here. You graduate, and have a 6 month grace period to find a job. After that, payments are due, based on the amount, loan rate..., no matter if employed or not, or amount of income.

 

[DoFoT9]

It makes sense both technically and financially for the time being. As long as you're aware of the speed differences you'll experience under XP (possibly worse than a single drive @ 50% or less, depending on specific track locations).

for the time being is seems a very logical move, especially since i have been getting into the video editing realm more and more (even though i am majoring in networking haha). the speed increase in OSX will be very welcome.

As for the speed, the general rule is 2x avg sustained throughput. I can't give a specific number as I don't know what your drives are capable of. But if the avg is say 85MB/s, then a stripe would be ~170MB/s. The inner tracks will be worse of course. You should still be happy with the OS X side, and if the XP install is kept small, that may be decent enough as well.

the drives will be Seagate 500GB 16mb cache drives, they cost $70 Aus currently. the one i have has been very reliable after all its been through (many many clones lol)..

under OSX for some reason i can only 40mbps max read/write, i have no idea why.. its wierd. under XP its fine. must be some software that isnt properly installed.

for best performance overall on both systems, what would be the best option.. could i mix the partitions when i choose them? e.g. disk1s0 with disk2s1, and disk1s1 with disk2s0? or have OSX as a 400GB partition and XP as 100GB? any suggestions?

It's called peanut butter in the US, but I certianly know what it is, and how much of a staple food it is for college students. Any thing cheap and fast.

haha staple is everything lately. i had pizza the other day and that was pretty awsome!! haha, i felt special.

It's a bit different here. You graduate, and have a 6 month grace period to find a job. After that, payments are due, based on the amount, loan rate..., no matter if employed or not, or amount of income.

oh wow! how... unfair!! poor americans (*laughs*) lol.

 

[nanofrog]

for the time being is seems a very logical move, especially since i have been getting into the video editing realm more and more (even though i am majoring in networking haha). the speed increase in OSX will be very welcome.

Hmm... Majoring in IT, but spending your time on video editing. Slacker!

the drives will be Seagate 500GB 16mb cache drives, they cost $70 Aus currently. the one i have has been very reliable after all its been through (many many clones lol)..

under OSX for some reason i can only 40mbps max read/write, i have no idea why.. its wierd. under XP its fine. must be some software that isnt properly installed.

That is wierd. It should be hitting around 85MB/s or so. I'd do a fresh install of OS X if it were me.

for best performance overall on both systems, what would be the best option.. could i mix the partitions when i choose them? e.g. disk1s0 with disk2s1, and disk1s1 with disk2s0? or have OSX as a 400GB partition and XP as 100GB? any suggestions?

Don't do mix the partitions like this, as the slowest will set the pace of the array. You could attempt to adjust the partition sizes, but that's up to you. Ideally, you want both the OS X and Windows arrays to both add up to 50% of the total capacity for max performance. As that wastes space, you could go over 50%, but try to minimize it. Not so much as the partition creation alone, but by the amount of actual data that will be stored.

oh wow! how... unfair!! poor americans (*laughs*) lol.

You're evil! I like that.

 

[DoFoT9]

Hmm... Majoring in IT, but spending your time on video editing. Slacker!

not creative enough to do it full time and dont have the funds to afford a HD camera, but still enjoy it as a past time.


[/quote]That is wierd. It should be hitting around 85MB/s or so. I'd do a fresh install of OS X if it were me.[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh STUPID me!! my current OSX is installed on a seperate HDD, one that is a 40GB IBM HD from around 2001... sooo that might explain why it is so slow mybad!

Don't do mix the partitions like this, as the slowest will set the pace of the array. You could attempt to adjust the partition sizes, but that's up to you. Ideally, you want both the OS X and Windows arrays to both add up to 50% of the total capacity for max performance. As that wastes space, you could go over 50%, but try to minimize it. Not so much as the partition creation alone, but by the amount of actual data that will be stored.

ok ok! i wont mix partitions!! hahahaha right so keep the at the same sizes, done.

question: what would be the faster partition? disk1s0, or disk1s1? the outer track reads faster right? so disk1s1 would be the faster partition?

You're evil! I like that.

mwahaha! your evil too? we should start a group or something.

EDIT: ok also, i am thinking that instead of getting an identical 500GB, i get a 1TB seagate. its only an extra $40, so i may aswell... so in doing that i would like 1TB for OSX and 500GB for XP. plausible performance?

 

[lazylightnin]

I've used osx to make software RAIDs 3 times and twice the RAID eventually failed, losing all the data.

It works but backing up is essential.

 

[nanofrog]

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh STUPID me!! my current OSX is installed on a seperate HDD, one that is a 40GB IBM HD from around 2001... sooo that might explain why it is so slow mybad!

DOH!

ok ok! i wont mix partitions!! hahahaha right so keep the at the same sizes, done.

question: what would be the faster partition? disk1s0, or disk1s1? the outer track reads faster right? so disk1s1 would be the faster partition?

Yes, the outer tracks are the fastest. But what you want to do, is keep the partitions the same size for an array (it can be different for a different array). You also link the partitions in a manner the physical location is the same, so the track locations will give the same performance. Just making sure you understand this, so forgive the repetition if it's not needed.

So, once you figure out how you want to divide the total capacity for each array, you figure how large each partition is for the number of drives used. Partition each drive the same way (x,y,z sizes repeated in the same order, will keep them in the same location on identical drives). Simple, and works wonders.

EDIT: ok also, i am thinking that instead of getting an identical 500GB, i get a 1TB seagate. its only an extra $40, so i may aswell... so in doing that i would like 1TB for OSX and 500GB for XP. plausible performance?

You want to keep the disks the same capacity, preferably identical units if possible. Otherwise, if you mix a 500GB and 1TB disk, the array will still only be 1TB of total capacity. That's due to the fact it's based on the smallest drive. The other 500GB would be "wasted". It can be used, but only as a single partition, and if it's accessed at the same time the array's running, it will slow you down due to simultaneous access.

So if you're trying to use the existing 500GB in hand (I've the impression that's your goal), then just get another 500GB. If however, you have to buy both, you can get whatever size you can manage that you think will fit your needs. Personally, I'd think 1TB models would be the minimum, considering how bloated software is these days, and you want to do video editing (big files as I understand it).

Hope this helps clear up any confussion.

 

[DoFoT9]

DOH!

meany

Yes, the outer tracks are the fastest. But what you want to do, is keep the partitions the same size for an array (it can be different for a different array). You also link the partitions in a manner the physical location is the same, so the track locations will give the same performance. Just making sure you understand this, so forgive the repetition if it's not needed.

OH! i thought you meant keep all the partitions the same size across the entire board, and that got me really confused.. if i did the 1TB+500GB combination yes i would keep the partitions of the array the same size (e.g. 500GB+500GB for one array, 250GB+250GB for the other array).

So, once you figure out how you want to divide the total capacity for each array, you figure how large each partition is for the number of drives used. Partition each drive the same way (x,y,z sizes repeated in the same order, will keep them in the same location on identical drives). Simple, and works wonders.

i may aswell go with another 500GB, its not like i need THAT much space.

You want to keep the disks the same capacity, preferably identical units if possible. Otherwise, if you mix a 500GB and 1TB disk, the array will still only be 1TB of total capacity. That's due to the fact it's based on the smallest drive. The other 500GB would be "wasted". It can be used, but only as a single partition, and if it's accessed at the same time the array's running, it will slow you down due to simultaneous access.

ok fair enough, i can understand that

So if you're trying to use the existing 500GB in hand (I've the impression that's your goal), then just get another 500GB. If however, you have to buy both, you can get whatever size you can manage that you think will fit your needs. Personally, I'd think 1TB models would be the minimum, considering how bloated software is these days, and you want to do video editing (big files as I understand it).

personally in my situation i think adding another 500GB into the equation (as opposed to an extra 1TB/2x1TB drives) will be fine for me. the video project im currently working on will be stored on the HD, the 'other' projects will be stored on my many TBs of other data .. so i dont see that as being a problem.

Hope this helps clear up any confussion.

indeed thankyou