Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

gr8putt

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 12, 2018
19
0
lost at sea
Hi there -

Using a MacPro5,1 12-core 3.33, and High Sierra running off a PCIe SSD -

is it preferable to NOT partition 4x 3.5" 2TB 7200s in a RAID.10, OR,

would it be reasonable to first partition each of the 4x HDDs identically into 3 vary-sized sections (A/B/C) and then build RAID.10s with each of the 4x A's (small sized), 4x B's (large) and 4x C's (medium)?

In order to minimize fragmentation, the bulk of the large partition (2nd away from hub) and medium partition (furthest away from hub) are mostly static audio instrument files that are rarely tweaked or modified, but primarily stream data to session work being done on the smaller (closest to the hub) partition which will be the liveliest doing DAW-based audio sessions.

The alternative, making just one no-partitioned RAID.10 with full capacity of the 4x HDDs, would be to load all the static files first and the most active audio sessions last, hopefully keeping fragmentation to just the outer area of the plates.

Higher READ speeds are preferred to WRITE speeds.

Which would you recommend?

Thank you for your help.
 

gr8putt

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 12, 2018
19
0
lost at sea
IIRC you can't RAID 10 with Apple SW RAID

Thank you for your reply -

What is IIRC?

What is Apple SW RAID?

How does this relevant-to or answer the question posted - to partition, or not to partition for a 5,1 4-Bay High Sierra RAID.10?

Thank you
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,417
6,710
Germany
this is off topic.

not sure about your intent.

Thank you for your post.

My intent is to help you with RAID..

Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 12.44.33 AM.png
 

jbarley

macrumors 601
Jul 1, 2006
4,023
1,888
Vancouver Island
Hi there -

Using a MacPro5,1 12-core 3.33, and High Sierra running off a PCIe SSD -

is it preferable to NOT partition 4x 3.5" 2TB 7200s in a RAID.10, OR,

would it be reasonable to first partition each of the 4x HDDs identically into 3 vary-sized sections (A/B/C) and then build RAID.10s with each of the 4x A's (small sized), 4x B's (large) and 4x C's (medium)?

In order to minimize fragmentation, the bulk of the large partition (2nd away from hub) and medium partition (furthest away from hub) are mostly static audio instrument files that are rarely tweaked or modified, but primarily stream data to session work being done on the smaller (closest to the hub) partition which will be the liveliest doing DAW-based audio sessions.

The alternative, making just one no-partitioned RAID.10 with full capacity of the 4x HDDs, would be to load all the static files first and the most active audio sessions last, hopefully keeping fragmentation to just the outer area of the plates.

Higher READ speeds are preferred to WRITE speeds.

Which would you recommend?

Thank you for your help.
Check out this link for more info...
includes instructions for raid 10
https://www.lifewire.com/make-raid-with-disk-utility-for-macos-4134293
 

gr8putt

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 12, 2018
19
0
lost at sea
Thanks for the replies.

RAID.10 = a RAID.0 made from (2x HDDs in RAID.1) + (2x HDDS in RAID.1)

I've been using Terminal to setup/break RAIDs because the El Capitan Disk Utility couldn't.
https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/create-raid-el-capitan/

After skipping Sierra, the MacPro5,1 is now on High Sierra. Putting the SSD boot on a PCIe adapter, I hope to set up the 4 Bays into RAID.10 using 4x 2TB HDDs.

Does the advantage of partitioning, to avoid heavy iDefrag work over a massive single 4TB RAID.10, outweigh any possible compromise to the seek times for READs and WRITEs, for overall longevity, drive health?

Any experience/ advice would be very appreciated. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
15,663
7,865
Hong Kong
There is no performance benefit to partiton no matter it’s RAID or not. Unless you intentionally make a partiton to use the outer sectors on the disc, and only use that partiton. Then you will have faster average speed then using the whole drive. However, in this case, the remaining partiton(s) will have lower performance than average. It’s not bad if you know which data you want goes into the fast partiton, and which data should go to the slower partition.

But in general, making partitons just reduce the flexibility. There is something called “folder” to let you flexiblely origanise the data. One of the big advantage of using folders is when you moving data from one folder to another, the HDD doesn't need to copy anything. Just update the “index”, then the operation is completed. But if you move data from one partiton to another. The HDD will have to physically copy all the data. And even worst, it’s not really 2 separated drives. Therefore, even though you are moving / copying a single large file, there will be still lots of internal mechanical movements between 2 partitons, which will significantly slow down the whole process.

Also, AFAIK, making partitons actually reduce the OS’s flexibility to use the empty space for defragmentation.

E.g. partiton 1 is nearly full, partiton 2 is basically empty.

But due to lack of empty space in partiton 1. The OS now cannot effectively defrag that partiton.

So, if my understanding is correct. I can’t see how you can get any performance benefit by partitioning a RAID 10 array.
 

gr8putt

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 12, 2018
19
0
lost at sea
Thank you for your reply h9826790, and the several points explained. Appreciated.

There is no performance benefit to partiton no matter it’s RAID or not. Unless you intentionally make a partiton to use the outer sectors on the disc, and only use that partition. Then you will have faster average speed then using the whole drive. However, in this case, the remaining partiton(s) will have lower performance than average. It’s not bad if you know which data you want goes into the fast partiton, and which data should go to the slower partition.

The problem with iDefrag is it does't defragment folders, it first rebuilds the root directory indexes you refer to, then it relocates the entire contents from there. In the past I've used RAID.1 pairs with partitions, for OSX system drive, static data files and active App sessions. The static data files are iDefrag-ed once and they are perfect thereafter.

This will be a first attempt at setting up 4x 2TB disks as a 4TB RAID.10 (w/ SDD OSX on a PCIe adapter).

After recent El Capitan updates, I've had a number of drives fail, which is why the interest in RAID10 redundancy and improved 4x Read / 2x Write speeds, and why I'm posting about any possible performance / longevity issues.

As for my understanding as to the advantage of partitioning, as in the past with RAID.1s, partitioning avoids having to include defragmentation of static data files (1.6TB on a 2TB partition).

The constant WRITE files of the App Sessions (500.GB partition), DAW recoding software utilizing heavy streaming from the static data Instrument files, are better off partitioned somewhere else because they do need regular defragmentation.

The 3rd partition is for CCC and Time Machine backups of the SDD OSX (1.5TB partition).

The current MacPro5,1 3.33 x 12-core (10.13) doesn't need more CPU power or RAM, but it does have issues with G3 speeds. I am hoping things will improve, moving from 2x RAID.1 partitioned pairs to a single RAID.10 partitioned group.

Again, thank you for your help.
 
Last edited:

Objetda

macrumors newbie
Jan 18, 2020
1
0
Hi there -

Using a MacPro5,1 12-core 3.33, and High Sierra running off a PCIe SSD -

is it preferable to NOT partition 4x 3.5" 2TB 7200s in a RAID.10, OR,

would it be reasonable to first partition each of the 4x HDDs identically into 3 vary-sized sections (A/B/C) and then build RAID.10s with each of the 4x A's (small sized), 4x B's (large) and 4x C's (medium)?

In order to minimize fragmentation, the bulk of the large partition (2nd away from hub) and medium partition (furthest away from hub) are mostly static audio instrument files that are rarely tweaked or modified, but primarily stream data to session work being done on the smaller (closest to the hub) partition which will be the liveliest doing DAW-based audio sessions.

The alternative, making just one no-partitioned RAID.10 with full capacity of the 4x HDDs, would be to load all the static files first and the most active audio sessions last, hopefully keeping fragmentation to just the outer area of the plates.

Higher READ speeds are preferred to WRITE speeds.

Which would you recommend?

Thank you for your help.

I know this is an old thread, but hoping someone can help out. It is exactly the same setup I'm trying to achieve and would like to know what your final outcome was. I have the same MP setup, OSX and have just created a RAID10 but was wanting to partition this RAID into 3 x separate partitions [CLIENTS] [STUDIO] [DEVELOPMENT] but have hit a stumbling block in achieving this. Did you end finding a resolve, or did you run with the one volume and use folders.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.