Multi-Boot Config problem with RAID.

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Tony Sperling, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. Hi,

    This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications, is
    getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or maybe
    four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K. for
    now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing the RAID
    alltogether.

    I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks with one
    RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on those same
    two disks as non-RAID'ed space?

    I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not remove any
    complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and now I'd
    like to find out if it was a dream?


    The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have an
    Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)



    Tony. . .
    Tony Sperling, Jul 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony:
    I don't know of a way to have the two raid drives partitioned between raid
    and non raid. I'm running Raid 1 (mirror) with Windows x64 and a data drive
    partition on my main machine with Vista x64 on a different hard drive. On my
    test machine I have 3 partitions on my Raid 1 (mirror), w2k3sp2 x64, Vista
    x64 and a data drive.


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications, is
    > getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or maybe
    > four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K. for
    > now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing the
    > RAID
    > alltogether.
    >
    > I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks with one
    > RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on those same
    > two disks as non-RAID'ed space?
    >
    > I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not remove
    > any
    > complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and now I'd
    > like to find out if it was a dream?
    >
    >
    > The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have an
    > Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)
    >
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 \(5384\), OPP2007B2, Jul 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Yes, I'm not surprised, obviously. Since, however, the driver is serving
    both SATA and RAID, I just wanted to ask - there is no end to surprises, it
    seems. :0)

    Tony. . .


    "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <>
    wrote in message news:...
    > Tony:
    > I don't know of a way to have the two raid drives partitioned between

    raid
    > and non raid. I'm running Raid 1 (mirror) with Windows x64 and a data

    drive
    > partition on my main machine with Vista x64 on a different hard drive. On

    my
    > test machine I have 3 partitions on my Raid 1 (mirror), w2k3sp2 x64, Vista
    > x64 and a data drive.
    >
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications, is
    > > getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or maybe
    > > four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K. for
    > > now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing the
    > > RAID
    > > alltogether.
    > >
    > > I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks with

    one
    > > RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on those

    same
    > > two disks as non-RAID'ed space?
    > >
    > > I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not remove
    > > any
    > > complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and now I'd
    > > like to find out if it was a dream?
    > >
    > >
    > > The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have an
    > > Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >

    >
    Tony Sperling, Jul 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Tony -
    I honestly don't think there's any way to do what you're asking. Once a
    RAID controller thinks it owns any part of a disk, it's going to control
    access to that disk, obviously. And once it's part of the RAID side of a
    dual-use controller, the same applies. So you could use the disks entirely
    as independent disks, or use them in RAID. but not both.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    Tony Sperling wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications, is
    > getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or maybe
    > four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K. for
    > now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing the
    > RAID alltogether.
    >
    > I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks with one
    > RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on those same
    > two disks as non-RAID'ed space?
    >
    > I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not remove
    > any complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and now
    > I'd like to find out if it was a dream?
    >
    >
    > The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have an
    > Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)
    >
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Yes, thanks Charlie and Dennis. It would be the logical answer.

    One other thing: I've come to notice how the Linux community greately
    prefers software RAID's. I am beginning to appreciate the argument - that
    you can move it from one system to another, any comments? Also, is it
    correct that you can set up a software RAID, with a performance benefit, on
    only one physical disk, or is that 'hype'?

    Are there any software RAID schemes available for Windows? (64bit???)


    Tony. . .


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Tony -
    > I honestly don't think there's any way to do what you're asking. Once

    a
    > RAID controller thinks it owns any part of a disk, it's going to control
    > access to that disk, obviously. And once it's part of the RAID side of a
    > dual-use controller, the same applies. So you could use the disks entirely
    > as independent disks, or use them in RAID. but not both.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    >
    > Tony Sperling wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications, is
    > > getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or maybe
    > > four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K. for
    > > now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing the
    > > RAID alltogether.
    > >
    > > I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks with

    one
    > > RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on those

    same
    > > two disks as non-RAID'ed space?
    > >
    > > I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not remove
    > > any complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and now
    > > I'd like to find out if it was a dream?
    > >
    > >
    > > The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have an
    > > Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Jul 17, 2006
    #5
  6. software raid on one disk? Hype.

    Software RAID in general? Not by choice. Not as flexible, not as fast, etc.
    I strongly prefer hardware RAID. And in the case of RAID5 or any RAID type
    that requires calculation (ie, pretty much everything except RAID 1),
    hardware RAID is much faster.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    Tony Sperling wrote:
    > Yes, thanks Charlie and Dennis. It would be the logical answer.
    >
    > One other thing: I've come to notice how the Linux community greately
    > prefers software RAID's. I am beginning to appreciate the argument - that
    > you can move it from one system to another, any comments? Also, is it
    > correct that you can set up a software RAID, with a performance benefit,
    > on only one physical disk, or is that 'hype'?
    >
    > Are there any software RAID schemes available for Windows? (64bit???)
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> Tony -
    >> I honestly don't think there's any way to do what you're asking.
    >> Once a RAID controller thinks it owns any part of a disk, it's going to
    >> control access to that disk, obviously. And once it's part of the RAID
    >> side of a dual-use controller, the same applies. So you could use the
    >> disks entirely as independent disks, or use them in RAID. but not both.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony Sperling wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications, is
    >>> getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or maybe
    >>> four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K. for
    >>> now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing the
    >>> RAID alltogether.
    >>>
    >>> I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks with
    >>> one RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on
    >>> those same two disks as non-RAID'ed space?
    >>>
    >>> I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not remove
    >>> any complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and now
    >>> I'd like to find out if it was a dream?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have an
    >>> Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Tony. . .
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Tony Sperling

    Larry Hodges Guest

    The throughput bottleneck is HDDs. That's why RAID0 is so much faster. The
    data path to the HDD is plenty large enough, but modern HDDs lag behind.
    That's why SATA 1.5 Raptors are faster than anything SATA 3gb/s. Sure, the
    pipe is there for the newer standard, but the drives aren't there yet.

    So software RAID, as I see it, wouldn't do anything to speed the HDD up.
    Feel free to educate me on this if you know something I don't.

    -Larry

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yes, thanks Charlie and Dennis. It would be the logical answer.
    >
    > One other thing: I've come to notice how the Linux community greately
    > prefers software RAID's. I am beginning to appreciate the argument - that
    > you can move it from one system to another, any comments? Also, is it
    > correct that you can set up a software RAID, with a performance benefit,
    > on
    > only one physical disk, or is that 'hype'?
    >
    > Are there any software RAID schemes available for Windows? (64bit???)
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> Tony -
    >> I honestly don't think there's any way to do what you're asking. Once

    > a
    >> RAID controller thinks it owns any part of a disk, it's going to control
    >> access to that disk, obviously. And once it's part of the RAID side of a
    >> dual-use controller, the same applies. So you could use the disks
    >> entirely
    >> as independent disks, or use them in RAID. but not both.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony Sperling wrote:
    >> > Hi,
    >> >
    >> > This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications,
    >> > is
    >> > getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or
    >> > maybe
    >> > four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K.
    >> > for
    >> > now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing the
    >> > RAID alltogether.
    >> >
    >> > I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks with

    > one
    >> > RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on those

    > same
    >> > two disks as non-RAID'ed space?
    >> >
    >> > I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not remove
    >> > any complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and
    >> > now
    >> > I'd like to find out if it was a dream?
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have
    >> > an
    >> > Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Tony. . .

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Larry Hodges, Jul 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Oh no, Larry - I am quite happy being the one who's educated. I can't afford
    to put every new technology to the test so, occasionally I wake up and find
    that something I was relying upon as firm knowledge isn't there any more.
    Take BIOS shadowing, for instance - I really don't know what happened. Over
    night BIOS shadowing becomes obsolete. For some time you could still do it,
    but it wouldn't help you. Now, you usually do not even have the option.

    For the longest time I thought this to be related to why people where
    differentiating between Hardware RAID and Firmware RAID. The Bus that
    connects the ROM chips to the system is only 8bits wide! Suddenly there is
    no need for shadowing or bank-interleaving and RAID cards that I used to
    think of as Hardware is suddenly Firmware, but it is difficult to keep tabs
    on what happened, you could widen that bus by almost any figure, the chip is
    still reluctant to give up it's information, so would still be horribly
    slow - I've pretty much satisfied myself that the BIOS functions were
    written into the API and Rom chip access itself has been made obsolete. Much
    energy is spent describing the new stuff but nobody expends almost anything
    on the relations between the old and the new.

    Yes, the bottleneck is very much the HD's, and yes if you can concurrently
    treat two disks as one you can split the overhead between them, while more
    or less doubling the throughput, but I fail to understand, from your
    argumentation, why - as you say, the Raptors are faster than this SATA setup
    that you mention.

    I usually regard the Linux people as unusually well educated, and much
    'un-hypped' information passes down that channel. It has it's own kind of
    'hype', naturally, but it is generally easy to spot, and I can see the
    pre-deliction for software RAIDS in a universe where the newbee's are
    changing their systems faster than most people change their socks. It is
    clear to me that software RAID cannot be as fast as Harware RAID, alone from
    the fact that the software RAID is running off the HD system that it is at
    the moment RAID'ing. But, how can I expect the Software RAID to perform in
    relation to Firmware? I refuse to believe that any one with any level of
    education would even mention this if the benefit was close to marginal. It
    has to be [not as fast as the other schemes] but seeing that it could be a
    lot easier to live with. . .???

    Also, are there any practical Software RAID schemes available for Windows,
    that you know of?

    I don't doubt anything anyone of you are saying - I just wouldn't mind
    seeing it for my self, I am running three machines and one isn't ever put to
    any real work, but is kind of a technology test-bed, more or less. (Crashes,
    welcome!)


    Tony. . .


    "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The throughput bottleneck is HDDs. That's why RAID0 is so much faster.

    The
    > data path to the HDD is plenty large enough, but modern HDDs lag behind.
    > That's why SATA 1.5 Raptors are faster than anything SATA 3gb/s. Sure,

    the
    > pipe is there for the newer standard, but the drives aren't there yet.
    >
    > So software RAID, as I see it, wouldn't do anything to speed the HDD up.
    > Feel free to educate me on this if you know something I don't.
    >
    > -Larry
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Yes, thanks Charlie and Dennis. It would be the logical answer.
    > >
    > > One other thing: I've come to notice how the Linux community greately
    > > prefers software RAID's. I am beginning to appreciate the argument -

    that
    > > you can move it from one system to another, any comments? Also, is it
    > > correct that you can set up a software RAID, with a performance benefit,
    > > on
    > > only one physical disk, or is that 'hype'?
    > >
    > > Are there any software RAID schemes available for Windows? (64bit???)
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >
    > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in

    message
    > > news:%...
    > >> Tony -
    > >> I honestly don't think there's any way to do what you're asking.

    Once
    > > a
    > >> RAID controller thinks it owns any part of a disk, it's going to

    control
    > >> access to that disk, obviously. And once it's part of the RAID side of

    a
    > >> dual-use controller, the same applies. So you could use the disks
    > >> entirely
    > >> as independent disks, or use them in RAID. but not both.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Charlie.
    > >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Tony Sperling wrote:
    > >> > Hi,
    > >> >
    > >> > This system of mine, which has been great dispite it's complications,
    > >> > is
    > >> > getting to be a bit of a hazzle keeping a RAID and having three or
    > >> > maybe
    > >> > four different systems with it's own driver ramifications. It's O.K.
    > >> > for
    > >> > now, but I can see trouble ahead and I have thought about removing

    the
    > >> > RAID alltogether.
    > >> >
    > >> > I simply wish to know if it is at all practical to have two disks

    with
    > > one
    > >> > RAID partition and partition the rest of the available space on those

    > > same
    > >> > two disks as non-RAID'ed space?
    > >> >
    > >> > I doubt it that I would really want to do it, since it might not

    remove
    > >> > any complications, but when I woke up I had this idea in my mind and
    > >> > now
    > >> > I'd like to find out if it was a dream?
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > The RAID currently runs off a SiS chip on the Motherboard, but I have
    > >> > an
    > >> > Adaptec Card (I think it's a 1210A?)
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > Tony. . .
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Jul 18, 2006
    #8
  9. Tony Sperling

    Larry Hodges Guest

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...

    <snip>

    > Yes, the bottleneck is very much the HD's, and yes if you can concurrently
    > treat two disks as one you can split the overhead between them, while more
    > or less doubling the throughput, but I fail to understand, from your
    > argumentation, why - as you say, the Raptors are faster than this SATA
    > setup
    > that you mention.


    The Raptors are SATA, but are the older standard, referred to as SATA1.5.
    The newer standard is SATA II, is also called SATA 3gb/s. Supposedly it has
    3gb/s throughput capability, whereas the older SATA standard only has
    1.5gb/s. But there are no 10k rpm HDDs yet for SATA II. The point is,
    current HDD technology has not yet saturated the older 1.5 bus yet,
    rendering the newer standard moot at this point in time.

    Here is the Raptor, which is basically a SCSI HDD with a SATA interface:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136012

    I run SCSI in RAID using a 64bit Adaptec card. My HDDs are 15k rpm, which
    are not available for any SATA standard. I normally couldn't afford this,
    but I keep an eye on eBay and pick up overstock and pulls.

    The other consideration that hasn't been pointed out regarding software vs.
    hardware RAID is CPU overhead. Just like a good soundcard rather than
    onboard sound handles sound processing, therefore freeing up the CPU, an
    off-board RAID / SCSI / SATA controller card does as well.

    > I usually regard the Linux people as unusually well educated, and much
    > 'un-hypped' information passes down that channel. It has it's own kind of
    > 'hype', naturally, but it is generally easy to spot, and I can see the
    > pre-deliction for software RAIDS in a universe where the newbee's are
    > changing their systems faster than most people change their socks. It is
    > clear to me that software RAID cannot be as fast as Harware RAID, alone
    > from
    > the fact that the software RAID is running off the HD system that it is at
    > the moment RAID'ing. But, how can I expect the Software RAID to perform in
    > relation to Firmware? I refuse to believe that any one with any level of
    > education would even mention this if the benefit was close to marginal. It
    > has to be [not as fast as the other schemes] but seeing that it could be a
    > lot easier to live with. . .???


    I have no idea.

    I have respect for Linux, but for the most part, the "enthusiasts" that that
    run it do so out of contempt for Microsoft rather than a desire for a better
    OS. This is less so than for Macs users, but it's there.

    > Also, are there any practical Software RAID schemes available for Windows,
    > that you know of?


    Never looked. As Charlie pointed it, it's always been considered the
    "second rate" approach. Maybe it's different in Linux.

    > I don't doubt anything anyone of you are saying - I just wouldn't mind
    > seeing it for my self, I am running three machines and one isn't ever put
    > to
    > any real work, but is kind of a technology test-bed, more or less.
    > (Crashes,
    > welcome!)


    Install it and run some HDD benchmarks. HD Tach 3.0 will tell you CPU usage
    in addition to burst and sustained throughput numbers. It's free:

    http://simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach

    -Larry

    <snip>
    Larry Hodges, Jul 18, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mhicaoidh

    RAID + Dual Boot = Slow or No Boot

    mhicaoidh, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,333
    mhicaoidh
    Aug 28, 2003
  2. Frank J. Fedel

    Multi-boot system; Win98SE won't boot

    Frank J. Fedel, Oct 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    769
    PreviousPoster
    Oct 16, 2003
  3. Mod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    772
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    751
  5. - Bobb -

    Multi-boot config opinions

    - Bobb -, May 22, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    360
Loading...

Share This Page