Looking for opinions on matrix raid vs. partioning

Jaegan · 10-02-2008, 01:05 AM

I've just received my two WD 650GB HDs, and I'm looking forward to setting it up this weekend. However, I am trying to determine whether attempting a matrix raid setup or simply making an OS partition would be a better idea.

I plan to run XP at present, but might give Vista a go later. It seems carving out 100GB for each OS would work best here. Then I would simply using the remaining space for general use.

My options here then seem to be...

1.
RAID 0 100GB drive <---XP
RAID 0 100GB drive <---Vista
Raid 0 or 1 RemainingGB <------Everything else

(I don't feel any particular need to do RAID 1, since the added safety doesn't feel like the best trade for halving my storage.)

2.
Partion 1 HD1 100GB <----XP
Partion 2 HD1 550 GB <-----Normal storage
Partion 1 HD2 100 GB <-----Vista
Partion 2 HD2 550 GB <-----Normal storage

As I see it, setup one is best performance wise, but if I go triple raid 0 I am basically crossing my fingers that none of my drives ever has problems.

Setup two seems to offer less in performance, but doesn't get into the RAID stickyness and I still retain half the files if something goes south.

So my questions are...

1. Are my basic assumptions here correct (is the first setup even possible, for example)?
2. Will setup 1 have a greatly reduced increase in performance over a standard RAID 0 and RAID 1 setup (One OS on Raid 0, everything else on RAID2)
3. And on an unrelated note, I have seen it suggested than cache-writing should be enabled for both setups 1 and 2 for all drives in order to improve performance. I have looked up cache writing a bit, and it sounds like it improves performance but can cause problem if a power outage or the like occurs. Erring slightly on the side of safety, is enabling cache writing worth the performance increase?

Thanks a ton for your help!

Jaegan · 10-02-2008, 08:50 AM

Belated edit (wish it didn't disappear so quickly.)

Over on the OC forums, the following was mentioned to me.

No need to create 2 RAID0 arrays. Just create 1, and then partition it however you like during the Windows install. You will get all the speed advantages of slicing out the fastest portion of the disks for the OS's. What you don't get is any redundancy. That's the 'advantage' of the Matrix...speed and redundancy at the same time on the same set of disks.

Enabling write-back cache really helps HDD benchmarks w/ RAID0. I'm not sure of real-world, and I don't remember if it helps w/ RAID5 or not.

So I suppose this method would replace method 1 above.

10-02-2008, 01:05 AM	#1 (permalink)
Jaegan Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 20 OS: XP SP2	Looking for opinions on matrix raid vs. partioning I've just received my two WD 650GB HDs, and I'm looking forward to setting it up this weekend. However, I am trying to determine whether attempting a matrix raid setup or simply making an OS partition would be a better idea. I plan to run XP at present, but might give Vista a go later. It seems carving out 100GB for each OS would work best here. Then I would simply using the remaining space for general use. My options here then seem to be... 1. RAID 0 100GB drive <---XP RAID 0 100GB drive <---Vista Raid 0 or 1 RemainingGB <------Everything else (I don't feel any particular need to do RAID 1, since the added safety doesn't feel like the best trade for halving my storage.) 2. Partion 1 HD1 100GB <----XP Partion 2 HD1 550 GB <-----Normal storage Partion 1 HD2 100 GB <-----Vista Partion 2 HD2 550 GB <-----Normal storage As I see it, setup one is best performance wise, but if I go triple raid 0 I am basically crossing my fingers that none of my drives ever has problems. Setup two seems to offer less in performance, but doesn't get into the RAID stickyness and I still retain half the files if something goes south. So my questions are... 1. Are my basic assumptions here correct (is the first setup even possible, for example)? 2. Will setup 1 have a greatly reduced increase in performance over a standard RAID 0 and RAID 1 setup (One OS on Raid 0, everything else on RAID2) 3. And on an unrelated note, I have seen it suggested than cache-writing should be enabled for both setups 1 and 2 for all drives in order to improve performance. I have looked up cache writing a bit, and it sounds like it improves performance but can cause problem if a power outage or the like occurs. Erring slightly on the side of safety, is enabling cache writing worth the performance increase? Thanks a ton for your help!

10-02-2008, 08:50 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jaegan Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 20 OS: XP SP2	Re: Looking for opinions on matrix raid vs. partioning Belated edit (wish it didn't disappear so quickly.) Over on the OC forums, the following was mentioned to me. No need to create 2 RAID0 arrays. Just create 1, and then partition it however you like during the Windows install. You will get all the speed advantages of slicing out the fastest portion of the disks for the OS's. What you don't get is any redundancy. That's the 'advantage' of the Matrix...speed and redundancy at the same time on the same set of disks. Enabling write-back cache really helps HDD benchmarks w/ RAID0. I'm not sure of real-world, and I don't remember if it helps w/ RAID5 or not. So I suppose this method would replace method 1 above.