Vista - RAID0 question

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:43:26 +0300, "Sumer Yamaner"
<syamaner_DELETE_@hotmail.com> wrote:

> OK I know these technical details and I always use multiple backups of my
> data. What I need is an increase in HDD performance. I think RAID0 is the
> simplest way to do it.
> I just want to know technical details on how to do it.
> Thanks for the advice.


Yes, if you set up a RAID0 array, you lose everything on the drive,
and will have to reinstall Vista from scratch. Exactly how to set up
RAID0 depends on your hardware. and you should consult your
documentation.

However, I echo Mick's advice. The actual performance improvement with
RAID0 is very slight--hardly noticeable in most cases--and not worth
the increased risk of losing data.

Unlike Mick, however, I recommend *against* RAID1 for most people.
Although some people attempt to use RAID1 mirroring as a backup
scheme, it's a very poor one, in my view. RAID 1 uses two or
more drives, each a duplicate of the others, to provide redundancy.
It's used in situations (almost always within corporations, not in
homes) where any downtown can't be tolerated, because the way it works
is that if one drive fails the other takes over seamlessly. Although
some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup technique, that is *not* what
it is, since it's subject to simultaneous loss of the original and the
mirror to many of the most common dangers threatening your
data--severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks,
theft of the computer, etc. Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a
strong external backup plan in place.





> "Mick Murphy" <MickMurphy@discussions.microsoft.com>, iletisinde ?unu yazd?,
> news:A599EE67-4B5B-4D8C-B250-B85DC01D2D27@microsoft.com...
> > RAID 0 is not worth the effort. You will see a slight improvemant in
> > read/write speeds. All it does is stripe everything over 2 or more Disks.
> > What that means is that you have part of a file on one drive and part of
> > the
> > same file on another. In case of one drive failing, you have lost the lot.
> >
> > RAID 1 is better, as it makes a mirror copy of everything that is one the
> > first Disk. The complete file is written to the one place, and a copy made
> > to
> > the other drive.
> >
> >
> > "Sumer Yamaner" wrote:
> >
> >> I am running Vista Home Premium with a single HDD. My motherboard
> >> supports
> >> RAID configurations. To use a RAID0 configuration I have to install Vista
> >> again. Right? Is there a way to use the existing Vista setup without
> >> reinstallation?
> >> Another question is: Does Vista setup recognize my RAID0 setup during
> >> installation if I make the necessarry adjustments in the motherboard
> >> BIOS?
> >> Do I need a third party driver before proceeding with Vista installation?
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Sumer Yamaner
> >>
> >>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Thanks for the replies. I have received the answers I was looking for.


"Sumer Yamaner" <syamaner_DELETE_@hotmail.com>, iletisinde þunu yazdý,
news:ukZYOTo0HHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am running Vista Home Premium with a single HDD. My motherboard supports
>RAID configurations. To use a RAID0 configuration I have to install Vista
>again. Right? Is there a way to use the existing Vista setup without
>reinstallation?
> Another question is: Does Vista setup recognize my RAID0 setup during
> installation if I make the necessarry adjustments in the motherboard BIOS?
> Do I need a third party driver before proceeding with Vista installation?
> Thanks.
>
> Sumer Yamaner

Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially with
games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or without
RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.

"Sumer Yamaner" <syamaner_DELETE_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvIavlt0HHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies. I have received the answers I was looking for.
>
>
> "Sumer Yamaner" <syamaner_DELETE_@hotmail.com>, iletisinde þunu yazdý,
> news:ukZYOTo0HHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am running Vista Home Premium with a single HDD. My motherboard supports
>>RAID configurations. To use a RAID0 configuration I have to install Vista
>>again. Right? Is there a way to use the existing Vista setup without
>>reinstallation?
>> Another question is: Does Vista setup recognize my RAID0 setup during
>> installation if I make the necessarry adjustments in the motherboard
>> BIOS? Do I need a third party driver before proceeding with Vista
>> installation?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Sumer Yamaner
>

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:33:28 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:

> Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially with
> games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or without
> RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.


That is *not* correct. It's considerably more risky. If you have more
than one drive, the chances of one of them failing is greater than the
chances of a single drive failing.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I didnt ask you, I stated my experience.

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
newsh42b3lb3h1m497g93m5e0f9g368if3j7d@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:33:28 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
>
>> Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially with
>> games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or without
>> RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.
>
>
> That is *not* correct. It's considerably more risky. If you have more
> than one drive, the chances of one of them failing is greater than the
> chances of a single drive failing.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

You stated an opinion as fact. The opinion was wrong.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote in message
news:eLNmfNK1HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I didnt ask you, I stated my experience.
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsh42b3lb3h1m497g93m5e0f9g368if3j7d@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:33:28 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially with
>>> games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or without
>>> RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.
>>
>>
>> That is *not* correct. It's considerably more risky. If you have more
>> than one drive, the chances of one of them failing is greater than the
>> chances of a single drive failing.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:20:52 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:

> I didnt ask you, I stated my experience.


When you make a public statement here that is not correct, regardless
of who you asked or whether you asked anybody, *expect* to be
corrected.



> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsh42b3lb3h1m497g93m5e0f9g368if3j7d@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:33:28 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially with
> >> games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or without
> >> RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.
> >
> >
> > That is *not* correct. It's considerably more risky. If you have more
> > than one drive, the chances of one of them failing is greater than the
> > chances of a single drive failing.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

What proof do you have that RAID0 fails more often than a single HD? Unless
you have hard data, its an opinion, not a fact, you mook.

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:crl2b3patt4lmsqoc8tiiih57ffg2nggn9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:20:52 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
>
>> I didnt ask you, I stated my experience.
>
>
> When you make a public statement here that is not correct, regardless
> of who you asked or whether you asked anybody, *expect* to be
> corrected.
>
>
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> newsh42b3lb3h1m497g93m5e0f9g368if3j7d@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:33:28 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially
>> >> with
>> >> games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or
>> >> without
>> >> RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.
>> >
>> >
>> > That is *not* correct. It's considerably more risky. If you have more
>> > than one drive, the chances of one of them failing is greater than the
>> > chances of a single drive failing.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:20:14 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:

> What proof do you have that RAID0 fails more often than a single HD? Unless
> you have hard data, its an opinion, not a fact, you mook.



LOL! Sure, resort to name-calling. That's a great way to prove you're
right.

Look at any elementary book on probability or statistics.




> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:crl2b3patt4lmsqoc8tiiih57ffg2nggn9@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:20:52 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
> >
> >> I didnt ask you, I stated my experience.
> >
> >
> > When you make a public statement here that is not correct, regardless
> > of who you asked or whether you asked anybody, *expect* to be
> > corrected.
> >
> >
> >
> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> >> newsh42b3lb3h1m497g93m5e0f9g368if3j7d@4ax.com...
> >> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:33:28 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially
> >> >> with
> >> >> games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or
> >> >> without
> >> >> RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That is *not* correct. It's considerably more risky. If you have more
> >> > than one drive, the chances of one of them failing is greater than the
> >> > chances of a single drive failing.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> >> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

If you buy a 2nd car, does it increase the chance the first car will break
down? Of course not. You may have 2 HD in RAID, but millions are made. 2 HD
doesn't "double" the risk. If their is any increased risk, it is miniscule.
And with regular backups, there is 0 risk. The same risk is present with a
single HD. I wasnt name calling, mook is a funny word

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:fmm4b3lgu3pkqb6dq1t8s8migp0lvsdu3c@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:20:14 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
>
>> What proof do you have that RAID0 fails more often than a single HD?
>> Unless
>> you have hard data, its an opinion, not a fact, you mook.
>
>
>
> LOL! Sure, resort to name-calling. That's a great way to prove you're
> right.
>
> Look at any elementary book on probability or statistics.
>
>
>
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:crl2b3patt4lmsqoc8tiiih57ffg2nggn9@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:20:52 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I didnt ask you, I stated my experience.
>> >
>> >
>> > When you make a public statement here that is not correct, regardless
>> > of who you asked or whether you asked anybody, *expect* to be
>> > corrected.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> >> newsh42b3lb3h1m497g93m5e0f9g368if3j7d@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:33:28 -0400, "Crusher" <crusher@home.now>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hey dude, I run vista in RAID 0 and I see a difference...especially
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> games. Its no more risky than having the OS on one disk. With or
>> >> >> without
>> >> >> RAID, if a disk with the OS on it fails, ur screwed.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That is *not* correct. It's considerably more risky. If you have
>> >> > more
>> >> > than one drive, the chances of one of them failing is greater than
>> >> > the
>> >> > chances of a single drive failing.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> >> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup