Advice on HDs usage: RAID or not?

[Corrado Sinigoi 818540]

Hi guys,

I've recently had a total failure on my 500GB Seagate where FS9 was installed (I also have FSX installed on my primary HD, a 750GB Samsung). I haven't lost any vital data but I'll need to reinstall FS9 from scratch. To stay on the safe side, I've bought some additional HDs so now my HD configuration is:

 

- 750GB Samsung, 7200rpm

- 2x 500 GB Seagate, 7200rpm

- 300 GB Velociraptor, 10k rpm

 

I'm planning to put two 500GB Seagate in RAID1 (and install Win7 and FS9 on that RAID), then having 750GB Samsung for other programs/games/non-vital data and using 300GB VR for FSX. Do you think it's a good solution? Let's say I've discarded the idea of using RAID0 because I don't think I need more speed; I prefer safety just to avoid losing data and having to reinstall FS9 (which takes several days, since I have a lot of add-ons). Somewhere I've also read that RAID1 should also be faster than a single disk (in reading, at least, which I think it makes sense), but I'm not sure about it. Any suggestion? Thanks in advance!

[Lennart Vedin]

RAID 1 should be fine with possible faster reading and only small loss in performance for writing.

 

While RAID 0 is almost double quick. Notice faster HD does not affect the FPS, but typical quicker load of scenery details.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

[Brad Littlejohn]

Lennart has some great info here, but there is one thing that needs to be brought up about RAID 0, and why, as a sysadmin, I would/will *never* recommend RAID 0.

 

Succintly put, you have no resiliency with RAID 0; meaning, if you have an issue with a drive or set of drives that you have put together in RAID 0, you'd lose the entire RAID, regardless on if another disk in that RAID did not have a problem. Say that you put that 750GB, the 2 x 500GB, and the 300GB into RAID 0 (I know you wouldn't, just work with me here), and created a 2.05TB RAID0. Let's also say that a few sectors go bad in one of the 500GB drives. You'd lose the entire RAID, as there is no fault tolerance in RAID 0. Sure, you gain the speed, but you're taking a risk that absolutely nothing will happen with any drive in that RAID. Too big of a risk for me, no matter how cheap drives are being sold for now.

 

My advice: definitely go with RAID 1 on the 2 x 500GB drives. However, carve out at least a 100GB (you could be more frugal) partition just for the OS alone, with a separate partition for FS9. This gives you double the redundancy: If a drive goes bad, you can break the mirror, and off you go. If something goes bad with Win7, you don't lose your FS9 installation/data. Personal data can go back on that 300GB drive, or something external. That should get you fairly well set up.

 

BL.

[Luke Kolin]

While RAID 0 is almost double quick. Notice faster HD does not affect the FPS, but typical quicker load of scenery details.

 

RAID0 may be a little faster on large sequential reads, but given the sizes of many of the scenery textures I'd be very skeptical that you'd notice an improvement.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Corrado Sinigoi 818540]

Thank you for your advice guys; the problem you pointed out Brad, is exactly the reason why I didn't even consider RAID0 as an option. Having a separate partition for OS could be a good idea although I've actually never felt comfortable with partitions on my pc (don't ask me why). I suppose that an OS partition includes Docomeents and Download folders? If so, since there's a Flight Simulator folder under Docomeents (containing flightplans, logbooks, etc.), I suppose that losing the OS partition means losing that folder either, but my FS9 installation would be safe. The only problem I see is with payware addons which place keys and other files in some system folders; in the event of a system failure, FS installation should be ok except for flightplans, logbooks and payware addon installations. Am I correct? Thanks again guys.

[bernard tremblay]

... given the sizes of many of the scenery textures I'd be very skeptical that you'd notice an improvement.

Not meaning to fork this thread but: any way to load scenery into / from RAM disk? (Uber-geek tactic from ArmA.) If that's vaguely plausible I'll start another thread on it, as required.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Thank you for your advice guys; the problem you pointed out Brad, is exactly the reason why I didn't even consider RAID0 as an option. Having a separate partition for OS could be a good idea although I've actually never felt comfortable with partitions on my pc (don't ask me why). I suppose that an OS partition includes Docomeents and Download folders? If so, since there's a Flight Simulator folder under Docomeents (containing flightplans, logbooks, etc.), I suppose that losing the OS partition means losing that folder either, but my FS9 installation would be safe. The only problem I see is with payware addons which place keys and other files in some system folders; in the event of a system failure, FS installation should be ok except for flightplans, logbooks and payware addon installations. Am I correct? Thanks again guys.

 

That's the good thing about it. You can always move the Docomeents and Download directory (and to be honest, your entire user directory) off of the drive/partition containing the OS. I do this on my personal machine all the time, just in case the OS goes belly up. In fact, I go a bit further and create a partition that is the OS and OS only; meaning only the OS, applications installed by the OS installation, and applicable drivers live there, along with any patches that come out. Any other programs go on another drive. Currently, the drive containing my personal data also has FS9 installed on it (2TB, partitioned to 1TB each), which I'm planning to RAID 1 myself. But as far as your User's folder, the location of that can be changed. So I'm like so:

 

C:\ OS, drivers, patches.

D:\ other installed programs.

E:\ FS9.

F:\ Personal data.

 

That should work for you as well.

 

BL.