VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

October 5, 2007

Evening to all

Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to have some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5 disk's and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista Business 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set up a second work station and would like to know if anyone has tried Vista 64 with Raid 5 HD and problems encountered.

Any news would be great

AndyB

October 5, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes. Both of

these can be improved by using more disks in the array. Beyond that,

choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering, such as SAS or SCSI,

along with a RAID controller that has a significant amount of battery backed

cache RAM, will make the single biggest difference in performance. SAS isn't

as inexpensive as SATA, but if performance is your criteria, it's the way to

go. (If you really want to maximize performance, take a look at a RAID array

that supports 2.5" SAS drives - they will allow you 8 drives in the space of

two HD bays.)

For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller is

supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being able to

load drivers during the install.

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...

Evening to all

Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to have

some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5 disk's and

Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista Business 64 and

Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set up a second work

station and would like to know if anyone has tried Vista 64 with Raid 5 HD

and problems encountered.

Any news would be great

AndyB

October 5, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

Thanks, infact I am already checking out the the controller issue: I was

satisfied with Xp and am also with Vista 64 so would like to continue with

Vista but a bit worried on a few issues. If Raid 5 works as well as my Raid

0 system then I'll go ahead and assemble the workstation.

Thanks again and any advise is greatly appreciated

AndyB

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

messaggio news:711ECA45-9865-4FA0-84F9-055F58FF4527@microsoft.com...

> RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes. Both

> of these can be improved by using more disks in the array. Beyond that,

> choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering, such as SAS or

> SCSI, along with a RAID controller that has a significant amount of

> battery backed cache RAM, will make the single biggest difference in

> performance. SAS isn't as inexpensive as SATA, but if performance is your

> criteria, it's the way to go. (If you really want to maximize performance,

> take a look at a RAID array that supports 2.5" SAS drives - they will

> allow you 8 drives in the space of two HD bays.)

>

> For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller is

> supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being able to

> load drivers during the install.

>

> --

> Charlie.

> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>

> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

> news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...

> Evening to all

> Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to have

> some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5 disk's

> and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista Business

> 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set up a second

> work station and would like to know if anyone has tried Vista 64 with Raid

> 5 HD and problems encountered.

> Any news would be great

>

> AndyB

October 5, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

I initially tested RAID5 on my XP x64, it was not very fast compared to

'zero' so I quickly dumped the idea. I think if you need the safty, RAID1 is

probably nearly as fast as '5', but with fewer drives?

Tony. . .

"BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

news:53A2D547-DD46-40EB-9B21-7513A74E7EDF@microsoft.com...

> Thanks, infact I am already checking out the the controller issue: I was

> satisfied with Xp and am also with Vista 64 so would like to continue with

> Vista but a bit worried on a few issues. If Raid 5 works as well as my

> Raid 0 system then I'll go ahead and assemble the workstation.

>

> Thanks again and any advise is greatly appreciated

> AndyB

>

> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

> messaggio news:711ECA45-9865-4FA0-84F9-055F58FF4527@microsoft.com...

>> RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes. Both

>> of these can be improved by using more disks in the array. Beyond that,

>> choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering, such as SAS or

>> SCSI, along with a RAID controller that has a significant amount of

>> battery backed cache RAM, will make the single biggest difference in

>> performance. SAS isn't as inexpensive as SATA, but if performance is your

>> criteria, it's the way to go. (If you really want to maximize

>> performance, take a look at a RAID array that supports 2.5" SAS drives -

>> they will allow you 8 drives in the space of two HD bays.)

>>

>> For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller is

>> supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being able to

>> load drivers during the install.

>>

>> --

>> Charlie.

>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>

>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>> news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...

>> Evening to all

>> Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to have

>> some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5 disk's

>> and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista Business

>> 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set up a second

>> work station and would like to know if anyone has tried Vista 64 with

>> Raid 5 HD and problems encountered.

>> Any news would be great

>>

>> AndyB

>

October 6, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

Fewer drives, more wasted space - for each drive you need a second. For

RAID5, you will lose some speed relative to RAID0, but you have a HUGE

advantage over RAID0 - you're actually protected if one of the drives fails!

With RAID0 you _increase_ your likelihood of a catastrophic failure

resulting in data loss.

Quality components will make a big difference here. If your application is

write intensive, you need redundancy, and you care about speed, use RAID1 or

RAID 10. For predeminately reads? RAID5 is fine. But really, so much

depends on your tolerance for data loss, your actual application mix, and

your willingness to spend more on hardware. It's a balancing act.

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"Tony Sperling mail.dk>" <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE> wrote in message

news:%23AZ21Z6BIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I initially tested RAID5 on my XP x64, it was not very fast compared to

>'zero' so I quickly dumped the idea. I think if you need the safty, RAID1

>is probably nearly as fast as '5', but with fewer drives?

>

> Tony. . .

>

> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

> news:53A2D547-DD46-40EB-9B21-7513A74E7EDF@microsoft.com...

>> Thanks, infact I am already checking out the the controller issue: I was

>> satisfied with Xp and am also with Vista 64 so would like to continue

>> with Vista but a bit worried on a few issues. If Raid 5 works as well as

>> my Raid 0 system then I'll go ahead and assemble the workstation.

>>

>> Thanks again and any advise is greatly appreciated

>> AndyB

>>

>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

>> messaggio news:711ECA45-9865-4FA0-84F9-055F58FF4527@microsoft.com...

>>> RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes. Both

>>> of these can be improved by using more disks in the array. Beyond that,

>>> choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering, such as SAS or

>>> SCSI, along with a RAID controller that has a significant amount of

>>> battery backed cache RAM, will make the single biggest difference in

>>> performance. SAS isn't as inexpensive as SATA, but if performance is

>>> your criteria, it's the way to go. (If you really want to maximize

>>> performance, take a look at a RAID array that supports 2.5" SAS drives -

>>> they will allow you 8 drives in the space of two HD bays.)

>>>

>>> For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller is

>>> supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being able

>>> to load drivers during the install.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Charlie.

>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>>

>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>>> news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...

>>> Evening to all

>>> Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to have

>>> some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5 disk's

>>> and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista Business

>>> 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set up a

>>> second work station and would like to know if anyone has tried Vista 64

>>> with Raid 5 HD and problems encountered.

>>> Any news would be great

>>>

>>> AndyB

>>

>

October 6, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

All my work is graphics and printing and speed helps a great deal but I do

have to keep an eye on space. At the moment I am working with a 5 external

disks for saving and I really don't keep anything on my Pc. I have already

experienced data loss with Raid 0 so having Raid 5 would allow me to work

without this worry and so on.

Speed plays it's part as I handle heavy files and Raid 0 helps a lot, I

really thought Raid 5 would be faster but then as you say you have to find

the right balance between what you need and what you get.

Costs are really not a problem, product pays well and in my field

time/quality is the game!.

Thanks again for the advice

AndyB

weather here (Milano/Italy) gone totaly crazy, should be winter but living a

second spring/summer season!

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

messaggio news:56824001-7DE5-40CE-8E98-1ABCD3510F70@microsoft.com...

> Fewer drives, more wasted space - for each drive you need a second. For

> RAID5, you will lose some speed relative to RAID0, but you have a HUGE

> advantage over RAID0 - you're actually protected if one of the drives

> fails! With RAID0 you _increase_ your likelihood of a catastrophic failure

> resulting in data loss.

>

> Quality components will make a big difference here. If your application is

> write intensive, you need redundancy, and you care about speed, use RAID1

> or RAID 10. For predeminately reads? RAID5 is fine. But really, so much

> depends on your tolerance for data loss, your actual application mix, and

> your willingness to spend more on hardware. It's a balancing act.

>

> --

> Charlie.

> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>

> "Tony Sperling mail.dk>" <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE> wrote in message

> news:%23AZ21Z6BIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>I initially tested RAID5 on my XP x64, it was not very fast compared to

>>'zero' so I quickly dumped the idea. I think if you need the safty, RAID1

>>is probably nearly as fast as '5', but with fewer drives?

>>

>> Tony. . .

>>

>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>> news:53A2D547-DD46-40EB-9B21-7513A74E7EDF@microsoft.com...

>>> Thanks, infact I am already checking out the the controller issue: I was

>>> satisfied with Xp and am also with Vista 64 so would like to continue

>>> with Vista but a bit worried on a few issues. If Raid 5 works as well as

>>> my Raid 0 system then I'll go ahead and assemble the workstation.

>>>

>>> Thanks again and any advise is greatly appreciated

>>> AndyB

>>>

>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

>>> messaggio news:711ECA45-9865-4FA0-84F9-055F58FF4527@microsoft.com...

>>>> RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes.

>>>> Both of these can be improved by using more disks in the array. Beyond

>>>> that, choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering, such as

>>>> SAS or SCSI, along with a RAID controller that has a significant amount

>>>> of battery backed cache RAM, will make the single biggest difference in

>>>> performance. SAS isn't as inexpensive as SATA, but if performance is

>>>> your criteria, it's the way to go. (If you really want to maximize

>>>> performance, take a look at a RAID array that supports 2.5" SAS

>>>> drives - they will allow you 8 drives in the space of two HD bays.)

>>>>

>>>> For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller is

>>>> supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being able

>>>> to load drivers during the install.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Charlie.

>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>>>

>>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>>>> news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...

>>>> Evening to all

>>>> Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to

>>>> have some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5

>>>> disk's and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista

>>>> Business 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set

>>>> up a second work station and would like to know if anyone has tried

>>>> Vista 64 with Raid 5 HD and problems encountered.

>>>> Any news would be great

>>>>

>>>> AndyB

>>>

>>

>

October 6, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

Charlie's phrasing and vocabulary is more precise than mine - and my

experience too is shallow. If you don't mind the investment, I would check

out RAID10. I have never tested it and I've read only little, but it sounds

good. As I understand it, you'll get RAID0 speed (exept for the overhead)

and the safety of RAID1 mirroring all wrapped up into one, and for each

extra disk you add, more space is effective storage on the volume.

Tony. . .

"BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

news:56C550D6-9B02-4E37-9DCD-6B5148414DE8@microsoft.com...

> All my work is graphics and printing and speed helps a great deal but I do

> have to keep an eye on space. At the moment I am working with a 5 external

> disks for saving and I really don't keep anything on my Pc. I have already

> experienced data loss with Raid 0 so having Raid 5 would allow me to work

> without this worry and so on.

> Speed plays it's part as I handle heavy files and Raid 0 helps a lot, I

> really thought Raid 5 would be faster but then as you say you have to find

> the right balance between what you need and what you get.

> Costs are really not a problem, product pays well and in my field

> time/quality is the game!.

>

> Thanks again for the advice

> AndyB

> weather here (Milano/Italy) gone totaly crazy, should be winter but living

> a second spring/summer season!

>

> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

> messaggio news:56824001-7DE5-40CE-8E98-1ABCD3510F70@microsoft.com...

>> Fewer drives, more wasted space - for each drive you need a second. For

>> RAID5, you will lose some speed relative to RAID0, but you have a HUGE

>> advantage over RAID0 - you're actually protected if one of the drives

>> fails! With RAID0 you _increase_ your likelihood of a catastrophic

>> failure resulting in data loss.

>>

>> Quality components will make a big difference here. If your application

>> is write intensive, you need redundancy, and you care about speed, use

>> RAID1 or RAID 10. For predeminately reads? RAID5 is fine. But really, so

>> much depends on your tolerance for data loss, your actual application

>> mix, and your willingness to spend more on hardware. It's a balancing

>> act.

>>

>> --

>> Charlie.

>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>

>> "Tony Sperling mail.dk>" <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE> wrote in message

>> news:%23AZ21Z6BIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>I initially tested RAID5 on my XP x64, it was not very fast compared to

>>>'zero' so I quickly dumped the idea. I think if you need the safty, RAID1

>>>is probably nearly as fast as '5', but with fewer drives?

>>>

>>> Tony. . .

>>>

>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>>> news:53A2D547-DD46-40EB-9B21-7513A74E7EDF@microsoft.com...

>>>> Thanks, infact I am already checking out the the controller issue: I

>>>> was satisfied with Xp and am also with Vista 64 so would like to

>>>> continue with Vista but a bit worried on a few issues. If Raid 5 works

>>>> as well as my Raid 0 system then I'll go ahead and assemble the

>>>> workstation.

>>>>

>>>> Thanks again and any advise is greatly appreciated

>>>> AndyB

>>>>

>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

>>>> messaggio news:711ECA45-9865-4FA0-84F9-055F58FF4527@microsoft.com...

>>>>> RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes.

>>>>> Both of these can be improved by using more disks in the array. Beyond

>>>>> that, choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering, such as

>>>>> SAS or SCSI, along with a RAID controller that has a significant

>>>>> amount of battery backed cache RAM, will make the single biggest

>>>>> difference in performance. SAS isn't as inexpensive as SATA, but if

>>>>> performance is your criteria, it's the way to go. (If you really want

>>>>> to maximize performance, take a look at a RAID array that supports

>>>>> 2.5" SAS drives - they will allow you 8 drives in the space of two HD

>>>>> bays.)

>>>>>

>>>>> For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller

>>>>> is supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being

>>>>> able to load drivers during the install.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Charlie.

>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>>>>

>>>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>>>>> news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...

>>>>> Evening to all

>>>>> Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to

>>>>> have some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5

>>>>> disk's and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista

>>>>> Business 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set

>>>>> up a second work station and would like to know if anyone has tried

>>>>> Vista 64 with Raid 5 HD and problems encountered.

>>>>> Any news would be great

>>>>>

>>>>> AndyB

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

October 6, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

close - for every two disks you add, you get extra space. ;) (have to add in

pairs, because of the mirroring)

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"Tony Sperling mail.dk>" <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE> wrote in message

news:%23FnQTc$BIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Charlie's phrasing and vocabulary is more precise than mine - and my

> experience too is shallow. If you don't mind the investment, I would check

> out RAID10. I have never tested it and I've read only little, but it

> sounds good. As I understand it, you'll get RAID0 speed (exept for the

> overhead) and the safety of RAID1 mirroring all wrapped up into one, and

> for each extra disk you add, more space is effective storage on the

> volume.

>

> Tony. . .

>

> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

> news:56C550D6-9B02-4E37-9DCD-6B5148414DE8@microsoft.com...

>> All my work is graphics and printing and speed helps a great deal but I

>> do have to keep an eye on space. At the moment I am working with a 5

>> external disks for saving and I really don't keep anything on my Pc. I

>> have already experienced data loss with Raid 0 so having Raid 5 would

>> allow me to work without this worry and so on.

>> Speed plays it's part as I handle heavy files and Raid 0 helps a lot, I

>> really thought Raid 5 would be faster but then as you say you have to

>> find the right balance between what you need and what you get.

>> Costs are really not a problem, product pays well and in my field

>> time/quality is the game!.

>>

>> Thanks again for the advice

>> AndyB

>> weather here (Milano/Italy) gone totaly crazy, should be winter but

>> living a second spring/summer season!

>>

>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel

>> messaggio news:56824001-7DE5-40CE-8E98-1ABCD3510F70@microsoft.com...

>>> Fewer drives, more wasted space - for each drive you need a second. For

>>> RAID5, you will lose some speed relative to RAID0, but you have a HUGE

>>> advantage over RAID0 - you're actually protected if one of the drives

>>> fails! With RAID0 you _increase_ your likelihood of a catastrophic

>>> failure resulting in data loss.

>>>

>>> Quality components will make a big difference here. If your application

>>> is write intensive, you need redundancy, and you care about speed, use

>>> RAID1 or RAID 10. For predeminately reads? RAID5 is fine. But really,

>>> so much depends on your tolerance for data loss, your actual application

>>> mix, and your willingness to spend more on hardware. It's a balancing

>>> act.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Charlie.

>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>>

>>> "Tony Sperling mail.dk>" <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE> wrote in message

>>> news:%23AZ21Z6BIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>I initially tested RAID5 on my XP x64, it was not very fast compared to

>>>>'zero' so I quickly dumped the idea. I think if you need the safty,

>>>>RAID1 is probably nearly as fast as '5', but with fewer drives?

>>>>

>>>> Tony. . .

>>>>

>>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>>>> news:53A2D547-DD46-40EB-9B21-7513A74E7EDF@microsoft.com...

>>>>> Thanks, infact I am already checking out the the controller issue: I

>>>>> was satisfied with Xp and am also with Vista 64 so would like to

>>>>> continue with Vista but a bit worried on a few issues. If Raid 5 works

>>>>> as well as my Raid 0 system then I'll go ahead and assemble the

>>>>> workstation.

>>>>>

>>>>> Thanks again and any advise is greatly appreciated

>>>>> AndyB

>>>>>

>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto

>>>>> nel messaggio

>>>>> news:711ECA45-9865-4FA0-84F9-055F58FF4527@microsoft.com...

>>>>>> RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes.

>>>>>> Both of these can be improved by using more disks in the array.

>>>>>> Beyond that, choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering,

>>>>>> such as SAS or SCSI, along with a RAID controller that has a

>>>>>> significant amount of battery backed cache RAM, will make the single

>>>>>> biggest difference in performance. SAS isn't as inexpensive as SATA,

>>>>>> but if performance is your criteria, it's the way to go. (If you

>>>>>> really want to maximize performance, take a look at a RAID array that

>>>>>> supports 2.5" SAS drives - they will allow you 8 drives in the space

>>>>>> of two HD bays.)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller

>>>>>> is supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being

>>>>>> able to load drivers during the install.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Charlie.

>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...

>>>>>> Evening to all

>>>>>> Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to

>>>>>> have some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid

>>>>>> 5 disk's and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has

>>>>>> Vista Business 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need

>>>>>> to set up a second work station and would like to know if anyone has

>>>>>> tried Vista 64 with Raid 5 HD and problems encountered.

>>>>>> Any news would be great

>>>>>>

>>>>>> AndyB

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

October 6, 2007

Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?

OK, I have a better picture of the requirements and the parameters, now.

You're in the position where speed and reliability are paramount, cost

relatively secondary. There are two basic ways to go:

1.) RAID 10 or RAID 0+1 on SAS drives. Figure the space you need/want and

order twice as many disks as it takes to get to that point, since you'll be

having 1/2 of our space dedicated to redundancy. But it will be fast, and

very reliable. (RAID 10 is a strip of mirrored drives, RAID 0+1 is a mirror

of striped drives. In either case, you'll need a minimum of 4 drives, and

you add them in pairs. )

2.) A Storage Area Network (SAN). This adds to the cost and complexity,

certainly, but could be a good option for an external array. I've been using

a SAN from EqualLogic that is awesome - I hate to send it back! But the

price here is qualitatively different. You'll spend more on the SAN than on

all the rest of your hardware together.

However you go, use SAS or SCSI - avoid SATA except as a useful extra

storage. I have a pair of 400 GB SATA drives in a RAID0 that is just a bunch

of ISOs and static storage. I can replace anything on it if I need to, it's

just there for convenience. My real work is being done on an 8x72GB, 15k

RPM, 2.5" SAS drives in a RAID array (RAID 6 in my case, since multiple

redundancy is more important to me than absolute speed.) The controller is

an HP 400 (forget the exact designation) with 512 Mb of battery backed

cache.