latebeat

Member
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About latebeat

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    120275611

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK - Manchester
  1. Thank you for the extensive reply. I guess I thought since had a dd image I had nothing to lose in trying different scenarios and figuring out which would work. You were right and it is a soft/fakeRAID. However, since I'm using 2 ssd drives in a laptop (sony vaio z) so I am hoping that I wont be experiencing any hw failures and also it's a core i7 so system resources is not an issue either. Also, I wanted a fakeraid over Linux raid due to the fact that I'm dual booting windows 7. So I started by creating the fakeraid array in bios, booting linux in a live cd and restoring the dd image onto the fakeraid device. To my surprise, everything worked right away. Even windows 7 booted with no problems. However, performance was suffering due to the fact that the 128kb stripe size introduced a misalignment to the partitions. I googled a bit and was unable to find a solution that didn't include re installing everything. So in the end (and unfortunately) this is what I had to do to realign the partitions with the filesystem and the raid array and the ssd block size. I used an online calculator to check everything was ok. Also I went with a GPT partition table and have no problems with grub2. So far I've only reinstalled my main os (linux) and the performance is noticeably faster. I haven't been able to re install windows yet to check if that's true there also. again, thank you for the reply. Hope someone else finds this useful! regards, a
  2. Hello to all forum members! I've posted a similar question to various linux forums but I got no replies so I thought I'd probably need to ask the real storage experts :-) I have this question.. I have a laptop that supports hardware raid. Right now I have 1 drive installed and I have linux and windows on it. My problem is that windows 7 was a real pain to install with all those drivers that I had to get from SONY's website. So I really don't want to have to reinstall that system from scratch... too time consuming. Now, I got a second identical drive so that I can make a raid-0 array using the motherboard's controller. So my question is this.. if I take a full drive dd image of my current system, including windows with the ntfs partition, linux with all the different btrfs and ext4 partitions in there; can I use that .dd image and restore it onto the RAID-0 array? Of course then I'll have to expand the file systems and all but will it work? Does the fact that the new raid-0 array will probably have a different cluster size, and stripe size matter? Will it mess up the performance of the file systems? Is it possible to restore the image while still maintaining the alignment of the partitions ?
  3. latebeat

    Simple SAS RAID question

    than's guys, now I get it. I can setup as many arrays as I want which is cool. Just one note for future buyers of the e200, u need the 128mb battery module update to get support for raid 5.
  4. Hi all, I've got to admit I'm not that familiar with SAS and I've got a question that will help us decide our requirements for our new file server. So everything nowadays is SAS and SCSI is (practically?) dead. We want to make 2 raid arrays, one with 2 drives (RAID-1) for the OS and another array with 3 drives (RAID-5) for our data. If we go ahead and get SAS drives instead of SCSI what kind of controller do we need? Can it be done with a single controller as u would normally do with a single SCSI raid controller on two different channels or do we need 2 separate SAS RAID controllers? I'm confused because we're thinking of getting an HP E200 and under its specs it says channel number 8? Does that mean that I can plug up to 8 drives and I can configure them into separate RAID arrays however I want? Would someone be kind enough to clear that up for me? thanks a lot, Anestis
  5. It's much easier working with uncompressed video when doing editing and applying effects. Whenever I tried working directly on compressed video everything was so slow that I couldn't do much. It is just in the final stage before everything needs to burned into a DVD that the video gets compressed.
  6. That's only when the data is read in realtime. When you have to quickly seek over the (uncompressed at that stage) video over and over again the data rates are much higher.
  7. Hello to all! YEs! This is another hdd suggestion regarding video editing. I recently upgraded to a nice core duo cpu and I finally decided to transfer all my miniDV tapes into DVDs so I can distribute to family and friends. My previous system was a P4 3.2Ghz (northwood) and for the capturing and editing I was using 2 hitachi deskstars, 120 gb each (cant remember their models) combined into RAID0 using the motherboard's chip ICH5R. I don't have massive storage requirements as I usually do 1-2 tapes at a time, transfer them to DVD and then delete all the captured videos. I do this for a hobbie and I like to mess about a bit with the video, nothing fancy just simple stuff like adding soundtracks, fixing the colors, simple transition effects, etc. However with my previous machine it used to take me ages just to finish one tape (capturing, editing and transcoding to dvd) as the editing was quite slow, so eventually I gave up and ended up with a ton of miniDV tapes. Hopefully with this new box I will do much better BUT I haven't decided what drives to use for capturing and editing. 1) First of all will it make much difference if I use 2 drives as RAID-0? -I don't wanna use more than two as it will get quite expensive. 2) I've been reading in all the drive reviews that STR doesn't mean much in actual usage of the system, is this true in my case as well or should I look for drives with the maximum sustained transfer rates? 3) I've got the following drives available and I'm willing to buy one more: -1 Maxtor Atlas 15K II, 147GB ( win) -1 Maxtor Atlas 15K II, 147GB ( empty) -1 WD Raptor 150gb (linux) Raid controllers: -SATA RAID via mobo -SCSI RAID (dell perc u160) So I either buy another raptor, transfer linux to the other Atlas and combine the two into raptors into RAID-0 or... I buy another drive, transfer windows there and use the two Atlases as RAID-0. However if I go down that road, I'll be limited by the PCI bus since I don't have any PCI-X slots. On the other hand if STR doesn't matter much that won't make much difference. So give me your suggestions please :-) thanks latebeat
  8. latebeat

    DELL PERC RAID ISSUES PLZ HELP!

    Um.. what do you mean exactly? You confused me a bit. I don't have a 64 bit pci-x bus but still my 32-bus is enough for Ultra 160 SCSI for my purposes. Both channels on the controller are set at ultra 160. It may be a jumper problem as sm8000 suggested but I'm having a hard time finding any documentation on the jumper settings. Eventhough I'm not sure the controller would use jupers to set the speed since it has a nice web bios latebeat
  9. Hi there, I own two maxtor atlases 15K II Ultra 320 for quite sometime and I've always been using them as seperate drives with an adaptec 29160 Ultra 160. I recently bought a cheap DELL PERC 3/DC Ultra 160 (AMI MegaRAID) from ebay just to play around and I'm trying to set them up as RAID. I set the settings as 160M under the adapter bios settings but it seems that the drives are not recognized as Ultra 160 and I don't know what to do. Check out the snapshot below: Obviously something's wrong. However it can't be the cables or the termination as I literally disconnected the end that was attached to the 29160 and connected it to the MegaRAID controller. With the 29160 both drives were getting a different SCSI ID and were seen as Ultra 160. Any ideas? I've run out thanks, latebeat
  10. latebeat

    SINGLE DRIVE VS RAID ARTICLE

    You got me all confused now with all the queuing terminology. I thought Native Command Queuing (NCQ) is only found in SATA and Tagged Command Queueing (TCQ) is the same but in SCSI. What do you mean wouldn't bother disable SCSI CQ? Is TCQ something else rather than the SCSI CQ? thanks, Anestis PS: The whole thread is from a single user environment perspective
  11. latebeat

    SINGLE DRIVE VS RAID ARTICLE

    So only parity calculations are cached then? It has nothing to do with caching the actual data ? What about point 1? thanks Anestis
  12. Hello there, after reading the much enlightening article that compares the performance of a single drive vs raid from a single user point of view I have the following questions to address to anyone that might know the answers: 1. First of all seeing the impact of NCQ on the raptor would that suggest that disabling TCQ on a SCSI adapter would also increase the performance of the drive? 2. Does onboard cache memory found in new RAID adaptors offer any performance gain? I mean new adapters support anything from 128MB to 512MB of cache which is HUGE.. How much different is that caching from the built in cache of the hard drive, performance wise? thanks Anestis
  13. latebeat

    ATLAS 15k II VS RAPTOR WD1500

    I know about this limitation and I would use a PCI-X RAID controller on a PCI-X slot of course. If I paired the two Raptors I'd sell the Atlas and vice versa. Also I'd move my OS and pagefile (or swap partition to be precise) on the RAID-0 drives Also I have a 500GB drive for the backups. I think I just needed a confirmation basically. I think my reluctance to accept the fact that the raptor might be better is my huge admiration of the Atlas 15k II drive, mechanics, technology etc.
  14. latebeat

    ATLAS 15k II VS RAPTOR WD1500

    Well I wasn't sure that's why I wanted everyone's opinion on this. Yeah I know that
  15. Have you tried doing a scandisk ? Open up a command prompt and do a chkdsk /f C: if the drive letter is indeed C see what you get in the end