HDD Questions - Partitions, RAID, etc

[Stiker]

I'm going to completely redo the setup on my rig. I've been backing up files and before I do a reinstall of lolVista, I have been going back an forth on what to do about my hard drives.

Currently, I have 2 x 500 GB. And in my current setup, I have OS/Data on one and Games on the other.

I am starting to think that this wasn't a very efficient use of space, plus I don't like my backup options via Vista in that situation. Since I can't select specific files, if I want to back up the OS (or any program really), I have to image the whole drive (which is RETARDED).

I've been tossing around the idea of RAID, but honestly, it seems like I could be asking for more trouble than it is worth. From what it looks like, there is no software raid in Vista Ultimate save for RAID-0, and even if I had that, there would be processor resources that would be taken up by it. Going hardware RAID, I would then have the potential of the card/mobo controller failing and I am not sure if I want to add another fail point in my system.

As far as partitioning, I have also heard and read a bunch of differing opinions when it comes to home PC use. It seems to me that if I want to take advantage of Vista's backup tool, partitions would make this easier. I also think it could help me in scheduling defrags in different increments.

Here is what I am thinking:

Disk 0 (Basic Disk) - C: Vista Ultimate/System Apps (100 GB), E: Program/Data Backup Images (400 GB)
Disk 1 (Dynamic Disk) - F: OS Image Backup (100 GB), G: Program Files (200 GB), H: Data (200 GB)

(D: will be DVD RW Drive)

If i'm understanding the way Vista's backup works, this can give me a puesdo RAID-1 in a sense without sacrificing disk performance. If I lose one disk, I can get the images off the other disk rather quickly to restore the lost information. 100 GB should provide more than enough space for OS expansion via patches and service packs. Making the Program/Data disk dynamic can also allow for me to create spanned drives for expansion of program/data another disk if needed as well.

Also, just to note, I won't be relying solely on internal backups. I have a 300GB external drive that I will use to store the OS Image as well as data like music, photos, and documents that I simply don't ever want to lose (I can always reinstall programs).

Let me know what you think.

[Zeith]

From what it looks like, there is no software raid in Vista Ultimate save for RAID-0, and even if I had that, there would be processor resources that would be taken up by it.

While there would be a minor processing overhead, you'd see larger gains in terms of disk i/o wait than you'd see losses in processing power.

Going hardware RAID, I would then have the potential of the card/mobo controller failing and I am not sure if I want to add another fail point in my system.

This is also somewhat misleading, you're not really adding another point of failure into the system so much as you are transferring the potential for failure from your hard disks to your RAID controller. In my experience, silicon is much more reliable than anything mechanical, viz. hard drives.

If i'm understanding the way Vista's backup works, this can give me a puesdo RAID-1 in a sense without sacrificing disk performance. If I lose one disk, I can get the images off the other disk rather quickly to restore the lost information. 100 GB should provide more than enough space for OS expansion via patches and service packs. Making the Program/Data disk dynamic can also allow for me to create spanned drives for expansion of program/data another disk if needed as well.

You'd see the redundancy benefits of RAID without seeing any performance alteration. If you've got data that absolutely must be preserved, or alternately if you find yourself with a bit more disk space than you'll ever reliably use, this might be a good idea.

For my two cents, I think that with an additional backup solution for your vital documents, you'd see the biggest benefit from hardware RAID 0, that being the benefit of performance. I'd suggest finding out what's most tasking your system by running perfmon and then doing the most resource-consumptive thing you do on a regular basis. If it turns out to be your hard disks, go RAID 0. If it's anything else and you want the security of redundancy, you've got pretty much RAID 1 as an option unless you pick up a third drive.

[Isiolia]

IMO, hardware RAID1 would be smarter. Partitioned possibly, depending on your preference. If you're concerned with needing to format often, put your account folders on a different partition.

It does mean dealing with setting up a RAID array. This is...not very hard. You do have to rely on whatever controller you're using not crapping out on you, but couldn't the same be said for -any- HDD setup, RAID or not? How often have you really had one fail, compared to HDDs?

Performance isn't an issue. Technically, read performance from RAID1 can be better, depending.

The benefits are that you don't need to fuss over how or when to sync data, and if something -does- happen to one of your drives, you should have a functioning system. The way you're talking about, if your system partition gets corrupted files, or the drive dies, you have a copy of the data. Not a booting system.

Windows Backup stuff may still be useful to use, since it uses Volume Shadow Copy, allowing you to step back and undelete files or get older versions if necessary.

As it is, I would imagine you should be able to set up -something- to back up your data between drives. Run Robocopy in a script, use synctoy, or some actual backup package...

[Stiker]

I'm not really so much scared of getting RAID set up in any form, but it was more of the case "should this be something I should even bother with"? Personally, I haven't had to deal with a failing disk drive, so that also has something to do with it.

I was initially thinking RAID-1 at first just to ensure that I had a functioning system unless everything goes to hell, but I haven't had much practice or experience in seeing performance losses from doing so since everything is basically done across both disks, plus I lose 500 GB of storage. RAID-0 I'm really leery of doing because if one drive does fail, I kiss everything goodbye.

I've also tossed around the idea of getting more HDDs to get more flexibility too. For instance, I could go RAID-0 on two new smaller disks and go RAID-1 on my larger ones.

Either way thanks for the feedback. Like I said, this is something I have only messed with with servers and such and not so much a home computer.

EDIT: I ended up going RAID-1. Was tinkering around late last night with it and got it set in the BIOS. Vista doesn't seem to recognize it which surprised me as I heard it has a lot of RAID drivers on the CD. I'm going to go hunt down drivers for my mobo's RAID controller and give it another go.