[Webinar] Streamline your web hosting managementRegister Today

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 468
  • Last Modified:

Installing two arrays (0 and 1 separately) on 2 Physical drives with ich10r on windows 7 BSOD

Hi, I am trying to install 2 raid volumes (arrays) on fake-raid intel chipset ich10r onboard a gigabyte x58a-ud5.
The OS already runs on the raid 0 volume but when adding the raid 1 volume, the system bsods upon load.

Is this action even possible? if it is, what would be the proper way to do it?

                                       _ 1TB Raid 0 - OS
WD Caviar Black 1TB  ---|
                                 ich10r
WD Caviar Black 1TB  ---|_
                                          500GB Raid 1 - Storage
0
abutbul
Asked:
abutbul
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2
  • +1
1 Solution
 
B HCommented:
so you have two physical drives, and want to have 2 different arrays?  if so, that's not going to be possible
0
 
abutbulAuthor Commented:
you are correct, I have 2 physical drives and I want to have 2 different arrays. is this 100% that its not possible to achieve?
0
 
exx1976Commented:
Yeah, I don't think that's possible either..

Just make a single 1TB RAID1 and call it a day.
0
Free Tool: Path Explorer

An intuitive utility to help find the CSS path to UI elements on a webpage. These paths are used frequently in a variety of front-end development and QA automation tasks.

One of a set of tools we're offering as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

 
noxchoGlobal Support CoordinatorCommented:
There is no way to create additional RAID of two HDDs which are used in another RAID already. You need more HDDs for additional RAID. That is the fact.
Some RAID controllers allow splitting one RAID configuration into two HDDs but this is not what you want.
0
 
abutbulAuthor Commented:
Well, apparently I've managed to get the impossible done
I am now runing two seperate arrays, one being RAID 0 in the size of 1T (2x.5T) and another being RAID 1 in the size of .5T (2x.5T)
I have achieved this by first creating the RAID 0 array of 1T
and then from the INTEL Rapid Storage Technology Center I've chosed "Create" and managed to create a new Array for the Mirror.



It does appear currently (formatting new partition) performances are low, very low actually (HD R/W and Access time wise)
but I will let it finish through and see if i'm getting any better resaults, anyway information on the mirror raid will be static, so I shouldn't expect any interferences with the operation system work.

Disabling automatic agents that may perform actions on this new volume may be in order since it seems that forcing the controller to work with two volumes on the same Physical drive makes it laggy.Here is a screenshot to demonstrate what happens in my raid controller right now:
Raid0and1.jpg
Raid1and0.jpg
0
 
B HCommented:
it looks like what you did was create one big 2TB with two partitions (1TB + .5TB) with the .5TB mirrored using the last .5TB.

in this setup, you have no protection against a failed disk - at all, and there's no benefit of this setup whatsoever (speed, capacity, etc)
0
 
abutbulAuthor Commented:
also, here is a demonstration of the above mentioned performance lost.
first row is both arrays tested individually.
second row demonstrates testing of them both, simultaneously. as you can see, the mirror will be useless for stream working and may only be used for storage (redundant as it may be, it seems almost inapplicable for work, but if I just want to put data for backups there while not working at the time of the backup, it may actually work)

perftests.jpg
0
 
noxchoGlobal Support CoordinatorCommented:
This is not a "true" RAID. Seems to be software RAID as hardware RAIDs are using separate HDDs for configuration.
0
 
abutbulAuthor Commented:
experts claim this is not real raid,  I totally prove of this and believe this configuration, although possible, is useless.
0
 
abutbulAuthor Commented:
thanks for clearing this up.
0
 
B HCommented:
i dont understand why you want to close the thread...

the answer to your question is no ...  what you found a way to do isn't really raid anything... raid means redundant... there is zero redundancy here

if you lose the first drive, you lose everything
if you lose the second drive, you lose the 0.5TB partition

all you did is spanned two disks into one big disk and created partitions on them, and killed all efficiency in the process.  the smaller partition might be redundant to itself, but if you lose the drive, it (and its redundancy) is gone.

i wont object to closing the question though because it's not going to go any further.

be careful with your drives
0
 
B HCommented:
oh or that... thanks :)
0
 
abutbulAuthor Commented:
thank you for your input and help.
0

Featured Post

Hire Technology Freelancers with Gigs

Work with freelancers specializing in everything from database administration to programming, who have proven themselves as experts in their field. Hire the best, collaborate easily, pay securely, and get projects done right.

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2
  • +1
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now