RAID Partitions?

[cookiedude]

Hi all

Is it possible to set up a RAID 1 array using 2 drives split into 4 partitions (2 on each)?

I have an old workstation with 2 300gb Maxtor HDD and I would like to install XP x86 onto a 200gb partition, and XP x64 on a smaller partition using the remaining space on the same drive (about 84gb). I would also like to have these in 2 separate RAID1 arrays using the 2nd 300gb HDD (partitioned in the same way as the 1st) as the redundent drives. Is this at all possible, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I tried reading through the RAID sticky thread but couldn't see anything referring to using partitions on separate HDDs.

 

[DelJo63]

Using RAID-1 on partitions makes not sense; neither does RAID-0.

RAID-1 is mirroring for redundancy to protect from hardware failures. A hardware failure on one partition will also be a hardware failure on the other.

RAID-1 is not a substitute for backups.

RAID-0 is the stripping option intended to use the arm-seek time productively.
On a set of partitions, Raid-0 would make performance worse!

 

[cookiedude]

Using RAID-1 on partitions makes not sense; neither does RAID-0.

RAID-1 is mirroring for redundancy to protect from hardware failures. A hardware failure on one partition will also be a hardware failure on the other.

RAID-1 is not a substitute for backups.

RAID-0 is the stripping option intended to use the arm-seek time productively.
On a set of partitions, Raid-0 would make performance worse!

Why does RAID1 make no sense? Surely it protects my data; if one of the drives fails I can continue to work as normal and simply replace the damaged drive??

I don't want to use RAID0 (I didn't even mention it), I know it doesn't suit my needs.

 

[DelJo63]

Why does RAID1 make no sense? Surely it protects my data; if one of the drives fails I can continue to work as normal and simply replace the damaged drive??

AHHH! Raid-1 on 2 or more physical drives is much different that one drive with multiple partitions. As you were not clear, I advised agains the worst case.

I don't want to use RAID0 (I didn't even mention it), I know it doesn't suit my needs.

that was added for completeness; Raid-x doesn't make sense on partitions.

Either way, Raid-X still needs backups. WHY? because mirroring a bad file to another device leaves you with a bad file. Every error on HD1 gets replicated to the other mirror(s).

Raid-1 is a fault tolerance feature (mainly for servers, not clients), not a backup substitute. Even Microsoft recommends agains Raid on the boot disk.

 

[cookiedude]

AHHH! Raid-1 on 2 or more physical drives is much different that one drive with multiple partitions. As you were not clear, I advised agains the worst case.

that was added for completeness; Raid-x doesn't make sense on partitions.

I'm planning to backup my main files too, just thought RAID would add that little extra level of security. It's not that I'm trying to RAID two partitions on the same drive, that would be pointless. I'd like to install two OS's onto one drive (two partitions) and then RAID1 that with the spare drive (also with two partitions).

I just don't know if this is achievable and, if it is, the best way to go about it? Would I be best to setup a RAID1 array with both 300gb drives, install XP and then create a new partition (using something like partition magic) to install XP 64bit on?

Either way, Raid-X still needs backups. WHY? because mirroring a bad file to another device leaves you with a bad file. Every error on HD1 gets replicated to the other mirror(s).

Raid-1 is a fault tolerance feature (mainly for servers, not clients), not a backup substitute. Even Microsoft recommends agains Raid on the boot disk.

So are you saying that even hardware faults will be replicated on the 2nd drive or just faulty files/software? Coz if its the latter then surely a separate backup would also replicate any bad files??

 

[DelJo63]

So are you saying that even hardware faults will be replicated on the 2nd drive or just faulty files/software? Coz if its the latter then surely a separate backup would also replicate any bad files??

No, hardware does not replciate, but the primary
issues invoking the need for recovery are software errors.

AND yes, if it's still operable and you take a new backup, you do get useless data,
but then you would just move to the previous and restore from that instance.