can we Raid partitions ?

[samer.forums]

Lets say I have 2 harddisks 8 TB each.

Can I raid only a Partition and not the whole drive ?

That is , I make 4 TB partitions each for Raid , and keep the other 4 TB for normal use in both ?

 

[13thmonkey]

yes/no.

No raid is traditionally an all or nothing affair at the disk level, so 2 disks in raid0 or raid 1.

However, intel's matrixraid did allow you to have a portion of the disk in a raid array, and another portion in another array, even of a different type, so 4TB each of Raid 1 for 4TB of redundancy, and 4TB each of Raid 0 for 8TB of faster access.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

But raid is about uptime, it's about ensuring there is no downtime, do you really need it, or do you need security, in which case a backup is a lot more useful.

 

[samer.forums]

yes/no.

No raid is traditionally an all or nothing affair at the disk level, so 2 disks in raid0 or raid 1.

However, intel's matrixraid did allow you to have a portion of the disk in a raid array, and another portion in another array, even of a different type, so 4TB each of Raid 1 for 4TB of redundancy, and 4TB each of Raid 0 for 8TB of faster access.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

But raid is about uptime, it's about ensuring there is no downtime, do you really need it, or do you need security, in which case a backup is a lot more useful.

So using 2 drives for both 1 and 0 Raid instead of 4 drives is possible?

 

[USAFRet]

So using 2 drives for both 1 and 0 Raid instead of 4 drives is possible?

If you desire fastest and most convoluted way to lose all your data, sure.

You're going about this all backwards.

First, you define a problem that needs to be corrected, or condition that needs to be met.
Then you design a system to take care of that.

So....what are you actually trying to do, and why?

 

[samer.forums]

Just saving costs thats all . 2 drives instead of 4 .

 

[USAFRet]

Just saving costs thats all . 2 drives instead of 4 .

"Saving money" is not the situation that needs to be corrected.

What is the desire for the RAID 0, and the RAID 1?

 

[popatim]

Well if you are just trying to save on costs, get one larger drive rathert then 2 or 4.
Larger drives are generally cheaper on a per terabyte basis.
For example. Seagate 1TB is $50 (get 2@$100) but a 2tb is $63 (2@136) and 4Tb is $115...

Now if you really have another goal in mind, which I suspect is the case, Please let us know so we can help you accomplish it.

 

[samer.forums]

Just saving costs thats all . 2 drives instead of 4 .

"Saving money" is not the situation that needs to be corrected.

What is the desire for the RAID 0, and the RAID 1?

The Raid 0 for fast scratch use , and the raid 1 for saving the data.

if one drive fails , the raid 0 partition on the other one will be lost , but the raid 1 partition on it will be intact.

likethis

Harddisk 1 : C (raid 0) , D (Raid 1)

Harddisk 2 : E ( raid 0) , F(Raid 1)

now if one drive fails , the Raid 1 partition will stay on the other one , and the raid 0 is not important anyways because it is a scratch disk

 

[13thmonkey]

yes/no.

No raid is traditionally an all or nothing affair at the disk level, so 2 disks in raid0 or raid 1.

However, intel's matrixraid did allow you to have a portion of the disk in a raid array, and another portion in another array, even of a different type, so 4TB each of Raid 1 for 4TB of redundancy, and 4TB each of Raid 0 for 8TB of faster access.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

But raid is about uptime, it's about ensuring there is no downtime, do you really need it, or do you need security, in which case a backup is a lot more useful.

So using 2 drives for both 1 and 0 Raid instead of 4 drives is possible?

As above a section in raid 0 and another section in raid 1 yes, but not raid 0+1 or 10 without 4 disks

 

[USAFRet]

Just saving costs thats all . 2 drives instead of 4 .

"Saving money" is not the situation that needs to be corrected.

What is the desire for the RAID 0, and the RAID 1?

The Raid 0 for fast scratch use , and the raid 1 for saving the data.

if one drive fails , the raid 0 partition on the other one will be lost , but the raid 1 partition on it will be intact.

likethis

Harddisk 1 : C (raid 0) , D (Raid 1)

Harddisk 2 : E ( raid 0) , F(Raid 1)

now if one drive fails , the Raid 1 partition will stay on the other one , and the raid 0 is not important anyways because it is a scratch disk

"The Raid 0 for fast scratch use"
A small SSD is far faster for that.

"and the raid 1 for saving the data"
I don't know how many times this can be repeated, but "RAID 1 is not a backup". Never was, never will be, never was intended to be.
There are far more ways to lose or corrupt your data beyond a physical drive fail.

 

[USAFRet]

And you need faster scratch space for what application and specific use?

 

[samer.forums]

yes/no.

No raid is traditionally an all or nothing affair at the disk level, so 2 disks in raid0 or raid 1.

However, intel's matrixraid did allow you to have a portion of the disk in a raid array, and another portion in another array, even of a different type, so 4TB each of Raid 1 for 4TB of redundancy, and 4TB each of Raid 0 for 8TB of faster access.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

But raid is about uptime, it's about ensuring there is no downtime, do you really need it, or do you need security, in which case a backup is a lot more useful.

So using 2 drives for both 1 and 0 Raid instead of 4 drives is possible?

As above a section in raid 0 and another section in raid 1 yes, but not raid 0+1 or 10 without 4 disks

Just saving costs thats all . 2 drives instead of 4 .

"Saving money" is not the situation that needs to be corrected.

What is the desire for the RAID 0, and the RAID 1?

The Raid 0 for fast scratch use , and the raid 1 for saving the data.

if one drive fails , the raid 0 partition on the other one will be lost , but the raid 1 partition on it will be intact.

likethis

Harddisk 1 : C (raid 0) , D (Raid 1)

Harddisk 2 : E ( raid 0) , F(Raid 1)

now if one drive fails , the Raid 1 partition will stay on the other one , and the raid 0 is not important anyways because it is a scratch disk

"The Raid 0 for fast scratch use"
A small SSD is far faster for that.

"and the raid 1 for saving the data"
I don't know how many times this can be repeated, but "RAID 1 is not a backup". Never was, never will be, never was intended to be.
There are far more ways to lose or corrupt your data beyond a physical drive fail.

... I know Raid one is not backup. it helps in case your drive fails though ..

as for using SSD , well the scratch files are big and the one asking for this cant pay for 1 TB SSD ... and he already has 2 drives

having said that, you don recommend Raid 1 at all then ? Just use backup drive ?

 

[13thmonkey]

I did exactly what you want to do, it was a collosal pain, the raid 0 was stable, but every 2 weeks or so the raid 1 would feel that it needed a rebuild, that were on raid edition disks too.

 

[13thmonkey]

If the goal is high availability then raid 1 and a backup, if you can afford 30mins of downtime once every 2 years when you lose a disk, then a backup is enough.

 

[samer.forums]

I did exactly what you want to do, it was a collosal pain, the raid 0 was stable, but every 2 weeks or so the raid 1 would feel that it needed a rebuild, that were on raid edition disks too.

Okay then , I will cancel the idea all together

 

[USAFRet]

... I know Raid one is not backup. it helps in case your drive fails though ..

No, not really.
If you have a viable backup, recovery is easily done.
A RAID 1 is useful if you actually need 24/7 ops. Continuity.
With an actual backup for it.

as for using SSD , well the scratch files are big and the one asking for this cant pay for 1 TB SSD ... and he already has 2 drives

"large scratch files"?" What application and use?
And apparently this is not your system? You wish to impose this fail-ridden thing on someone else? I feel sorry for him.

having said that, you don recommend Raid 1 at all then ? Just use backup drive ?

Since we have no idea of the actual use here, RAID 1 or not RAID 1 is unanswerable at this point.

 

[samer.forums]

... I know Raid one is not backup. it helps in case your drive fails though ..

No, not really.
If you have a viable backup, recovery is easily done.
A RAID 1 is useful if you actually need 24/7 ops. Continuity.
With an actual backup for it.

as for using SSD , well the scratch files are big and the one asking for this cant pay for 1 TB SSD ... and he already has 2 drives

"large scratch files"?" What application and use?
And apparently this is not your system? You wish to impose this fail-ridden thing on someone else? I feel sorry for him.

having said that, you don recommend Raid 1 at all then ? Just use backup drive ?

Since we have no idea of the actual use here, RAID 1 or not RAID 1 is unanswerable at this point.

feel sorry for him ? and me imposing on him ? how do you know ? and why am I asking experts here then ?

as for what software he is using , mainly raw media (not compressed) files thats what he said and he asked for 1TB scratch disk minimum.

anyways thanks for your help.

 

[popatim]

1tb for a scratch disk for any home user is way too big & a professional user would not baulk at the pricing as they would know the value of it.
Scratch disk size is also dpendant on the software being used.

How much ram does this user have? First step in increasing performance is usually to max out the ram of the motherbd for most kinds of editing work..

 

[samer.forums]

1tb for a scratch disk for any home user is way too big & a professional user would not baulk at the pricing as they would know the value of it.
Scratch disk size is also dpendant on the software being used.

How much ram does this user have? First step in increasing performance is usually to max out the ram of the motherbd for most kinds of editing work..

16 GB RAM , i7 7700 . he puts all the files he needs in his project on the scratch disk (all files video , Audio , Pics , textures , etc) and when he finishes every thing he copies the result to the other drive. I did not ask him about the software he is using , possibly a group of Art/3D/V.Editing software

I will see if he can get a SSD ... but for the time being he does not want to pay. I will see.

 

[USAFRet]

1tb for a scratch disk for any home user is way too big & a professional user would not baulk at the pricing as they would know the value of it.
Scratch disk size is also dpendant on the software being used.

How much ram does this user have? First step in increasing performance is usually to max out the ram of the motherbd for most kinds of editing work..

16 GB RAM , i7 7700 . he puts all the files he needs in his project on the scratch disk (all files video , Audio , Pics , textures , etc) and when he finishes every thing he copies the result to the other drive. I did not ask him about the software he is using , possibly a group of Art/3D/V.Editing software

I will see if he can get a SSD ... but for the time being he does not want to pay. I will see.

"he puts all the files he needs in his project on the scratch disk"

That is not a scratch disk.
That is a drive for works in progress. Completely different thing.

A scratch (or cache) disk (or folder) is what an application uses to read/write temp files, during use. You, the user, do not write anything to that yourself.

For instance, in Lightroom, I have a folder on a spare SSD for exactly that.

LR calls it a cache folder.

I also have an SSD for the actual files I happen to be working on.

 

[samer.forums]

1tb for a scratch disk for any home user is way too big & a professional user would not baulk at the pricing as they would know the value of it.
Scratch disk size is also dpendant on the software being used.

How much ram does this user have? First step in increasing performance is usually to max out the ram of the motherbd for most kinds of editing work..

16 GB RAM , i7 7700 . he puts all the files he needs in his project on the scratch disk (all files video , Audio , Pics , textures , etc) and when he finishes every thing he copies the result to the other drive. I did not ask him about the software he is using , possibly a group of Art/3D/V.Editing software

I will see if he can get a SSD ... but for the time being he does not want to pay. I will see.

"he puts all the files he needs in his project on the scratch disk"

That is not a scratch disk.
That is a drive for works in progress. Completely different thing.

A scratch (or cache) disk (or folder) is what an application uses to read/write temp files, during use. You, the user, do not write anything to that yourself.

For instance, in Lightroom, I have a folder on a spare SSD for exactly that.

LR calls it a cache folder.

I also have an SSD for the actual files I happen to be working on.

Thanks for the definitions. I thought a scratch disk means a drive where the data is temporary on it and will be deleted after the project is finished as well . I did not know it means only the temporary files the software uses. I thought it is all the files together.

 

[popatim]

If he wants an SSD for that then I suggest the 1TB Sandisk Ultra 3D, currently $285 @ BestBuy.

Which applications do they use? Some do not use scratch disks so one may not be needed.

 

[samer.forums]

If he wants an SSD for that then I suggest the 1TB Sandisk Ultra 3D, currently $285 @ BestBuy.

Which applications do they use? Some do not use scratch disks so one may not be needed.

Thanks for your suggestion , will try to convince him to buy an SSD ... thats a good price for 1TB ...