Performace boost with RAID0?

[Thorsten Tarrach]

Hallo,
I have the following idea for my WinXP Pro system: Put the pagefile on a
software RAID0 Partition? But this will require my to use Dynamic Volumes,
which I want to avoid.
So will RAID0 bringt me much performance boost?
Thorsten

[chop]

from what ive read, unless you're a video edit, CAD or web server, with lots
of simultaneous connections to disk activity you'll never notice the
difference . . . the downside seems to be the decreased data security

--
--------------------------------
if u really want to email me, click on the address below

and remove the P before you click send
--------------------------------
"Thorsten Tarrach" > wrote in message
...
> Hallo,
> I have the following idea for my WinXP Pro system: Put the pagefile on a
> software RAID0 Partition? But this will require my to use Dynamic Volumes,
> which I want to avoid.
> So will RAID0 bringt me much performance boost?
> Thorsten
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003

[Ron Martell]

"Thorsten Tarrach" > wrote:

>Hallo,
>I have the following idea for my WinXP Pro system: Put the pagefile on a
>software RAID0 Partition? But this will require my to use Dynamic Volumes,
>which I want to avoid.
>So will RAID0 bringt me much performance boost?
>Thorsten

The most effetive way of improving the performance of the page file in
Windows XP is to install sufficient RAM so as to eliminate the need to
actually move memory pages from RAM to the page file.

And that will almost certainly be cheaper than the extra drives etc.
needed to set up a RAID configuration.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

[Thorsten Tarrach]

"Ron Martell" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

> The most effetive way of improving the performance of the page file in
> Windows XP is to install sufficient RAM so as to eliminate the need to
> actually move memory pages from RAM to the page file.
I already have 256 MB, but this is full when the system is loaded. Nothing
to do about it.

> And that will almost certainly be cheaper than the extra drives etc.
> needed to set up a RAID configuration.

I have two harddisks: On one is the OS. So I put the page file on the other.
But this disk seems to be slower, when only RAM<-->Pagefile, but a little
bit faster on loading new files from OS into the ram and caching to disk at
the same time. But because RAM<-->Pagefile is more important with games I
thought it might be a cheap thing to create a RAID0 and it will work faster
in both scenarios.

Apart from that I would need a RAID1, but I think WinXP cannot create one,
can it?

[Ron Martell]

"Thorsten Tarrach" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Martell" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
>> The most effetive way of improving the performance of the page file in
>> Windows XP is to install sufficient RAM so as to eliminate the need to
>> actually move memory pages from RAM to the page file.
>I already have 256 MB, but this is full when the system is loaded. Nothing
>to do about it.
>
>> And that will almost certainly be cheaper than the extra drives etc.
>> needed to set up a RAID configuration.
>
>I have two harddisks: On one is the OS. So I put the page file on the other.
>But this disk seems to be slower, when only RAM<-->Pagefile, but a little
>bit faster on loading new files from OS into the ram and caching to disk at
>the same time. But because RAM<-->Pagefile is more important with games I
>thought it might be a cheap thing to create a RAID0 and it will work faster
>in both scenarios.
>
>Apart from that I would need a RAID1, but I think WinXP cannot create one,
>can it?

In order to create any sort of RAID setup you would need to purchase at
least one additional hard drive, one that is absolutely identical (same
make and model) as one of your existing drives.

And that will cost you more than it would to purchase an additional 256 mb
of RAM. In fact you should be able to get another 512 mb for less than
the cost of another hard drive.

256 mb is "barely adequate" for good performance in Windows XP and the
majority of users with 256 mb will see a performance improvement, and
sometimes a very substantial performance improvement, if they go to 512 mb
or more.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

[Thorsten Tarrach]

"Ron Martell" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> In order to create any sort of RAID setup you would need to purchase at
> least one additional hard drive, one that is absolutely identical (same
> make and model) as one of your existing drives.

No, that's not true. I already made a software RAID between two different
HDs. I would create only one volume with the RAID, the rest of the space
would be normal Volumes.
The problem is that going to dynamic disks is a one path ticket. I can never
use Partition Magic or any revocery tools on these disks. But I think I will
give it a try.

> 256 mb is "barely adequate" for good performance in Windows XP and the
> majority of users with 256 mb will see a performance improvement, and
> sometimes a very substantial performance improvement, if they go to 512 mb
> or more.

I know I will see a perfoemce improvement, but I'm not willingly to invest
any money at the moment.
I'm always looking for the performance improvement for free. :)

[Ron Martell]

"Thorsten Tarrach" > wrote:


>No, that's not true. I already made a software RAID between two different
>HDs. I would create only one volume with the RAID, the rest of the space
>would be normal Volumes.
>The problem is that going to dynamic disks is a one path ticket. I can never
>use Partition Magic or any revocery tools on these disks. But I think I will
>give it a try.
>
>> 256 mb is "barely adequate" for good performance in Windows XP and the
>> majority of users with 256 mb will see a performance improvement, and
>> sometimes a very substantial performance improvement, if they go to 512 mb
>> or more.
>
>I know I will see a perfoemce improvement, but I'm not willingly to invest
>any money at the moment.
>I'm always looking for the performance improvement for free. :)


TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (Somebody has to pay
for it, sometime, somehow).


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."