Combining 2 hard drives into 1?

Windows XP will ask you for third party drivers, press F6. So when
this happens press F6 and then later insert the drivers for RAID from
your motherboard manufacturer on a floppy disk.

Before this step, you must set your motherboard to recognize the ports
you have connected the drives you plan to use in RAID, as RAID ports
and not normal single ports.

Also, I think the drives must be identical, same model and capacity.




Sultin wrote:
> Sultin wrote:
> > Jim wrote:
> >> "Mike T." <noway.DeleteThis@nohow.not> wrote in message
> >> news:455dd04c$0$97238$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Sultin" <ric82.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:5Rj7h.30423$Fw5.11798@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> >>>> I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm
> >>>> drives), and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to
> >>>> read the C: as 80gigs, as opposed to two 40's?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this
> >>>> before. Are there any disadvantages to doing this?
> >>>
> >>> If your motherboard bios supports this, you can use the two drives in a
> >>> RAID setup, with about 80GB storage space on drive C:. There's a huge
> >>> disadvantage though. If one of the drives goes bad, you lose your
> >>> Windows setup and all data files stored on drive C:
> >>> (note: If ONE of the two drives goes bad)
> >>>
> >>> RAID can be used to prevent data loss also, but then you'd be stuck at
> >>> 40GB for drive C:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> NOTE: Some RAID controllers also support JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Drives) or
> >> Spanning. IOW, there are no optimizations or performance improvements
> >> whatsoever, as would be the case w/ RAID0 (stripping). The controller
> >> simply treats two (or more) drives as one single logical drive, which to
> >> be precise, is closer to what the OP requested. In this case, you do NOT
> >> lose all the data on the other drives, only the data on the failed drive
> >> (of course). In fact, in some respects, spanning *could* be safer than a
> >> single drive. Since data isn't typically written to the next HD until
> >> the current HD is exhausted, it's entirely possible (depending on the
> >> size of the HDs and number of HDs involved and the amount of space
> >> consumed) that a failed HD has no impact whatsoever. IOW, the drive may
> >> have no data on it to recover anyway.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> >
> > My motherboard (a Shuttle AN35N Ultra) doesn't have have Raid, so I guess
> > that means I have to buy a raid controller for a PCI slot, right?
> >
> > And is that all I need? Or is anything else required?
>
> JBOD sounds like what I originally wanted, but after some reading I see that
> RAID-0 offers some performance increases. I think that's what I'll do.
>
> After doing Raid-0 will I be able to do a clean install of XP on the drive?
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

Yeah, any time you access the hard drive you will notice a speed
difference. When opening browsers and surfing the net, you aren't
really using the hard drives so you won't notice a difference. This is
mostly the realm of your processor, RAM, and video card, Network Card,
Internet Connection Speed.

You will notice a big difference whenever you load and run hard drive
dependent things like games, video, audio, pictures, etc.

I could finally play games like Rome Total War smoothly when I switched
to RAID 0.

I noticed a big difference in games. I don't play many games anymore
but if you're a gamer you will benefit a lot from a RAID 0 setup.


Sultin wrote:
> > Also, I think the drives must be identical, same model and capacity.
> >
>
> They're both Western Digital, 7200 rpm, and 40 gigs. HOWEVER, one drive has
> an 8mb buffer and the other has a 2mb buffer.
>
> Would this effect the Raid 0 setup?
>
> Also, how does Raid 0 effect the speed everyday things like: booting XP
> home ed., loading and using Firefox (w/broadband connection), etc?
>
> Thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

I'm not sure about the 8MB and 2MB difference. I think it would matter
though. During critical times the slower one would fall behind the
other leading to errors. Go with 2 exactly identical drives unless you
want headaches later on. Your choice.


julian8888888 DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> Yeah, any time you access the hard drive you will notice a speed
> difference. When opening browsers and surfing the net, you aren't
> really using the hard drives so you won't notice a difference. This is
> mostly the realm of your processor, RAM, and video card, Network Card,
> Internet Connection Speed.
>
> You will notice a big difference whenever you load and run hard drive
> dependent things like games, video, audio, pictures, etc.
>
> I could finally play games like Rome Total War smoothly when I switched
> to RAID 0.
>
> I noticed a big difference in games. I don't play many games anymore
> but if you're a gamer you will benefit a lot from a RAID 0 setup.
>
>
> Sultin wrote:
> > > Also, I think the drives must be identical, same model and capacity.
> > >
> >
> > They're both Western Digital, 7200 rpm, and 40 gigs. HOWEVER, one drive has
> > an 8mb buffer and the other has a 2mb buffer.
> >
> > Would this effect the Raid 0 setup?
> >
> > Also, how does Raid 0 effect the speed everyday things like: booting XP
> > home ed., loading and using Firefox (w/broadband connection), etc?
> >
> > Thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

"Mike T." <noway.TakeThisOut@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:455dd04c$0$97238$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Sultin" <ric82.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5Rj7h.30423$Fw5.11798@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> >I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm drives),
> >and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to read the C:
as
> >80gigs, as opposed to two 40's?
> >
> > I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this
> > before. Are there any disadvantages to doing this?
>
> If your motherboard bios supports this, you can use the two drives in a
RAID
> setup, with about 80GB storage space on drive C:. There's a huge
> disadvantage though. If one of the drives goes bad, you lose your Windows
> setup and all data files stored on drive C:
> (note: If ONE of the two drives goes bad)
>
> RAID can be used to prevent data loss also, but then you'd be stuck at
40GB
> for drive C:
>
>

NOTE: Some RAID controllers also support JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Drives) or
Spanning. IOW, there are no optimizations or performance improvements
whatsoever, as would be the case w/ RAID0 (stripping). The controller
simply treats two (or more) drives as one single logical drive, which to be
precise, is closer to what the OP requested. In this case, you do NOT lose
all the data on the other drives, only the data on the failed drive (of
course). In fact, in some respects, spanning *could* be safer than a single
drive. Since data isn't typically written to the next HD until the current
HD is exhausted, it's entirely possible (depending on the size of the HDs
and number of HDs involved and the amount of space consumed) that a failed
HD has no impact whatsoever. IOW, the drive may have no data on it to
recover anyway.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

If you reformatted the two drives then you could set them up in RAID 0, if
your computer offers RAID, and you would have an 80 GB virtual harddrive. Of
course by reformatting you would lose your current OS and programs.

--
DaveW

----------------
"Sultin" <ric82.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Rj7h.30423$Fw5.11798@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm drives),
>and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to read the C: as
>80gigs, as opposed to two 40's?
>
> I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this
> before. Are there any disadvantages to doing this?
>
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

Jim wrote:
> "Mike T." <noway DeleteThis @nohow.not> wrote in message
> news:455dd04c$0$97238$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>
>> "Sultin" <ric82 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5Rj7h.30423$Fw5.11798@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>> I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm drives),
>>> and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to read the
>>> C: as 80gigs, as opposed to two 40's?
>>>
>>> I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this
>>> before. Are there any disadvantages to doing this?
>>
>> If your motherboard bios supports this, you can use the two drives in a
>> RAID setup, with about 80GB storage space on drive C:. There's a huge
>> disadvantage though. If one of the drives goes bad, you lose your
>> Windows setup and all data files stored on drive C:
>> (note: If ONE of the two drives goes bad)
>>
>> RAID can be used to prevent data loss also, but then you'd be stuck at
>> 40GB for drive C:
>>
>>
>
> NOTE: Some RAID controllers also support JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Drives) or
> Spanning. IOW, there are no optimizations or performance improvements
> whatsoever, as would be the case w/ RAID0 (stripping). The controller
> simply treats two (or more) drives as one single logical drive, which to
> be precise, is closer to what the OP requested. In this case, you do NOT
> lose all the data on the other drives, only the data on the failed drive
> (of course). In fact, in some respects, spanning *could* be safer than a
> single drive. Since data isn't typically written to the next HD until
> the current HD is exhausted, it's entirely possible (depending on the
> size of the HDs and number of HDs involved and the amount of space
> consumed) that a failed HD has no impact whatsoever. IOW, the drive may
> have no data on it to recover anyway.
>
> Jim

Thanks for your reply.

My motherboard (a Shuttle AN35N Ultra) doesn't have have Raid, so I guess
that means I have to buy a raid controller for a PCI slot, right?

And is that all I need? Or is anything else required?
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

Sultin wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>> "Mike T." <noway.RemoveThis@nohow.not> wrote in message
>> news:455dd04c$0$97238$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>>
>>> "Sultin" <ric82.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5Rj7h.30423$Fw5.11798@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>> I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm
>>>> drives), and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to
>>>> read the C: as 80gigs, as opposed to two 40's?
>>>>
>>>> I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this
>>>> before. Are there any disadvantages to doing this?
>>>
>>> If your motherboard bios supports this, you can use the two drives in a
>>> RAID setup, with about 80GB storage space on drive C:. There's a huge
>>> disadvantage though. If one of the drives goes bad, you lose your
>>> Windows setup and all data files stored on drive C:
>>> (note: If ONE of the two drives goes bad)
>>>
>>> RAID can be used to prevent data loss also, but then you'd be stuck at
>>> 40GB for drive C:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> NOTE: Some RAID controllers also support JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Drives) or
>> Spanning. IOW, there are no optimizations or performance improvements
>> whatsoever, as would be the case w/ RAID0 (stripping). The controller
>> simply treats two (or more) drives as one single logical drive, which to
>> be precise, is closer to what the OP requested. In this case, you do NOT
>> lose all the data on the other drives, only the data on the failed drive
>> (of course). In fact, in some respects, spanning *could* be safer than a
>> single drive. Since data isn't typically written to the next HD until
>> the current HD is exhausted, it's entirely possible (depending on the
>> size of the HDs and number of HDs involved and the amount of space
>> consumed) that a failed HD has no impact whatsoever. IOW, the drive may
>> have no data on it to recover anyway.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> My motherboard (a Shuttle AN35N Ultra) doesn't have have Raid, so I guess
> that means I have to buy a raid controller for a PCI slot, right?
>
> And is that all I need? Or is anything else required?

JBOD sounds like what I originally wanted, but after some reading I see that
RAID-0 offers some performance increases. I think that's what I'll do.

After doing Raid-0 will I be able to do a clean install of XP on the drive?
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

> Also, I think the drives must be identical, same model and capacity.
>

They're both Western Digital, 7200 rpm, and 40 gigs. HOWEVER, one drive has
an 8mb buffer and the other has a 2mb buffer.

Would this effect the Raid 0 setup?

Also, how does Raid 0 effect the speed everyday things like: booting XP
home ed., loading and using Firefox (w/broadband connection), etc?

Thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

julian8888888 RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> Yeah, any time you access the hard drive you will notice a speed
> difference. When opening browsers and surfing the net, you aren't
> really using the hard drives so you won't notice a difference. This is
> mostly the realm of your processor, RAM, and video card, Network Card,
> Internet Connection Speed.
>
> You will notice a big difference whenever you load and run hard drive
> dependent things like games, video, audio, pictures, etc.
>
> I could finally play games like Rome Total War smoothly when I switched
> to RAID 0.
>
> I noticed a big difference in games. I don't play many games anymore
> but if you're a gamer you will benefit a lot from a RAID 0 setup.


Thanks, dude. I'm ordering the Raid controller now.

>
> Sultin wrote:
>>> Also, I think the drives must be identical, same model and capacity.
>>>
>>
>> They're both Western Digital, 7200 rpm, and 40 gigs. HOWEVER, one drive
>> has an 8mb buffer and the other has a 2mb buffer.
>>
>> Would this effect the Raid 0 setup?
>>
>> Also, how does Raid 0 effect the speed everyday things like: booting XP
>> home ed., loading and using Firefox (w/broadband connection), etc?
>>
>> Thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

Sultin,
I would suggest that you buy another drive that matches your best
drive and use your 40 GB drive with the 2MB buffer as a backup drive in
your system. 40GB drives are cheap and if you are going with RAID 0 it
would be useful to have another drive to backup files on since you will
lose some reliability with RAID 0. Since you are going through the
trouble of setting up RAID 0 you should try to get the best performance
you can with your hardware, spending $40 or less for a matching drive
would be worth it in my opinion.

Good luck,
James
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

Sultin <ric82.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm
> drives), and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to read the C: as 80gigs, as
> opposed to two 40's?

Yes, that is called spanning and XP alone can do that.

> I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this before.

Yes, but you dont need RAID to do that.

> Are there any disadvantages to doing this?

Yes, death of one physical drive will mean that you lose all the data.
If you dont span them, you obviously only lose one drive's worth of data.
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

Rod Speed wrote:
> Sultin <ric82 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm
>> drives), and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to
>> read the C: as 80gigs, as opposed to two 40's?
>
> Yes, that is called spanning and XP alone can do that.
>
>> I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this
>> before.
>
> Yes, but you dont need RAID to do that.
>
>> Are there any disadvantages to doing this?
>
> Yes, death of one physical drive will mean that you lose all the data.
> If you dont span them, you obviously only lose one drive's worth of data.

Can volume spanning be done on XP Home?
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1? 

Ok, let's slow down a bit here, because there are some misconceptions being
stipulated here.

The two drives in RAID0 (or any other raid config) do NOT have to be
identical! All that will happen is that the pair's performance will only be
as good as the slower drive. That's all. Otherwise, you can throw any two
HDs into a RAIDO config and it will work. Any capacity, any buffer size,
any speed, whatever, it doesn't matter. Again, the ONLY consequence is that
performance can never be expected to be better than the slowest drive.
Obviously if you're planning to buy new HDs for a RAID config, it only makes
sense to purchase identical drives as a matter of economics.

Even if this wasn't the case, let's just say for the sake of argument you
did have to have IDENTICAL HDs, there's no such thing as two IDENTICAL HDs
anyway. The same model may experience ever so slight differences in
performance. You simply could never guarantee that any two HDs would behave
identically. Therefore, the controller is setup to always "wait" on the
completion of I/O requests from the slowest drive. If one if completed, and
the other is still working on I/O, the controller just waits until BOTH HDs
complete their respective I/Os, then returns.

As far as RAID (spanning, striping, or mirroring) working w/ XP, a hardware
RAID solution, such as using an on-board RAID controller or PCI controller
is INDEPENDENT of ANY OS! All the RAID functions happen at the BIOS level
of the controller. In fact, the controller has its own BIOS and HIDES the
fact that there is a RAID array from everything above it, including any boot
managers, partitions managers, OSes, etc. That's what makes a hardware RAID
controller so COOL! It works with ANYTHING, any utilities, any OSes,
because as far as these things are concerned, the controller present the
array as a single volume (even though the controller knows it may be a group
of drives working together, either spanned, striped, or mirrored) to support
it. Everything but the controller is OBLIVIOUS to the fact that a raid
array even exists.

And to get back to spanning vs. RAID0 (stripping), yes, stripping increases
performance because I/O requests can be split among two drives. However,
because these two HDs are dependent on each other to create a single LOGICAL
volume, if either fails, then you lose EVERYTHING. That's the inherent risk
w/ RAID0 (stripping) vs. spanning. Spanning provides NO performance
benefits whatsoever, it merely provides the CONVENIENCE of dealing w/
multiple HDs as ONE logical volume. Spanning is particularly useful if you
have a lot of SMALL HDs where the alternative might involve having a lot of
individual drive letters for all the partitions on those many drives.

So as long as you understand the risks of RAID0, fine, go for it.

Jim


"Sultin" <ric82 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lgs7h.15834$tb6.1485@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:
> > Sultin <ric82 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have two 40gig drives (both identical Western Digial, 7200rpm
> >> drives), and was wondering if it's possible to somehow get Windows to
> >> read the C: as 80gigs, as opposed to two 40's?
> >
> > Yes, that is called spanning and XP alone can do that.
> >
> >> I think I've read that RAID could do this, though I've never used this
> >> before.
> >
> > Yes, but you dont need RAID to do that.
> >
> >> Are there any disadvantages to doing this?
> >
> > Yes, death of one physical drive will mean that you lose all the data.
> > If you dont span them, you obviously only lose one drive's worth of
data.
>
> Can volume spanning be done on XP Home?
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Combining 2 hard drives into 1?