dual boot ? with raid 0 config?

Hi all...Is it possible to have a dual boot machine using 98se and xp (home
or office) while using a raid 0 config with two hd's? W98 does not support
raid correct? Thought I would ask in case there was a chance.

Dave

"David Ciemny" wrote in message
...
Hi all...Is it possible to have a dual boot machine using 98se and xp
(home
or office) while using a raid 0 config with two hd's? W98 does not support
raid correct? Thought I would ask in case there was a chance.

Dave

Are you talking real hardware RAID or some sort of software kludge? Most, if
not all, hardware RAID controllers should hide the gory details from the OS.
For example your typical Promise RAID controller will work with everything
back to Win95 with no problems.
--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:19:02 GMT, "David Ciemny"
wrote:

Hi all...Is it possible to have a dual boot machine using 98se and xp (home
or office) while using a raid 0 config with two hd's?

Yes.

W98 does not support
raid correct?

No, any OS you could boot from a single drive can run from an
array too.

Thought I would ask in case there was a chance.

Should work but you might find that for many uses the performance
would be nearly same, or sometimes even better, running with the
two drives as singles, not RAIDed.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:19:02 GMT, "David Ciemny"
wrote:

Hi all...Is it possible to have a dual boot machine using 98se and xp
(home
or office) while using a raid 0 config with two hd's?

Yes.

W98 does not support
raid correct?

No, any OS you could boot from a single drive can run from an
array too.

Thought I would ask in case there was a chance.

Should work but you might find that for many uses the performance
would be nearly same, or sometimes even better, running with the
two drives as singles, not RAIDed.



why is that kony?

better performance that is?

DC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:09:20 GMT, "David Ciemny"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:19:02 GMT, "David Ciemny"
wrote:

Hi all...Is it possible to have a dual boot machine using 98se and xp
(home
or office) while using a raid 0 config with two hd's?

Yes.

W98 does not support
raid correct?

No, any OS you could boot from a single drive can run from an
array too.

Thought I would ask in case there was a chance.

Should work but you might find that for many uses the performance
would be nearly same, or sometimes even better, running with the
two drives as singles, not RAIDed.



why is that kony?

better performance that is?

DC

Anandtech has a recent article where they claim with the vast majority
of desktop users there is no performance advantage and the risk is
greater for HD failure since its spread out on two disks and if one
fails , you lose all your data. So at the end of the article he flat
out recommends not using Raid 0.

After being skeptical about the whole thing and not getting clear
answers why its better , I finally tried it and I swear it
subjectively feels snappier , peppier so Im sticking with it but Im
not ruling out the whole thing could be some mass delusion. Maybe its
marginally a teeny weeny bit faster at a few inconsequential tasks
like loading some screens or something and Im exaggerating the effect
or maybe theres some kind of crowd psychology going on and Im actually
not getting ANY better perfromance but there is a subjective
impression that it feels a bit peppier.

After doing searches Ive seen posts where people have said flat out no
advantage in video editing , loading of games (anandtech does a test
with Far Cry) etc.

And then there are posts from users which may be delusional but they
claim there is a difference in loading games and things and video
editing so who knows. The argument is --- with artificial benchmarks
youll always get a huge improvement with Raid 0 but rarely any real
improvements in the real world unless you are running a server or
something similar like that.

" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:09:20 GMT, "David Ciemny"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:19:02 GMT, "David Ciemny"
wrote:

Hi all...Is it possible to have a dual boot machine using 98se and xp
(home
or office) while using a raid 0 config with two hd's?

Yes.

W98 does not support
raid correct?

No, any OS you could boot from a single drive can run from an
array too.

Thought I would ask in case there was a chance.

Should work but you might find that for many uses the performance
would be nearly same, or sometimes even better, running with the
two drives as singles, not RAIDed.



why is that kony?

better performance that is?

DC

Anandtech has a recent article where they claim with the vast majority
of desktop users there is no performance advantage and the risk is
greater for HD failure since its spread out on two disks and if one
fails , you lose all your data. So at the end of the article he flat
out recommends not using Raid 0.

After being skeptical about the whole thing and not getting clear
answers why its better , I finally tried it and I swear it
subjectively feels snappier , peppier so Im sticking with it but Im
not ruling out the whole thing could be some mass delusion. Maybe its
marginally a teeny weeny bit faster at a few inconsequential tasks
like loading some screens or something and Im exaggerating the effect
or maybe theres some kind of crowd psychology going on and Im actually
not getting ANY better perfromance but there is a subjective
impression that it feels a bit peppier.

After doing searches Ive seen posts where people have said flat out no
advantage in video editing , loading of games (anandtech does a test
with Far Cry) etc.

And then there are posts from users which may be delusional but they
claim there is a difference in loading games and things and video
editing so who knows. The argument is --- with artificial benchmarks
youll always get a huge improvement with Raid 0 but rarely any real
improvements in the real world unless you are running a server or
something similar like that.



real world is what counts imo. what am feeling or seeing in front of me.

DC

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:09:20 GMT, "David Ciemny"
wrote:


Should work but you might find that for many uses the performance
would be nearly same, or sometimes even better, running with the
two drives as singles, not RAIDed.



why is that kony?

better performance that is?

Performnace is determined by the bottleneck. In some uses the
RAID is running from the PCI bus, with the bus being a bottleneck
either to the array throughput, or other PCI devices being used
*simultaneously*. Unlike a benchmark which seeks to isolate the
drives, in a real-world use there would never be drive isolation,
quite the opposite, the data is being used or moved in some way,
the whole point of the storage in the first place.

Other times the task (or windows pagefile) is making multiple I/O
requests that could be split between two different drives. For a
simple example, quick video editing tasks where there is a source
file, that task being performed faster than drive can read or
write, and the destination file, would be faster from two
separate drives than if both were on same RAID array (assuming
same drives for either). With multitasking it can also be a
factor, with more applications running it's even easier to have
multiple drives designated for use.