RAID-0 and partitioning

I have read all the guides on RAID-0, as well as partitioning. I understand that it works best for large applications, where the performance is most noticeable - on the larger apps. I understand that there's a risk, and RAID-1 is for mirroring, blah blah blah. I don't want to get a bunch of "it's risky and not worth it" responses. Those are moot here and not the point of the thread.

My question is, when putting two drives in RAID-0 for performance gains, do you have to put the WHOLE capacity of the drive into RAID configuration, or could I partition the same amount on two different sized drives and RAID-0 those?

I'm looking for definite answers, not speculation/responses based on research. Believe you me when I tell you, I've read enough to "speculate" at this point.


============================


Two different scenarios

1. Two 120 GB drives

2. One 160 GB + One 320 GB drive, with 160 GB in RAID-0 <--- Is this possible?

 

you have to use the entire drive in a raid array. In the raid manager on my laptop, you have to select the drives for each part of the array. When the drives are selected all of the data on them is completely erased. So even if you partition your drives, creating a raid array will format the entire drive, removing the partition.
Most laptops have software raid controllers, so the performance increase will be very minimal by having raid 0. You will experience at most 10% more power from raid 0 in real life. The XPS 1730 and all the new laptops all have software raid. The only laptops which have raid are the d900k series cause they have hardware based raid controllers which offer about 80% more efficiency from a second harddrive in raid 0.

I think option 1 is the best, because homogeneous raid is always better than heterogeneous.
I am pretty sure that if you try to raid two different sized drives, the larger of the drives will only be seen as the capacity of the smaller one

K-TRON

 

Yes it's possible. But you will ended up with only 320 GB (160+160) in total.

However, some software RAID can use the remaining 160 GB on your 320 GB drive as another partition. Anyway, RAID 0 is always better with two identical drives.

 

Thanks, guys. I've decided software RAID-0 is worthless. Especially since I've already got a 7200 rpm drive, 4 GB RAM, and I'll have deleted the bloatware from my computer by the time I get my second drive.

 

AH - I have a new question! Okay, so I read in a partitioning guide that when you partition a drive, it's good to set aside one partition for the OS. I plan to do that without doubt. However, while I'm at it, I want to put this on a partition that will NOT be C:. Obviously the more partitions you have, the further they stray from the C: drive. The reason for not putting it on the first partition is that some hackers make scripts to target the C: drive where Windows is to corrupt whatever files on there they're targeting. Pretty smart to stick Windows on some other partition/drive, right? I know - it's not a save-all solution, but those malware or other things that leak onto your system that might look for Windows on the C: drive will be stopped at least. A little help in that way of things is better than nothing.


ANYWAYS - my question is, if I split my 120 GB into 60/40, and stick the OS on the second partition (effectively now D: drive), is that 40 gig partition closer to the middle of the physical disk than the 60 gig one? I forget whether the first information written to a disk gets wrote to the outer edge or the inner edge. And does partitioning get split up like that too?

I want Windows on the fastest part of the disk, which is why I'm wondering. Always want the OS on the fastest part of the disk.

 

I guess the first partition you create on a drive will automatically take the outer edge.

This is a Good Partitioning Guide. Check out Pg.2 Advantage #1.

 

Yes - that is the guide I was referring to earlier. Thanks for relinking it, as I seemed to have blocked out all the second page when I read it. That makes it very easy.