LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-17-2008, 01:40 AM   #1
streams &dragonflies
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Distribution: (Ubuntu Studio, Ubuntu) & JAD (Suse 10.2)
Posts: 38

Rep: Reputation: 15
Smile If making a raid0 partition from large IDE and SCSI, will rest of IDE risk more wear?


I want to try a raid0 array made of 2 25 GiG partitions only, not whole drives. I have a recent 500 GIG Seagate (5 yr warranty) and 100ATA IDE drive and a 2001 dated 10k Ultra160 IBM (Ultrastar) 36 GIG SCSI.

I read that any raid array causes increased heat to the drives and attached cables etc..., and the SCSI model tends to be hotter than some other drives of that era. I need to boost speed for video editing and will create a total of 50 GIGS and mount my /temp folder there (I will be keeping the edit projects very simple).

Hoping that if a drive fails it's the SCSI first, will I have a problem accessing the non raid part of my IDE drive, considering that my 'targeted for raid' partition is within an extended partition?
Is the ratio of increase in drive wear great compared to gains in I/O and speed increase for this type of work? I found so far yeses and nos, I can't decide.

Hoping to finally re-install hardy studio LTS soon, thnks in adv!

Note: I have an HP workstation of same age as SCSI, with many fans so this means that I have adequate cooling environment, right?
 
Old 10-17-2008, 01:49 AM   #2
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 115Reputation: 115
If you are using a hardware raid controller, I don't think you'll be able to have part of the drive in a raid and part not. I have no idea whether software raid will let you do that.

I also don't understand why you think/hope the IBM drive would die first. I have several of those drives, and they are quite sturdy and reliable. I run them 24/7/365 since 2001 and have had exactly one failure - and that one failed a year after I dropped it on a concrete floor. My ultrastars have fans blowing across them and they all run between 35 and 40C (24C ambient), which isn't any hotter than most other drives I mess with, and is noticeably cooler than the Seagate 500 Gig IDE that I have mounted in an external USB case.

I also would not know why you would think that raid puts additional stress on a drive; the stress on the drive is dictated solely by how the drive is used.

Last edited by jiml8; 10-17-2008 at 01:51 AM.
 
Old 10-17-2008, 03:28 AM   #3
salasi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Directly above centre of the earth, UK
Distribution: SuSE, plus some hopping
Posts: 3,910

Rep: Reputation: 776Reputation: 776Reputation: 776Reputation: 776Reputation: 776Reputation: 776Reputation: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by streams &dragonflies View Post
Note: I have an HP workstation of same age as SCSI, with many fans so this means that I have adequate cooling environment, right?
When you say HP Workstation do you mean it was originally sold as an PA-RISC HP-UX box (tend to be pretty good; my somewhat dated experience with them suggests they tend to go on and on, with only maybe the hard disks being a bit suspect, but I suspect that is more of a 'bad date range' issue) or a HP high-end commodity PC (better than most, I would suggest, but don't look as if they are engineered to the same standards as the the PA RISC boxes (how they look isn't really relevant, though; it is about how they perform in the long term)- remember they are designed by different divisions of HP.

In any case, they were likely to have adequate, or better, cooling as they came from the factory; what upgrades have done to this is another question.

Quote:
I read that any raid array causes increased heat to the drives and attached cables etc..., and the SCSI model tends to be hotter than some other drives of that era. I need to boost speed for video editing and will create a total of 50 GIGS and mount my /temp folder there (I will be keeping the edit projects very simple).
Well, I can't see that stress on the cables is a factor, unless you mean that you have routed them badly, so the cables themselves are under tension/stressed by vibration.

Of course, anything that multiplies the number of drives multiplies the possibilities for failure, so that is an issue.

Quote:
I want to try a raid0 array made of 2 25 GiG partitions only, not whole drives. I have a recent 500 GIG Seagate (5 yr warranty) and 100ATA IDE drive and a 2001 dated 10k Ultra160 IBM (Ultrastar) 36 GIG SCSI.
This is 3 drives, right?
500 G (interface unstated - SATA, presumably)
100ATA IDE (capacity unstated)
36 G SCSI (Which SCSI variant)

(or are the first two a single drive?)

Your need for speed is based on video; if you are primarily pulling and and writing out large files, I'd just try the most recent drive for your video files; over a few years the tighter data packing tends to overtake the higher rotational speed of the older (at the time) higher end drives.

In this scenario, putting your OS and swap on the SCSI drives would make sense.

If, on the other hand, you are not primarily operating on large files, data density won't help as much.

Quote:
Is the ratio of increase in drive wear great compared to gains in I/O and speed increase for this type of work?
I'm not sure that there is a good simple answer for this; anything that uses parity, will increase the amount of writes for a particular data block size, but raid 0 doesn't do that. It does distribute the work across drives, which could help if a particular drive is near to a critical temperature; it probably does increase the load on the power supply a little, which would be bad if the power supply is close to critical.

Note also that among the people who have actually measured RAID performance often find their performance isn't as good as they expected; I suspect one of the issues is whether, say, the PCI bridge/interface bus is overloaded. Without knowing more about your arch I can't even guess whether this would apply to you (even if i did know more about your arch I would only be able to guess; not very useful).
 
Old 10-18-2008, 07:30 PM   #4
streams &dragonflies
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Distribution: (Ubuntu Studio, Ubuntu) & JAD (Suse 10.2)
Posts: 38

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Talking

Hi! Thanks for the replies,


Quote:
When you say HP Workstation do you mean it was originally sold as an PA-RISC HP-UX box...

I have a HP workstation x4000 with dual xeon 2.4 GHz. It has Rambus PC800 ECC RAM not risk chips, but it was an enterprise and not consumer box, used as autocad workstation or server, so it was well built, I beleive.


I have 3 drives but the:

Quote:
500 G (interface unstated - SATA, presumably)
100ATA IDE (capacity unstated)
is my description of same 500 GIG IDE drive not SATA.

I have 36 G Fujitsu Man3367MP SCSI (ULTRA160,10k) which supposedly got good ratings in it's day. Windows on it and 11 GIGs left free (for /).

The other SCSI is 36DDYS-T36950 ultrastar by IBM: ULTRA160,10k also but some higher temp. ratings and slighty slower access ratings...

Quote:
Note also that among the people who have actually measured RAID performance often find their performance isn't as good as they expected; I suspect one of the issues is whether, say, the PCI bridge/interface bus is overloaded. Without knowing more about your arch I can't even guess whether this would apply to you (even if i did know more about your arch I would only be able to guess; not very useful).
I realise that not having that much video editing knowledge (the files are relatively large but the I/O will be often as well-according to the info. I read on the subject) and no desire to study my PCI bridge interface- and how good it "raits", I might just have slow results one way or another! I still want to try the raid after all-just hope it won't be a headache!

I feel reassured about the hardiness and heat maintenance of my drives and system from what you both said, but jiml8,

Quote:
If you are using a hardware raid controller, I don't think you'll be able to have part of the drive in a raid and part not. I have no idea whether software raid will let you do that.
I will be using Ubuntu's software raid intergrated into it's kernel, if I understood it correct. see:
https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/install...e-details.html
and also
According to the raid how-to:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO.html
It is possible to create raid0 array from 2 partitions!
 
  


Reply

Tags
partition, raid, raid0, software, ubuntu


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how to mount a IDE Partition as a SCSI disk? alexlihk Linux - Hardware 1 08-02-2004 10:28 AM
How a IDE partition can emulate a SCSI disk? alexlihk Linux - Hardware 1 08-01-2004 06:08 PM
making CD-RW and CD-Rom ide-scsi ? GloVe Linux - Hardware 2 11-03-2003 02:24 PM
bad dmesg output when using ide-scsi boot parameter for IDE CD/DVD-ROM Locura Slackware 7 09-29-2003 02:36 AM
ide CDRW problems under ide-scsi jwbrownuk Linux - Hardware 3 04-30-2003 12:08 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration