Pagefile movement to a RAID 0 setup good?

[cdx2k1]

Hi all.I wanted 2 know if ne one would recommend a pagefile be on a RAID 0 partition.The amount of RAM in the system is 1GB>
1)What if i run out of RAM and windows accesses the pagefile and RAID 0 setup fails?Am I screwed or does windows just crash?
2)Is it safe to have ur pagefile on another physical drive rather than the OS physical drive?
3)What if the partition fails wile using windows (i didn't run out of physical ram and pagefile dind't get accessed)>am i screwed or does windows just crash?                    

[Czar]

At first I looked at the topic and thought...hmmm...sounds like an interesting theory...RAID 0 would give you increased performance in accessing the volume, hence, if the pageing file is on it, faster access...then, after reading your 3 points about it, I stopped and thought, ok, maybe not such a hot idea after all...those are some valid questions, ones that even I would be interested to hear the answers to. I believe Windows may run just fine if it cannot access the particular partition that you have assigned the page file to. It is my theory that it will just build one on another, accessible partition, more than likely it will go to the home drive. Tho it would be nice if someone would test such a theory                    

[cdx2k1]

Lol.For real.I might one day! Thanks for the info though                    

[unimatrix001]

i kinda gettin scared wit more ppl an dey raid0 arrays... but here what... get windows 2003 server and have it at raid 3 and everythings gonna be a ok (parity cheks are nice if a drive fails) never mind you lose a whole hard drive to this parity checking...

personally i like hardware raid over software raid... tigerdirect sells a card for round 150us. works nice for me... supports Raid0 and 1 and 0+1 combination. i would think with hardware raid that you'd get better performance and stability of the array due to haveing a specialized controler and not the OS                    

[cdx2k1]

Ook.BTW thanks for the comment in the "What ya'll think" forum.It probably cheaper by now                    

[unimatrix001]

GOODNESS GRACIOUS ME:
"why didnt you come to me.... i get it much cheeper"
obviously a trini... charlotte street                    

[cdx2k1]

??                    

[Crixx_Creww]

well if yur gonna be using this machine for gaming then it would be pointless to use server 2k3 for yur raid array

to much software is incompatible with 2k3 to make it a viable gaming OS
especially if yu have any arrays running

and ill check into whether the os would just crash or if yur screwed on the page file thing                    

[cdx2k1]

Nah.I gone be using XP Pro or 2000 Pro.                    

[unimatrix001]

windows 2000 server is a good os... i used to use it till i got 2003... an so far 2003 is compatible with most of the games i have... i havent tested the ooooooooooooolllld oooooold games on it yet... but it runnin dem fine                    

[Anonymous]

Naw talking about software like partition magic 8 and norton antivirus 2004. Anyhow do i rather do RAID STRIPING and if one hd failed, backup on the next hd.                    

[Czar]

Naw talking about software like partition magic 8 and norton antivirus 2004. Anyhow do i rather do RAID STRIPING and if one hd failed, backup on the next hd.

Euhmmm...and the English translation would be??                    

[Anonymous]

Ahh sorry, made a mistake and say Striping, althought it's mirroring. As stated in my bios book quote:- If you want to create a RAID 1(mirroring) array,the hard dark source disk is copy onto the destination disk. -:end quote. So that you got a complete backup of your first hard drive on the second hard drive, so just in case any crashes or technical problems. You will have a perfect backup on the second hard drive.  Actually so far win2k3 plays  all the game, no problems whatsoever.                    

[unimatrix001]

i still say raid 3 is dread... striping with parity                    

[Anonymous]

Well i ain't no too much about, but i will go with your word..                    

[unimatrix001]

guy... try raid5.... i try it out an it real nice... yuh doh need a separate disk for parity checkin... the parity is striped across the disks... making raid 5 even faster than 3                    

[TriniXaeno]

raid has proven to give little gains in performance for gaming for me when considered to the rigidity and space lost.

You have to tie up a bunch of drives to establish the raid and moving them around thereafter is going to be a SERIOUS Pain.

Only worthwhile if you have a bunch of drives doing nothing with. (That doesn't define the average gamer) You also lose a good chunk of your data storage capacity. A serious no no for me.

However, if you have some CRITICAL data, then it is excellent for redundancy.
Hence it's popularity @ business places that have plenty "critical" data.

John Doe gamer won't really count 30gb of games and 10gb of anime as critical.

Those are things you can get from a padner in a weekend. Why lock down several drives and lose space just to store that securely?

I would say yes for performance...more speed!! more speed!! but that just hasn't proven to be the case....especially on IDE. RAID real world performance just doesn't go through the roof.

XP didn't start considerably faster, nor did games.

I would love to see a setup on raid that totally smashes a single 7200RPM 8mb cache IDE drive performance. Any takers? Game load times scores down @ euro iwmc.                    

[cdx2k1]

I would love to see a setup on raid that totally smashes a single 7200RPM 8mb cache IDE drive performance. Any takers? Game load times scores down @ euro iwmc.

RAID 0 performance showed like 2x data transfer rate in Sisoftsandra.