2 SSDs: RAID or not?

Hello!
I would like to know what's the best path to be taken in my case. I have two 256gb SSDs.
1st option: 2 partition (OSX + Bootcamp) in one drive and 1 partition in the other one for sharing data between them.
2nd option: Raid them and make it 3 partitions. One for OSX, one for Windows and one for data.
I have a mid 2012 mbp 15" + data doubler.

RAID ing the Boot drive is not a good use for RAID.
RAID gets its speedup when you read the second and subsequent large Block of a single file, provided no other Reads or Writes intervene. System does dozens of little Reads from all over the Volume -- no speedup from RAID, but man what a headache from the increased complexity of System on a RAID. Hard to Install, Hard to maintain.
Also, you want Windows to Read a Mac OS X Disk Utility RAID, and Boot from it? Doubtful.

Similar Messages

  • To RAID or not to RAID, that is the question

    People often ask: Should I raid my disks?
    The question is simple, unfortunately the answer is not. So here I'm going to give you another guide to help you decide when a raid array is advantageous and how to go about it. Notice that this guide also applies to SSD's, with the expection of the parts about mechanical failure.
     What is a RAID?
     RAID is the acronym for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". The concept originated at the University of Berkely in 1987 and was intended to create large storage capacity with smaller disks without the need for very expensive and reliable disks, that were very expensive at that time, often a tenfold of smaller disks. Today prices of hard disks have fallen so much that it often is more attractive to buy a single 1 TB disk than two 500 GB disks. That is the reason that today RAID is often described as "Redundant Array of Independent Disks".
    The idea behind RAID is to have a number of disks co-operate in such a way that it looks like one big disk. Note that 'Spanning' is not in any way comparable to RAID, it is just a way, like inverse partitioning, to extend the base partition to use multiple disks, without changing the method of reading and writing to that extended partition.
     Why use a RAID?
     Now with these lower disks prices today, why would a video editor consider a raid array? There are two reasons:
    1. Redundancy (or security)
    2. Performance
    Notice that it can be a combination of both reasons, it is not an 'either/or' reason.
     Does a video editor need RAID?
    No, if the above two reasons, redundancy and performance are not relevant. Yes if either or both reasons are relevant.
    Re 1. Redundancy
    Every mechanical disk will eventually fail, sometimes on the first day of use, sometimes only after several years of usage. When that happens, all data on that disk are lost and the only solution is to get a new disk and recreate the data from a backup (if you have one) or through tedious and time-consuming work. If that does not bother you and you can spare the time to recreate the data that were lost, then redundancy is not an issue for you. Keep in mind that disk failures often occur at inconvenient moments, on a weekend when the shops are closed and you can't get a replacement disk, or when you have a tight deadline.
    Re 2. Performance
    Opponents of RAID will often say that any modern disk is fast enough for video editing and they are right, but only to a certain extent. As fill rates of disks go up, performance goes down, sometimes by 50%. As the number of disk activities on the disk go up , like accessing (reading or writing) pagefile, media cache, previews, media, project file, output file, performance goes down the drain. The more tracks you have in your project, the more strain is put on your disk. 10 tracks require 10 times the bandwidth of a single track. The more applications you have open, the more your pagefile is used. This is especially apparent on systems with limited memory.
    The following chart shows how fill rates on a single disk will impact performance:
    Remember that I said previously the idea behind RAID is to have a number of disks co-operate in such a way that it looks like one big disk. That means a RAID will not fill up as fast as a single disk and not experience the same performance degradation.
    RAID basics
     Now that we have established the reasons why people may consider RAID, let's have a look at some of the basics.
    Single or Multiple? 
    There are three methods to configure a RAID array: mirroring, striping and parity check. These are called levels and levels are subdivided in single or multiple levels, depending on the method used. A single level RAID0 is striping only and a multiple level RAID15 is a combination of mirroring (1) and parity check (5). Multiple levels are designated by combining two single levels, like a multiple RAID10, which is a combination of single level RAID0 with a single level RAID1.
    Hardware or Software? 
    The difference is quite simple: hardware RAID controllers have their own processor and usually their own cache. Software RAID controllers use the CPU and the RAM on the motherboard. Hardware controllers are faster but also more expensive. For RAID levels without parity check like Raid0, Raid1 and Raid10 software controllers are quite good with a fast PC.
    The common Promise and Highpoint cards are all software controllers that (mis)use the CPU and RAM memory. Real hardware RAID controllers all use their own IOP (I/O Processor) and cache (ever wondered why these hardware controllers are expensive?).
    There are two kinds of software RAID's. One is controlled by the BIOS/drivers (like Promise/Highpoint) and the other is solely OS dependent. The first kind can be booted from, the second one can only be accessed after the OS has started. In performance terms they do not differ significantly.
    For the technically inclined: Cluster size, Block size and Chunk size
     In short: Cluster size applies to the partition and Block or Stripe size applies to the array.
    With a cluster size of 4 KB, data are distributed across the partition in 4 KB parts. Suppose you have a 10 KB file, three full clusters will be occupied: 4 KB - 4 KB - 2 KB. The remaining 2 KB is called slackspace and can not be used by other files. With a block size (stripe) of 64 KB, data are distributed across the array disks in 64 KB parts. Suppose you have a 200 KB file, the first part of 64 KB is located on disk A, the second 64 KB is located on disk B, the third 64 KB is located on disk C and the remaining 8 KB on disk D. Here there is no slackspace, because the block size is subdivided into clusters. When working with audio/video material a large block size is faster than smaller block size. Working with smaller files a smaller block size is preferred.
    Sometimes you have an option to set 'Chunk size', depending on the controller. It is the minimal size of a data request from the controller to a disk in the array and only useful when striping is used. Suppose you have a block size of 16 KB and you want to read a 1 MB file. The controller needs to read 64 times a block of 16 KB. With a chunk size of 32 KB the first two blocks will be read from the first disk, the next two blocks from the next disk, and so on. If the chunk size is 128 KB. the first 8 blocks will be read from the first disk, the next 8 block from the second disk, etcetera. Smaller chunks are advisable with smaller filer, larger chunks are better for larger (audio/video) files.
    RAID Levels
     For a full explanation of various RAID levels, look here: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00/html
    What are the benefits of each RAID level for video editing and what are the risks and benefits of each level to help you achieve better redundancy and/or better performance? I will try to summarize them below.
    RAID0
     The Band AID of RAID. There is no redundancy! There is a risk of losing all data that is a multiplier of the number of disks in the array. A 2 disk array carries twice the risk over a single disk, a X disk array carries X times the risk of losing it all.
    A RAID0 is perfectly OK for data that you will not worry about if you lose them. Like pagefile, media cache, previews or rendered files. It may be a hassle if you have media files on it, because it requires recapturing, but not the end-of-the-world. It will be disastrous for project files.
    Performance wise a RAID0 is almost X times as fast as a single disk, X being the number of disks in the array.
    RAID1
     The RAID level for the paranoid. It gives no performance gain whatsoever. It gives you redundancy, at the cost of a disk. If you are meticulous about backups and make them all the time, RAID1 may be a better solution, because you can never forget to make a backup, you can restore instantly. Remember backups require a disk as well. This RAID1 level can only be advised for the C drive IMO if you do not have any trust in the reliability of modern-day disks. It is of no use for video editing.
    RAID3
    The RAID level for video editors. There is redundancy! There is only a small performance hit when rebuilding an array after a disk failure due to the dedicated parity disk. There is quite a perfomance gain achieveable, but the drawback is that it requires a hardware controller from Areca. You could do worse, but apart from it being the Rolls-Royce amongst the hardware controllers, it is expensive like the car.
    Performance wise it will achieve around 85% (X-1) on reads and 60% (X-1) on writes over a single disk with X being the number of disks in the array. So with a 6 disk array in RAID3, you get around 0.85x (6-1) = 425% the performance of a single disk on reads and 300% on writes.
    RAID5 & RAID6
     The RAID level for non-video applications with distributed parity. This makes for a somewhat severe hit in performance in case of a disk failure. The double parity in RAID6 makes it ideal for NAS applications.
    The performance gain is slightly lower than with a RAID3. RAID6 requires a dedicated hardware controller, RAID5 can be run on a software controller but the CPU overhead negates to a large extent the performance gain.
    RAID10
     The RAID level for paranoids in a hurry. It delivers the same redundancy as RAID 1, but since it is a multilevel RAID, combined with a RAID0, delivers twice the performance of a single disk at four times the cost, apart from the controller. The main advantage is that you can have two disk failures at the same time without losing data, but what are the chances of that happening?
    RAID30, 50 & 60
     Just striped arrays of RAID 3, 5 or 6 which doubles the speed while keeping redundancy at the same level.
    EXTRAS
     RAID level 0 is striping, RAID level 1 is mirroring and RAID levels 3, 5 & 6 are parity check methods. For parity check methods, dedicated controllers offer the possibility of defining a hot-spare disk. A hot-spare disk is an extra disk that does not belong to the array, but is instantly available to take over from a failed disk in the array. Suppose you have a 6 disk RAID3 array with a single hot-spare disk and assume one disk fails. What happens? The data on the failed disk can be reconstructed in the background, while you keep working with negligeable impact on performance, to the hot-spare. In mere minutes your system is back at the performance level you were before the disk failure. Sometime later you take out the failed drive, replace it for a new drive and define that as the new hot-spare.
    As stated earlier, dedicated hardware controllers use their own IOP and their own cache instead of using the memory on the mobo. The larger the cache on the controller, the better the performance, but the main benefits of cache memory are when handling random R+W activities. For sequential activities, like with video editing it does not pay to use more than 2 GB of cache maximum.
    REDUNDANCY(or security)
    Not using RAID entails the risk of a drive failing and losing all data. The same applies to using RAID0 (or better said AID0), only multiplied by the number of disks in the array.
    RAID1 or 10 overcomes that risk by offering a mirror, an instant backup in case of failure at high cost.
    RAID3, 5 or 6 offers protection for disk failure by reconstructing the lost data in the background (1 disk for RAID3 & 5, 2 disks for RAID6) while continuing your work. This is even enhanced by the use of hot-spares (a double assurance).
    PERFORMANCE
     RAID0 offers the best performance increase over a single disk, followed by RAID3, then RAID5 amd finally RAID6. RAID1 does not offer any performance increase.
    Hardware RAID controllers offer the best performance and the best options (like adjustable block/stripe size and hot-spares), but they are costly.
     SUMMARY
     If you only have 3 or 4 disks in total, forget about RAID. Set them up as individual disks, or the better alternative, get more disks for better redundancy and better performance. What does it cost today to buy an extra disk when compared to the downtime you have when a single disk fails?
    If you have room for at least 4 or more disks, apart from the OS disk, consider a RAID3 if you have an Areca controller, otherwise consider a RAID5.
    If you have even more disks, consider a multilevel array by striping a parity check array to form a RAID30, 50 or 60.
    If you can afford the investment get an Areca controller with battery backup module (BBM) and 2 GB of cache. Avoid as much as possible the use of software raids, especially under Windows if you can.
    RAID, if properly configured will give you added redundancy (or security) to protect you from disk failure while you can continue working and will give you increased performance.
    Look carefully at this chart to see what a properly configured RAID can do to performance and compare it to the earlier single disk chart to see the performance difference, while taking into consideration that you can have one disks (in each array) fail at the same time without data loss:
    Hope this helps in deciding whether RAID is worthwhile for you.
    WARNING: If you have a power outage without a UPS, all bets are off.
    A power outage can destroy the contents of all your disks if you don't have a proper UPS. A BBM may not be sufficient to help in that case.

    Harm,
    thanks for your comment.
    Your understanding  was absolutely right.
    Sorry my mistake its QNAP 639 PRO, populated with 5 1TB, one is empty.
    So for my understanding, in my configuration you suggest NOT to use RAID-0. Im not willing to have more drives in my workstation becouse if my projekts are finished, i archiv on QNAP or archiv on other external drive.
    My only intention is to have as much speed and as much performance as possible during developing a projekt 
    BTW QNAP i also use as media-center in combination with Sony PS3 to run the encoded files.
    For my final understanding:
    C:  i understand
    D: i understand
    E and F: does it mean, when i create a projekt on E, all my captured and project-used MPEG - files should be situated in F?  Or which media in F you mean?
    Following your suggestions in want to rebulid Harms-Best Vista64-Benchmark comp to reach maximum speed and performance. Can i use in general the those hardware components (exept so many HD drives and exept Areca raid controller ) in my drive configuration C to F. Or would you suggest some changings in my situation?

  • SSD Raid 0 With 2011 MBP

    I have a late 2011 15" MBP with 2x Intel SSD x25-M 160gb drives (1 in the main bay, 1 in the optical bay). I chose these drives due to the limited bandwidth in the optical bay (it's restricted to 3g vs the main bays 6g).
    I have found an issue that is rather curious when trying to install OSX onto the machine and it concerns the disk utility:
    OS X Recovery Disk Assistant created with Mavericks will NOT see either SSD installed in either bay using the disk assistant (no format or parition possible of either drive.  I can place the drives in external cases and they work flawlessly i.e. you can partition each drive but when you put the partitioned drives back in the MBP Mavericks will not see them).
    OS X Recovery Disk Assistant created with Lion will see BOTH drives and will configure raid 0 successfully (once installed I ran the Mavericks install and it did not see the drive with Lion Installed on it so no upgrade was possible - I ran the internet download as well as trying to install Mavericks from an external firewire drive using a previous download of OSX 10.9).
    I am about to try installing Mountain Lion to see if it will detect the SSD raid drive (it's downloading now).  If that works I will try to then upgrade to Mavericks (doing this incrementally kinda *****).
    I'm wondering if anyone else has ran into this problem?  I have seen plenty of YouTube videos of people putting two SSDs in their MBPs and running Raid 0 with plenty of success.  I'm just wondering if maybe there's a brick wall with anything other than a 13" MBP?
    Thanks in advance.

    Kappy - I think you missed part of the information in my last post:
    I HAVE SUCCESSFULLY created and installed OSX (Snow Leopard, Lion, & Moutain Lion) using the Disk Utility provided by Apple to install fresh versions of each and they work perfectly.
    I DID NOT clone these from external drives.
    I would like to install Mavericks (I don't care at this point about the raid config but it would be nice) but the disk utility version of Mavericks (that you need to install that specific OS) will not see the SSDs installed inside the MBP.  Even if I install Mountain Lion on a single drive and then try to upgrade to Mavericks the drives are not seen.
    Even if i could clone the Mavericks install from an external drive onto the internal raid I still can't see either drive to even do it.

  • SSD Raid and other comments

    I spent the time to test a few situations for myself because there is no real life data that I can find on the internet which pertains to a real Mac user environment. These are only my finding and observations so I can finally stop ripping into my 2008 Mac Pro and changing things around constantly. Its not very scientific but to me I don't mind since the Mac user environment is judged upon feel as a large consideration. Also I'm not a high end power user to work with expensive software solutions. Just an average Mac user since '86, interested in speed and feel for speed.
    First: I wanted to utilize my 6 sata ports for hard drives because one, I test and need the extra hard drives and two, I was thinking of Raid 0 with SSD. So I researched and found nothing about using a sata optical connected to the ide controller in top compartment of the Mac Pro. So I decided to try anyway and purchased a Manhattan Sata 300 to ide converter. The only reason I bought this item is their web site said Windows, Mac and Linux compatible. I set J3 to cable select and connected the provided y-type power connector to the tiny controller card and the optical. I tried an LG CH08LS10 BD reader/DVD burner and a Samsung SH-B083. Without going into lots of detail everything I threw at the opticals worked. ASP shows ata connected device and of course nothing under sata.
    Second: I have read all there is to read about raid 0 and SSD for the boot drive.I have also tried every combination of SSD raid 0 and concluded only based upon observation and feel concerning speed that it made no sense to raid 0 SSD and lose a good sata port. Yes it does have an improvement on write speed but I don't store large files to write. I use a conventional scratch disk 7200 rpm or a 300 gig velociraptor. I'm believe one should match up the SSD to all other devices it will eventually interact. So I don't have enough room to raid conventional hard drives nor do I want to purchase a third party pci card. For those of you suggesting otherwise, I'm spending my time towards myself and the normal casual user. Here's some points to consider:
    1) I wanted to stop watch test only those real events I was familiar, finding that kind of data on the internet is basically nonexistent.
    2) finding optimal raid block size is highly important, yet difficult to find. Probably because to test all the sizes would be a huge PITA. So my test is simple. Make the raid0, choose the block size, install the OS and test. Open DMG files off a second hard drive I used Seagate 7200 rpm and feel the time it takes to open the dmg and mount on the desktop. With a single SSD its quite fast, usually 1 second. In raid zero if the block size is chosen incorrectly then the time will become quite long, being obviously slower. I'm not the expert so I wouldn't recommend the correct size but I think 16k is good. 32K becomes slow.
    3) Here are some stop watch times:
    warm restart: single SSD 39.1 secs raid 0 47.6 sec (not worth the loss of one sata port)
    install itunes 10.1.2 since this dmg does take a longish time: single SSD 1:47.0 min raid 0 1:27.6 (hardly worth the loss of one sata port)
    use itunes to add to a very large music library including artwork: single SSD 1:44.1 min raid 0 1:44.1 min
    using itunes to change equalizer to rock for the entire library: single SSD 1:17.9 min raid 0 1:16.8
    How to make itunes numbers faster , instead of placing the music folder on a conventional hard drive, I used a 300 gig Velociraptor ; place the music file on the SSD then itunes will really fly faster BUT what's the sense for a one time shot. Why use up the SSD space for a couple extra seconds.
    Lastly, I think raid 0 for conventional hard drives would be beneficial but once user gets into SSD the entire story changes. So I'm providing my experiences as a community service. I'm not looking for answer. I feel satisfied that I'm not going to raid my boot drive, a single SSD is fast enough to boot and launch applications. I'll store my data files on a scratch drive, a fast 7200 rpm hard drive wich matches up to my SSD drive. My SSD drives are X25M intel and they match well with fast hard drives. I don't need to raid hard drives because they'll write faster than the intel can do. 105 M/sec is good enough for me, the normal casual user.
    My boot drive is 19 gigs used. I have the normal amount of Applications installed . My music, downloads and movies are on a 7200 rpm scratch drive. Attaching my firewire externals matches up with my internals for speed within reason. Someone write something positive so I can close this post out.

    Another thought then I'm done with this thread.
    I posted a topic about the Radeon 5770 or 5870 working in the 2008 Mac Pro. I read all the stuff on the internet that it is doable. Although it is there was not ANY comments about what if a person clean installs with that card installed prior to. I did that test and was not totally satisfied that its bullet proof.
    I think that too many comments about things that supposedly work but will be unsupported needs to have more justification.
    Except if you think about it, each time I post some simplistic real world test and make comments to how I'm satisfied with performance there are only a small less than handful of people who bother to return a reply. A conclusion then follows that what ever one digests out there on the internet needs to be looked at in depth with some thought. Not just acceptance that the data is all inclusive. I'd never post any data where I thought it was 100% correct when in fact there is variability.
    A simple example would be do some research and try to find out exactly what programs use how many cores. There's some data but not enough to cover the large quantity of programs which exist for the Mac using either Snow Leopard or Leopard.
    One of my pet peeves is to do research and go to some forum, out of this one and read all the responses to some persons query. Its ridiculous the amount of band width wasted with replies that don't come close to answering the initial question.

  • MSI GT60 Windows 8 - SSD Raid is detected as HDD (Optimize)

    So I just got the GT60 and I have my OS installed on my Super Raid 128GB setup.  The problem I have is that when I went to the "optimize" option of Windows 8, I saw that it detected my SSD Super Raid Setup as HDD and not SSD.  I thought analyzing the drive might fix it, but it didn't.  Now I'm afraid to optimize it for fear that it will defrag it instead of TRIM.
    Edit: Somehow after 2 days of not checking on it, it somehow fixed itself... I don't know how it did it, but I didn't do anything to it other than some Windows updates and app crash fixes.  I guess that fixed it...
    Well as a side question, should I optimize the other 2 drives that I see?
    BIOS_RVY
    WinRe Tools
    Should I run optimization on them?

    Original devices? What devices?
    My stripe size is 128kb.
    I have used other benchmarks. Unfortunately mark the same results.
    I have also looked at the firmware of the SSD are updated. I tried one without ssd raid, and I get 200mb result of reading and writing 90MB.
    Something is wrong, why results so low?
    PS: Seen this way, the raid is making me x2 speed, but why the low result?

  • XServe RAID disks not showing up in Disk Utility

    I have a new (to me) xServe RAID box and I'm stuck, the stays lights are green the fiber link light is green on the RAID and not lit on the PCI card but shows up as green in the fiber link section of the settings tool but the RAID array doesn't show up in Disk Utility so I can't format the drives.
    I set up the disks as Enhanced JBOD using RAIDadmin and I've deleted and created it a couple of times, I'm just not sure what else I should try, I've read the manual but. Can't find any suggestions of what's going wrong.
    Thanks

    Port 1: Link Established
    2Gps
    Point to point
    Status light green
    In the system Profiler I'm not sure what you're asking for, I'm running 10.5.8 standard not server.
    the fibre channel shows link established 2Gps and cable type copper but nothing else, the disks & RAID controller don't show up anywhere I've looked.
    RAID Admin shows the JBOD disks as online and lists the LUNs etc.
    System looks fine, only error is missing second power supply.

  • HT204053 hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

    hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

    hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

  • Some configurations such as a software or hardware RAID do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with Find My Mac.

    I'm getting the following error message when attempting to invoke "Find My Mac"
    Some configurations such as a software or hardware RAID do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with Find My Mac.

    You have no recovery partition. This is a normal condition if your boot volume is a software RAID, or if you modified the partition table after running Boot Camp Assistant to create a Windows partition. Otherwise, you need to reinstall OS X in order to add a recovery partition.
    If you don't have a current backup, you need to back up before you do anything else.
    You have several options for reinstalling.
    1. If you have access to a local, unencrypted Time Machine backup volume, and if that volume has a backup of a Mac (not necessarily this one) that was running the same major version of OS X and did have a Recovery partition, then you can boot from the Time Machine volume into Recovery by holding down the option key at the startup chime. Encrypted Time Machine volumes are not bootable, nor are network backups.
    2. If your Mac shipped with OS X 10.7 or later preinstalled, or if it's one of the computers that can be upgraded to use OS X Internet Recovery, you may be able to netboot from an Apple server by holding down the key combination option-R  at the startup chime. Release the keys when you see a spinning globe.
     Note: You need an always-on Ethernet or Wi-Fi connection to the Internet to use Recovery. It won’t work with USB or PPPoE modems, or with proxy servers, or with networks that require a certificate for authentication. 
    3. Use Recovery Disk Assistant (RDA) on another Mac running the same major version of OS X as yours to create a bootable USB device. Boot your Mac from the device by holding down the option key at startup.Warning: All existing data on the USB device will be erased when you use RDA.
    Once you've booted into Recovery, the OS X Utilities screen will appear. Follow the prompts to reinstall OS X. You don't need to erase the boot volume, and you won't need your backup unless something goes wrong. If your Mac was upgraded from an older version of OS X, you’ll need the Apple ID and password you used to upgrade, so make a note of those before you begin.
    If none of the above choices is open to you, then you'll have to start over from an OS X 10.6.8 installation. There's no need to overwrite your existing boot volume; you can use an external drive. Install 10.6 from the DVD you originally used to upgrade, or that came with the machine. Run Software Update and install all available updates. Log into the App Store with the Apple ID you used to buy 10.7 or later, and download the installer. When you run it, be sure to choose the right drive to install on.

  • Dtriped RAID does not want to be created

    Hello,
    I'm trying to set up a RAID system with three equal sized HDs where one of them should be a parity disk. I've never set up a RAID system and I can't find helpful documentation, so perhaps I'm doing something wrong. What I do:
    I open disk utility, choose the "RAID" tab and drag the three disks into the List. As RAID type I select "RAID system (striped)". When having selected one of the disks, I set the type to "reserve". Then I choose "create". After disk utility have been working some time it tells me that there was "an error setting up the RAID system: RAID could not be changed." The log does not unveil more information.
    As added information: The three disks have the size of 250 GB and each of them could be formatted independently and be used without problems, also the three disks could be combined in a RAID system without one as parity. Also the procedure fails with the same error when using the installation DVD.
    Thanks in advance!

    RAID 5 can be cpu intensive on any system, which is why it needs its own on-board RAM and processor.
    SoftRAID - http://www.softraid.com has looked into doing a "Pro" version but even that is difficult, things like 0+1 or something.
    Apple XRAID does every RAID most anyone could want, 3, 5, 10, 50, etc.
    ZFS, XFS? I saw something earlier this year that did sound interesting. (One more major change, major rewrites, more work for various vendors, too, though, which can lead to 'burn out' and exhaustion along with frustration).
    I am trying to skip any OS X that ends in ".0 - .4" or the first 9 months until it has simmered, matured, and gotten "full body" flavor of a mature wine.

  • "RAID is not supported" error when trying to install on separate drive

    Hi,
    I have a Mac Pro (early 2008) with a RAID0 of two 500GB disks as my main drive.
    Up until recently I had a separate physical drive for boot camp running XP.
    Now, I have replaced that drive with a newer one and wish to install Win7 Ultimate on it, but when trying to run Boot Camp Assistant I get the following message: "RAID is not supported".
    Obviously it is referring to my main drive which upon it cannot install nor partition; but I do not intend that anyway - I merely want to install on the separate drive. Is there any way to get past this blockage?
    Thanks

    One other question comes to mind:
    Should the PC drive be formatted using MBR or GUID?
    I seem to have some startup issues after installing Win7, and I thought it might be related (the drive is NTFS with a GUID)
    Thanks

  • SSD Crucial MX100 not defined in HP Pavilion m6-1040er

    Hello!
    My HP Pavilion m6-1040er not defined in the BIOS SSD Crucial MX100. Notebook BIOS updated to the latest version F.36. SSD firmware update not available. SSD working on a home desktop PC (determined immediately after installation) and HP ProBook 6560 (determined after updating the BIOS to the latest version). Please help.
    PS. Excuse for my bad english.

    Hi @alex_yuri ,
    Thank you for visiting the HP Support Forums and Welcome. I have looked into your issue about your HP Pavilion m6-1040er Entertainment Notebook and needing help with the new SSD.  Here is a link to restore the BIOS.
    Restoring the BIOS should pick up the new SSD.
    Did you check before purchasing the new SSD to see if it was compatible? It shows me different specs.
    Please note remove any and all USB devices, and remove memory cards from the card reader slot. Disconnect all non-essential devices.
    Thanks.
    Please click “Accept as Solution ” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
    Click the “Kudos, Thumbs Up" on the bottom to say “Thanks” for helping!

  • Apple Xserver Raid, 1 raid mounts and the other raid does not mount

    Apple Xserver Raid, 1 raid mounts and the other raid does not mount but all the lights on the drives are green

    Kind of lacking in detail there...
    Did the other volume mount in the past? and it stopped working? When? What changed?
    What does Raid Admin.app have to say about it?
    Does it see the drives? a RAID set on those drives? A link on the fiber channel connection?

  • C220M3 LSI Storaged Raid Subsystem not ready yet 9271-8i

    New C220M3 with 9271-8i out of box with 2.0.1b firmware
    Control H doesn't boot into WebBios, instead I get EFI Shell with map:cannot find required map name.
    Press ESC in 1 seconds to skip startup.nsh, any other key to continue
    From the CIMC I select 2 drives to create a drive group and it fails with message;
    Error: Storage Raid subsystem not ready yet
    See screenshot;

    Make sure the optionROM for the raid controller is enable in the bios. 
    1)Reboot server
    2)Press F2 when you see the option to go into bios
    3)go to advance 
    4)select the last option here I believe it is LOM and PCIe
    5) verify that in slot 2 the optionROM is loaded

  • SSD RAID on PB 17" ?

    Has anyone been successfull doing any Raid on the PB?, (PATA & PATA SSD) Raid or (PATA SSD & PATA SSD)...I am very happy with the performance of my PB, but if I could get it to open programs about 2 seconds faster, would really kick a$$ :-). I seen a few 64Gig PATA drives in amazon for 100.00 and a few 32Gig for about 65.00...any thoughts?

    Has anyone been successfull doing any Raid on the PB?, (PATA & PATA SSD) Raid or (PATA SSD & PATA SSD)...I am very happy with the performance of my PB, but if I could get it to open programs about 2 seconds faster, would really kick a$$ :-). I seen a few 64Gig PATA drives in amazon for 100.00 and a few 32Gig for about 65.00...any thoughts?

  • Bios not install error and Raid Configuration not showing physcial HDD in Lenovo

    Is this a SATA hard drive by any chance?  Sounds like you have an Adaptec SCSI controller, but no hard drive attached to it.  Are you booting an install DVD of some sort?

    Bios not install error and Raid Configuration not showing physcial HDD in Lenovo RD 120 Server (New)
    updated bios still same error
    and at array configuration it is not showing any hard disk
    hard disk utility it is showing hard disk 
    we are trying to install OS with single hard disk in Lenovo RD 120 Server
    This topic first appeared in the Spiceworks Community

Maybe you are looking for