Mint 7 destroyed my windows 7 RAID 0 disk

Oxy said:
now downloading opensuse kde version, hopefully this will work. I just want a linux distro i can install without the faff associated with gentoo or arch, so that i can do my masters work on without getting distracted by steam friends, armed assault 2 or ventrilo :p

Not got much to ose now after my raid setup was nuked! may as well just keep trying distro's until one works! if opensuse doesnt work, what about chukra or fedora?
Click to expand...

If you want a good, customisable distro which has a lot of power, try Sabayon. I've been using it for months now after getting hacked off with Arch and not really liking the other distros I tried in between.

It's basically Gentoo, but with a binary package manager (entropy) - as well as Gentoo's portage - and pretty by default. They do two live cd versions: KDE and Gnome and both have fluxbox as a backup WM, as well as a "media centre" option in xdm which starts X and loads into XBMC.
 
Yes, many beginners get burnt with the software raid in both windows/linux - I know I did. That is why my boot drive is not raided. You would need to get hardward raid (see the raid controllers in OcUK) for this to work.

As for distributions everyone has their favourite. I have tried my fair share of them. The advice I would give you is this, forget any other distribution other than debian. You will be happier when you start taking this advice and you will thank me for it.
 
SoC said:
You would need to get hardward raid (see the raid controllers in OcUK) for this to work.
Click to expand...

You would also need to not get one of the cheap ones. off board raid controllers can be fakeraid as well - make sure it has a dedicated raid chip, not something like this which uses Adaptec "hostraid" - which is just another way of saying "fakeraid".

SoC said:
As for distributions everyone has their favourite. I have tried my fair share of them. The advice I would give you is this, forget any other distribution other than debian. You will be happier when you start taking this advice and you will thank me for it.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting argument that you have there. You start with "everyone has their favourites", (why do you think that is, hmm? Is it because people are individual and preference is entirely subjective?) Then you seem to ignore your opening remark and suggest that because you prefer Debian that everyone else should do also - faultless logic.
 
.walls said:
You would also need to not get one of the cheap ones. off board raid controllers can be fakeraid as well - make sure it has a dedicated raid chip, not something like this which uses Adaptec "hostraid" - which is just another way of saying "fakeraid".



It's an interesting argument that you have there. You start with "everyone has their favourites", (why do you think that is, hmm? Is it because people are individual and preference is entirely subjective?) Then you seem to ignore your opening remark and suggest that because you prefer Debian that everyone else should do also - faultless logic.
Click to expand...

Could not have summed it up better myself. ;-)
 
SoC said:
Could not have summed it up better myself. ;-)
Click to expand...

good point, well made... :rolleyes:

EDIT: wait... hang on, were you not the chap that posted this?

SoC said:
I am interested in doing away with the poor quality NAS servers you can buy and put two additional disks in RAID 1 on my next build as storage post build which would behave in a similar fashion as a NAS server. How could this be done using debian?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have lots of experience... maybe we should set you up as the local forum guru? ;)
 
Last edited:
.walls said:
good point, well made... :rolleyes:

EDIT: wait... hang on, were you not the chap that posted this?



Sounds like you have lots of experience... maybe we should set you up as the local forum guru? ;)
Click to expand...

Me guru? As you wish but I would not recommend it. ;-)

By the way .walls, when are you going to give any more advanced help with the above issue? I am still waiting ...
 
For the record and as I do not want to get on the wrong side of .walls who has helped me enough as it is, I prefer debian. I find it easy to install and use. This is my opinion and it is likely to change at anytime from information I as yet do not know. Please use the distribution which is best for you.

The comment made above was selfish and directed only at my particular situation. It is best to seek guru help before deciding which distribution is best for you.
 
This is a problem I was not aware of, I believe I was lining up to be one of the beginners who got burnt.

Is it fair to say that two disks in raid 0 using the intel fakeraid, partitioned with gparted, xp installed to the first then debian to the second is going to go terribly wrong? I would not have predicted this, is there a relatively straightforward workaround?
 
JonJ678 said:
This is a problem I was not aware of, I believe I was lining up to be one of the beginners who got burnt.

Is it fair to say that two disks in raid 0 using the intel fakeraid, partitioned with gparted, xp installed to the first then debian to the second is going to go terribly wrong? I would not have predicted this, is there a relatively straightforward workaround?
Click to expand...

Do not raid your boot disk. Period. Unless you have real hardware raid.
 
vonhelmet said:
You don't get twice the speed with RAID 0, only with RAID 1.
Click to expand...

RAID 1 is a mirror, RAID 0 (not actually RAID, btw) is a stripe... for performance benefits - RAID 0 is the one to go for, for redundancy, RAID 1. For both, go RAID 5 or 10 (actually, there are a bunch more types of RAID, but the most common are 0, 1, 5 and 10).

You also don't get twice the speed, but you certainly get an improvement.
 
.walls said:
RAID 1 is a mirror, RAID 0 (not actually RAID, btw) is a stripe... for performance benefits - RAID 0 is the one to go for, for redundancy, RAID 1. For both, go RAID 5 or 10 (actually, there are a bunch more types of RAID, but the most common are 0, 1, 5 and 10).

You also don't get twice the speed, but you certainly get an improvement.
Click to expand...

I get 180mb/s, so only 20mb/s shy of twice as fast.
 
SoC said:
Do not raid your boot disk. Period. Unless you have real hardware raid.
Click to expand...

Not strictly speaking helpful advice there. Anyone else care to input? Currently thinking of splitting two 30gb drives 20/10, windows on one 20, data on the other, and raid 0 the 10gbs for linux. It would be nice to have windows in raid 0 as well.

vonhelmet said:
You don't get twice the speed with RAID 0, only with RAID 1.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you're talking rubbish here. Raid 1ideally increases read speed with no change to write, in practice motherboard raid in unable to provide this. Raid 0 splits reads and writes across two drives, so you would expect close to twice the performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom