Partitioning RAID 0

[jr_senator]

I have a RAID 0 setup. While the computer was being serviced, I asked for the drive to be partitioned. I made a big error, I wanted a 128 GB partition but the instructions I left said 128 MB. I can't believe I did that. Anyway, I understand Windows has a way to partition itself. I have shrunk one (the large) partition but can't figure out how to either add it the small partition (128 MB) or make another striped partition. I have already posted this on 4 computer forums and either I receive no advice or the advice does not work, I also tried the search on those forums. So, I thought I would see if anyone here knows the answer. I want to put PS CS4 on it's own partition. I use Vista 64 bit.Any ideas?

[joeseph]

don't know about Vista but from what I've seen, the inbuilt windows tools aren't worth using. I've used Partition Magic & Acronis Partition Manger and both appear pretty easy to use. As with any drive utility you do need to make sure you have a known good backup before changing anything...

[Quad]

This should be fairly straight forward. The bit that was removed from the large partition should be "unallocated" in disk management. Then you should be able to right click on the small partition and "extend volume" should be available. The unallocated space should be able to be added at this point. If that part is not "unallocated" make sure there is no data there then delete that partition first.

[Moppie]

t. Then you should be able to right click on the small partition and "extend volume" should be available.


Just one note, this doesn't work if its the system drive. :cool:

[Quad]

Just one note, this doesn't work if its the system drive. :cool:

System drive or system partition? If the whole drive then I guess that is the problem.

[jr_senator]

Just one note, this doesn't work if its the system drive. :cool:

Appears that's the case. Any ideas?

[gjl711]

Just one note, this doesn't work if its the system drive. :cool:I believe in Vista it no longer matters.

OP, you got lots of stuff to try, but a quick question, Why run RAID0? It is the most fragile and dangerous of all the RAID types. One error and you trash both disks.

[jr_senator]

I used RAID 0 in my previous computer to speed things up, so when I ordered my current desktop I had DELL set it up as RAID 0 as before. I have a third HD that I was planning to use as a scratch disc that is not RAID. I have read where it is best, if possible, to install Photo Shop on it's own drive. I wanted to partition off a bit in order to install PS on it's own drive and keep it RAID 0. I was advised some years back to use RAID 0 to speed things up. This desktop and both of my two previous desktops had RAID 0. If room allowed I might try RAID 5, maybe next time.

[gjl711]

RAID0 does speed things up but you pay a price. Because the drives are striped across drives the failure of one drive kills both.

[Quad]

I believe in Vista it no longer matters.



I run Vista 64 and it will not allow my system drive (which is one partition so it may only be the system partition) to be expanded onto an unallocated partition that is also on another physical drive (which may be a problem even though a third drive I have gives me the option to expand it's partition onto the second drive's unallocated space)


As far as RAID 0 is concerned what folks are saying is correct and usually people would use the RAID 0 for the swap drive since you usually want your fastest drive for photoshop's swap drive. Mind you I run a RAID 0 as my system drive and it is a 4 drive RAID 0 so my risks are even higher. I just keep an image of the drive and since it is a dedicated PS machine that image never needs updating. Data is kept elsewhere.

I am obviously not be too concerned about a RAID 0 system drive but Vista's drive imaging system worked well when I tested it so I would make a system back up with it. I know you do back ups but I do like to mention it just in case.

My machine was set up to test some small SSD drives in a RAID 0 environment and so now I guess I am still testing the drives to see how reliable they are. So that is my excuse for such a risky move.


For the OP's original concern is you cannot get that partition larger I would not sweat it that much as I think that having the PS swap drive on a different drive is the key for improved performance and not having photoshop on its own.

[Moppie]

I believe in Vista it no longer matters.



I've tried it, it matters :cool:

Vista won't let you expand a partition being used as a system drive.

[jr_senator]

Where I am, I think, is this. I have two 640 GB HDs in a RAID 0 environment (drive C). There is a 128 MB allocated partition cut from this (drive L). Using Vista's own tools I shrank the 'C' drive and ended up with a new, unallocated, 104 GB partition. Ideally I would like to expand drive 'L' to include the 104 GB of unallocated space. I would be satisfied to be able to use the new unallocated partition to hold the Photo Shop program. I can't seem to do either. Suggestions?

[Moppie]

Either:

don't know about Vista but from what I've seen, the inbuilt windows tools aren't worth using. I've used Partition Magic & Acronis Partition Manger and both appear pretty easy to use. As with any drive utility you do need to make sure you have a known good backup before changing anything...


or, wipe it and start again.

[jetboy]

I can't believe a company setting up your drive wouldn't confirm that you actually wanted it partitioned as a 128Mb partition. These days, that size is pretty much worthless for anything. I think they should have rechecked that you didn't simply make a typo.

[Quad]

Where I am, I think, is this. I have two 640 GB HDs in a RAID 0 environment (drive C). There is a 128 MB allocated partition cut from this (drive L). Using Vista's own tools I shrank the 'C' drive and ended up with a new, unallocated, 104 GB partition. Ideally I would like to expand drive 'L' to include the 104 GB of unallocated space. I would be satisfied to be able to use the new unallocated partition to hold the Photo Shop program. I can't seem to do either. Suggestions?


How many partitions on that drive? You are allowed 3 primary partitions. After 3 you need to make the last primary partition the remainder of the drive and split it with logical drives, but Vista 64 does this automatically (not by itself you still have to give the instruction) making a "Simple Volume".

Have you tried to use "diskpart.exe" instead of the disk management tool?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Where I am, I think, is this. I have two 640 GB HDs in a RAID 0 environment (drive C). There is a 128 MB allocated partition cut from this (drive L). Using Vista's own tools I shrank the 'C' drive and ended up with a new, unallocated, 104 GB partition. Ideally I would like to expand drive 'L' to include the 104 GB of unallocated space. I would be satisfied to be able to use the new unallocated partition to hold the Photo Shop program. I can't seem to do either. Suggestions?

Delete the "l" partition and make a new one in the space you created.
If all you have after deletion is "C" and empty pace, create an "extended partition" with the rest of the space, and then make your new 128GB partition a "logical" one., no need for anything but your Boot "C:" partition to be "primary"

I'm amazed and impressed that Vista partition tools let you change the size of the C: drive to do this. It used to require third party,. since like, DOS.

[jr_senator]

Thanks Cyber, I'm sure you gave good advice, but it's over my head. For example, How does one delete a partition? How does one create an "extended partition"? I have righht clicked on everything I see in hopes of finding something along those lines but to no avail.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Sorry, I don't have vista, so I don't know if it's remotely the same.. but this looks pretty similar to me;
http://www.winvistaclub.com/t11.html



In XP
go to control panel, administrative tools, computer management, disk management.
In the display right click on the 128 MB partition and select "delete partition"

As for extended partitions, they don't seem to you the option in Vista anymore,. at least not in the utility.
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/2006/10/16/how-to-create-an-extended-partition-in-windows-vista.aspx

In that case, I'd just go ahead and use another primary partition as before.

[Quad]

Thanks Cyber, I'm sure you gave good advice, but it's over my head. For example, How does one delete a partition? How does one create an "extended partition"? I have righht clicked on everything I see in hopes of finding something along those lines but to no avail.

Here another link to explain (with pics and all)

http://www.vistarewired.com/2007/02/16/how-to-resize-a-partition-in-windows-vista

[jr_senator]

Thanks for all the info and your time. I now have 3 partitions, OS, backup and another drive just over 100GB which is more then enough room for PS and plug-ins. There is a small section (just a few MBs) that is not shown as a driver and it's such a dinky little bit that I'm not concerned. So, an old dog can learn new tricks.

[Thalagyrt]

Having two partitions on the same set of drives is going to give you a performance decrease, not an increase. Putting Photoshop on a separate partition on the same drive will actually be worse than keeping it on the main partition on that drive. Photoshop's so minimal that whoever / whatever gave you that advice has no idea what they're talking about anyway; it pretty much never hits the disk on anything other than the files you're working with. Splitting a drive into separate partitions is never a good idea unless you really have a specific reason, as it will never ever yield a performance increase, but will always yield a performance decrease.

As for RAID 0, that's probably the worst thing you can do. Get another drive and make it a RAID 5, or two more and make it a raid 10. RAID 0 is basically asking for your data to be smited.

[jr_senator]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I would like to try/use RAID 5, perhaps on my next computer, which I hope I don't need for a long, long time. I understand the possible pitfalls that come with RAID 0, but this is the third desktop I have used it with and so far no problems. If the worst happened I do use an external hard drive that is only for backup. The advice came from some Englishman, who at the time and who's name escapes me, was considered among the gods about Photo Shop use. The funny thing is (I'm not laughing) that it turns out that the program can not be put on a separate drive, without the OS, with 64 bit systems. I may consider just to put the space back with the original partition.

[Thalagyrt]

Well, he may be considered a god of Photoshop use, but he's clearly not a programmer or computer engineer by any means. I am. His performance increase by putting it on a separate partition is purely placebo effect. Putting it on a separate physical drive might help, but a partition, no way. ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

....Splitting a drive into separate partitions is never a good idea unless you really have a specific reason, as it will never ever yield a performance increase, but will always yield a performance decrease....

This is simply not true,
A separate partition with a fixed size windows swap file, or separating your your scratch temp files, will often out perform a single partition, the static sized swap file on the separate partition means never having the swap file fragmented, and never allowing the swap file to fragment any of your other files..

Mind you these days the benefits are less than they used to be,...

Anyway, I agree with your about no reason to put PSCS on a different partition..
and I don't personally advise separate partitions for a single drive for performance reasons, .. there are other benefits..
If you don't have separate physical drives, it is still better to keep your important data on a separate a partition to keep it isolated from your OS and swap files scratch disk etc...
Doing this is helpful for many reasons.

Jr. you do want your Data on a separate partition form your OS, this is a good choice,. and you also may want to make a partition solely for swap files,. but there I have to agree there is no benefit to creating a partition to store the program on..
I'm betting the PS Guru wants you to have a separate Scratch disk,. and that I agree has advantages,.
But it would only need to be like 4-16GB for a scratch disk

[Thalagyrt]

This is simply not true,
A separate partition with a fixed size windows swap file, or separating your your scratch temp files, will often out perform a single partition, the static sized swap file on the separate partition means never having the swap file fragmented, and never allowing the swap file to fragment any of your other files..

Mind you these days the benefits are less than they used to be,...

Anyway, I agree with your about no reason to put PSCS on a different partition..
and I don't personally advise separate partitions for a single drive for performance reasons, .. there are other benefits..
If you don't have separate physical drives, it is still better to keep your important data on a separate a partition to keep it isolated from your OS and swap files scratch disk etc...
Doing this is helpful for many reasons.

Jr. you do want your Data on a separate partition form your OS, this is a good choice,. and you also may want to make a partition solely for swap files,. but there I have to agree there is no benefit to creating a partition to store the program on..
I'm betting the PS Guru wants you to have a separate Scratch disk,. and that I agree has advantages,.
But it would only need to be like 4-16GB for a scratch disk

Using partitions to separate data is the only reason to partition. I don't know where you're getting your info on it not degrading performance, but a drive that's partitioned will degrade performance simply because the heads will be doing a lot of unnecessary swinging from partition to partition; it's identical to using a moderately fragmented drive.

Now, how you use the partition, as you mentioned, will factor in. If you have a partition solely for swap, then yes, you will see an improvement in page hit read/write speed but the actual seek time to the page file will increase when a hit is necessary, which can slow things down if you're seeing a high volume of page faults.

If you're storing log files that are never really accessed, sure, then absolutely partition. But the second you start working with data sets from two partitions on the same drive, things start going downhill in one way or another. The swap situation is no exception, all you gain is faster linear read/write times, but the trade-off is longer seek times. What matters more to you is up to you and your environment to decide. ;)

[jr_senator]

I'm betting the PS Guru wants you to have a separate Scratch disk
Using a separate drive as a scratch disk was what the guy was primarily conveying. He added that a separate drive for the program was a good idea as well. I installed an 80 GB disk to use as a scratch disk. I don't need 80 GB but it was what I had on hand (it was new too). With my main drive starting at 1.28 TB I guess I will leave the 100 GB partition alone. It's moot to me anyway, as I wrote earlier, "...it turns out that the program can not be put on a separate drive, without the OS, with 64 bit systems."

[CyberDyneSystems]

....

Now, how you use the partition, as you mentioned, will factor in. If you have a partition solely for swap, then yes, you will see an improvement in page hit read/write speed ...

That's all I am saying. Your own statement agrees with mine, which was simply that partitions " ...will never ever yield a performance increase, but will always yield a performance decrease..."

[Thalagyrt]

That's all I am saying. Your own statement agrees with mine, which was simply that partitions " ...will never ever yield a performance increase, but will always yield a performance decrease..."

Yea, I've been wording things poorly lately. I think you knew what I meant but wanted me to clarify it? My reasoning was that around 95% of your disk usage involves seeking, and in those cases partitions will be detrimental to you. Never/always was the wrong word combo to use there - hardly/usually would be more appropriate. ;)