Hi guys,Being new to building my own rig but now having most of the bits (thanks Jim, very pleased with your recommendations, some seriously funky bits there!)I could do with some help deciding whether to use a RAID configuration for the drives or not.I'm only considering RAID 0 or JBOD.So what are the real world pro's and con's to RAID configurations for an FSX only machine? Can RAID drives be defraged in the usual way (considering here the way FSX seems to be installed in a thousand pieces in XP)? What are the performance benefits if any?What are the restrictions?If anyone has any suggestions for optimal drive configurations for XP based FSX installation I would like to hear about it!My current thoughts are one RAID for the OS, and one for FSX, with maybe a third for scenery add-ons?Where would you put the swap page?Any help really appreciated from those who know as always. I am in the process of reading as much as I can about RAID, but always value real experience the highest.Best regards,Gemma

This is a good article:http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101I havn't used raid recently because of the hassle but if did I would build for redundancy rather than performance - it saved my data after a disk failure. Now I just back up on an external drive and on my lap top.I don't think the performance increase is going to be significant, especially if you have large RAM.Just my two penneth!

Pretty clear message there Howard! Thanks for that link very informative indeed!Best regards,Gemma

Gemma,I'll try to answer some of your questiosn:A RAID0 will improve loading times significantly, but besides from the loading times, you won't see a lot of benefits for FS9/FSX. The biggest drawback of a RAID0 is that, if one HDD fails, the entire array is lost and cannot be recovered.Do not ever put an OS on a RAID0 array.Any RAID can be defragged as it was one drive.I would do the following:1st HDD: OS2nd HDD: Applications/Games (RAID 0)3rd HDD: Applications/Games (RAID 0)The swap file should go on the OS partition.Good luck!Pat

Ta Pat,OK I will try this, I have four indentical drives, so one for the OS, 2 for FSX in RAID 0 for quick load times (not too much trouble if one of the drives fails and all I need to is reinstal FSX), and one spare drive for dumping baggage. Thanks for the help, this way I get to try out RAID in relative safety.Best regards,Gemma

Sounds like a plan! I would just partition the RAID0, so that you have, let's say, a 70GB partition for FS and the rest in a partition for other apps and data. Makes it easier and faster to defrag.I also use a small spare drive for temporary downloads, renders, movie edits, etc. - my "Scrap" partition.Good luck with it!Pat

The swap file should go on the OS partition.This is incorrect. Especially if one configures the system as noted above (HD for the OS, and then a seperate RAID 0 array).http://www.msfn.org/board/lofiversion/index.php/t89005.htmlhttp://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htmhttp://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/wind...7/pagefile.htmlSimply put, anytime the Page File can be moved away from the OS hard drive is favorable, with the caveat that the hard drive the PF is moved to must be at least as fast as the OS hard drive (for example, moving the PF to a 5400RPM drive would not be beneficial if the OS is installed on a 7200RPM hard drive).For me, a RAID array isn't worth the hassles. I run 2 Raptors, with the OS and games on one and the PF on a small partition at the beginning of the other. Scenery loading is smooth for me with this config.

If you are going to use photo sceneries like Megascenery for FS9. RAID 0 would be a benefit in reducing blurries. Manny

I run a raptor RAID0 array partitioned with OS and apps partitions. I haven't had any problems with the array itself, it's been running for a couple years now without a hickup. the main problem is the hassle of dealing with the nvraid drivers and boot cds, moving the array across mb, and the like (running on an nvidia raid controller). I guess the same problems would exist if you went with an ultra-scsi or other non-SATA solution.scott s..

So if I do go for RAID 0 for the FSX installation (I will be using add-on photo scenery for the UK as soon as Justflight release it!), this points to the page file going on the RAID array, or maybe on the spare disk (not OS)in its own partition at the front? This is taking into consideration that the spare disk is not RAID but won't be used other than for the page file whilst FSX is running. Which is going to be better? All drives are WD Caviar SE16 320GB S300 16MB if that helps.Just a quick edit on this, how do I actually alter where the page file is? Is it simply a case of disabling on the OS drive and enabling on the one I choose for it in the end, this being a physical drive in or a logical drive with the page file in its own little partition?Sorry for all the dumb questions but my drive configs have been the most confusion part, last time I put a drive in a computer all I had to worry about was if it was set to master/slave or cable select.Thanks for all the inputs,Best regards,Gemma

Just a quick edit on this, how do I actually alter where the page file is? Is it simply a case of disabling on the OS drive and enabling on the one I choose for it in the end, this being a physical drive in or a logical drive with the page file in its own little partition?Yep, a physical drive other than the OS's drive and then make a small partition at the beginning of the drive (3-10GB based upon the projected maximum size of your PF, i.e. if the largest your PF will be is 4GB then make the partition 8GB). You will then tell Windows (in Administrative Tools > Computer Management) where you want to place the PF.Hope this helps,

Here is how my rig is set up. It is running FSX fairly well.2-150GB 7200rpm drives in RAID0:OSnon-FS gamesnon-crucial data1-150GB 10,000RPM drive with 2 partitions:1 small partition for page fileRest of the drive for FSX only1-250GB External drive:Important dataBack upStorageI like this because I get the speed of the raptor for FSX without the worries of raid0 (can't say that I have had a problem though).The Raid0 drives don't contain anything crucial so if they fail it is no big deal.

It's an oldie, but a goodie. I have a PATA 100 "Raid 0" running from an addon PCI card. The thing's been bulletproof. I can move it from system to system , no problem. HDTach is telling me this Raid 0 is transferring data at an average read rate of 100 MB/second. I had been using a single PATA 100 drive. With the Raid, I noticed an immediate (and significant) difference loading MegaScenry. A Megascenery LA load went from several minutes to under one minute. No fancy defragging. Just the Raid 0. My whole system, from Email to MSWord, just feels 'snappier.' It made a big difference, I won't go back to a single HD. Actually, I'm looking at the new MoBos that will let me Raid several standard SATA drives into a multi-drive Raid 0 (or even better a Raid 5). Four standard (on-sale) 80 giggers will give me 2X the performance and capacity of 1 giant Raptor at 1/4th the price. That's the theory anyway. My backup strategy is to make a clone backup of the entire HD whenever the spirit strikes . . . recognizing that if one of my Raid 0 HDs fail, this backup will be my start-over point. Acronis works like a champ. It just picks up the raid, no problem. Of course all of my important, evolving folders (Docs, Quicken, etc) are backed up to a stone tablet, daily. If the Raid would fail, I'd just boot off the backup drive and carry on.I recently added 2 new SATA II drives to the same box (I'm about out of room!). I have them setup as a Raid 0 on the MoBo's SATA I buss. HDTach is observing these new SATA II drives at an average of 120 MB/sec read rates. Even my old PATA raid is faster than a single Raptor. The new SATAs are better yet. But brand new SATA II drives are only 20% better than the 3 year old PATA 100s? This all goes to show, this is not about SATA vs PATA. These acronyms only describe the HD's buss . . . not the HD. The speed we get from these things is about the HD that is using these busses . . . and how you set them up. The HDs have improved a bit, but not much. The big increase in performance will be provided by the Raid. If you have a modern MoBo., it probably supports Raid 5. Use that! It needs 3 HDs to work. If one fails, the other 2 have enough data to continue operating (in degraded mode) and then rebuild the full raid when you get around to replacing the bad drive. I'd suggest buying several (3 or 4) smallish HDs, Raid em up in Raid 5. Then have one large, cheap HD as a backup clone. You'll get lightening speed. Just as a frame-of-reference, the current crop of single SATA drives are 60-ish. Here's the a link to the latest HDTach. Check it out. What cha gettin'? http://www.majorgeeks.com/HDTach_d672.html Expect 200+ MB/sec transfer rates with 4 standard SATA drives in a Raid 5. It will be better yet in a Raid 0. And all this with the added comfort of dual redundancy . . . triple for the really important stuff. (Don't forget to use that stone tablet!)

Also Gemma, even if you move the page file to a another hard disk I believe that Microsoft reccommends leaving a small page file on the operating system partition of about 50MB. I believe this is to avoid re-booting problems after some Windows XP crashes, or if the page file hard disk fails(???)