Isn't that what it does by default...?
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Data Hoarder
168 readers
1 users here now
We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time (tm) ). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Should be really easy to confirm just by doing a simple benchmark read on the device, probably a few GBs would do (more to make sure there aren't any RAM caching shenanigans).
Can't do that in the boot volume.
Probably can't do that from the GUI either
for testing, you can create two VHD virtual disks on the drive and mount them as RAID0. This way you can try out if the method have any benefits or not.
however I doubt about the method, because your partitions, or VHDs are linear. One is at the beginning of the disk and fast, other is the second half on the disk which has slower access speeds and also the throughput is slower.
The benefits exist for sure, due to the SAS version that exposes them as two different drives, which you can easily raid and get the full expected 500mb/s. The SATA version, which I have, and cheaper ofc, doesn't do it that way, even though you can split the drive in two and independently, both run at the max regular 250mb/s speed, I'm trying to "hack" the same solution to extract the benefit, but it might indeed not be possible due to the limitation of them being partitions and not drives.
Just an update here, and if anyone finds this thread later on - I was successful!
Not in Windows however, I had to create the array using mdadm and with the use of WinMD 3rd party driver, to allow it to be mounted on Windows.
For reference, here are Disk Mark tests before and after.
It's not quite 2x the performance, but it's definitely better, and best of all, it was free performance!
Did you do anything special after installing WinMD? I was able to create an array in Linux (with NTFS) and verify the speeds there -- it was 1.8x-ish faster -- but it's not recognized in Windows after installing WinMD. I just get "WinMD controller" in device manager but no volumes show up.
Just an update here, and if anyone finds this thread later on - I was successful!
Not in Windows however, I had to create the array using mdadm and with the use of WinMD 3rd party driver, to allow it to be mounted on Windows.
For reference, here are Disk Mark tests before and after.
It's not quite 2x the performance, but it's definitely better, and best of all, it was free performance!