On Windows, is there a way to unify two hard drives into one logical partition? Basically I want everything in C:...

On Windows, is there a way to unify two hard drives into one logical partition? Basically I want everything in C:\, no matter what physical support. Linux does it right.

Other urls found in this thread:

technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321(v=ws.11).aspx
eightforums.com/tutorials/4275-user-profiles-relocate-another-partition-disk.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

RAID0 or symlinking

>symlinking
god please no

With RAID0 is it possible to decide what is stored on each physical disk or is everything automatic? I need to combine an SSD and an HDD and specify which files are going to the SSD.

...so you want two units?

Winblows has something similar to UNIX mount points.

Can be done with LVM on Linux.

I want one logical unit with some control over the physical allocation.

there used to be, tool kinda like dblspace would do it but i forget the name of it, try googling it.

Why do you want these two things?

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

State your retardation level.
You want to "unify" two distinct technologies but be able to still discern them and put x folder here (ssd) and y folder there (hdd)

You don't know what you want user.

Windows junctions might be able to help you but as with Wangblows things, it will be troublesome and ymmv. It's not worth it. I tried it once.

Sorry, but he was refering to the kernel.

Do you want it as tiered storage or to arbitrarily assign files to different disks?

I'm terribly sorry for interjecting another moment, but what I just told you is GNU/Linux is, in fact, just Linux, or as I've just now taken to calling it, Just Linux. Linux apparently does happen to be a whole operating system unto itself and comprises a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Most computer users who run the entire Linux operating system every day already realize it. Through a peculiar turn of events, I was misled into calling the system "GNU/Linux", and until now, I was unaware that it is basically the Linux system, developed by the Linux project.

There really isn't a GNU/Linux, and I really wasn't using it; it is an extraneous misrepresentation of the system that's being used. Linux is the operating system: the entire system made useful by its included corelibs, shell utilities, and other vital system components. The kernel is already an integral part of the Linux operating system, never confined useless by itself; it functions coherently within the context of the complete Linux operating system. Linux is never used in combination with GNU accessories: the whole system is basically Linux without any GNU added, or Just Linux. All the so-called "GNU/Linux" distributions are really distributions of Linux.

>posting the pasta when OP is asking specifically about a kernel feature.

He wants the operating system to see two disks as one volume group but be able to assign separate logical volumes between the two

You are looking for JBOD provider. I remember to use something like this back in the old days, however right now it is rather redundant, you can get about the same effect by using windows libraries.

You're shit out of luck with windows.

I want an unified file system spanning over two disks having different performance levels. Each file should be on the same logical partition no matter what disk it is stored on. However, because of the performance difference of the disks, I want to control what disk stores what file, but not through the file system.

The directory tree on a filesystem has no business deciding what physical location a file is stored in. I should be able to install stuff to C:\Program Files on my SSD or to my HDD interchangeably. The location of a file on the file system shouldn't determine its physical location, these are two different abstraction levels.

Acronis Disk Director

>needing this party software to do basic shit like this
embarrassing winshits

so you want to have to choose which drive to store a file on every time a file is created?
just use two logical partitions you fucking nigger

No, I want some attribution by default and the possibility of changing it specifically.

technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321(v=ws.11).aspx
this is probably the ebst you can hope for

Honestly, symlinks are your best bet for that. We're talking Windows here. They want you to just act stupid so you don't need options.

No there is not.
Windows is a mess.

Do it dynamically: Can't boot from it
Do it static hardware: One disk drops and it shreds your entire array.

You can even boot from something as ass backwards as ZFS in kernel space, and even some FUSE drivers so I'm mildly impressed in the end at how little windows really cares about disks.

BTRFS can do this with balancing.

Imagine the pathology if one of those disks drops dead or starts shedding sectors without an inbuilt recovery mechanism.

>windows

just stop

Yes, using storage spaces you can make a drive pool and unify physical devices into one logical volume. You can use an SSD as a write back cache and a heat mapped cache, too, though if you have just one ssd and just one hdd you will have two points of failure. Works nicely on a vm host since the most often accessed sectors are automatically copied to ssd. There's support for hot spares, too, make sure you're set up with the proper redundancy for your situation.

Thanks. Is it possible to arbitrarily keep some files on the SSD and ignore the heat map for them? For example I rarely play game but I want them to load fast from the first time.

This is the answer.
You can assign a path to a disk drive.

IIRC, yes it's called pinning. I haven't actually done this, so I'm not sure how it works. I assume you can just pin a file you like to the SSD and it will stay there until you unpin it. I don't think you can pin at the sector level, though, so it's going to be a whole file. But google storage spaces pinning and check out the documentation. Also, the way the heat map works is that it runs a task every so often (default I think is 24 hours?) does some analysis and then copies files. You can set how often it does this depending on how aggressive you want this to be and how much/how often you want to write to SSD.

I'm curious. How do you achieve that on GNU/Linux?

Thanks a lot.

Also, I've never done this on a desktop system. I would suggest allocating just enough space for the windows system on SSD and using the rest of the physical volume for tiered storage. Create your storage space drive then set your user space to default to that drive to keep all your personal data, appdata shit, etc. there. And then install all your programs to the storage space drive. Here's a guide to moving your default user folders
>eightforums.com/tutorials/4275-user-profiles-relocate-another-partition-disk.html
I would also use xcopy to copy the program files and program files(x86) folders with all the same permissions to your second volume, or just copy the permissions manually.

Windows has a feature called dynamic disks. You can get to the necessary screen by searching for "partition" in the start menu. It's basically windows lvm but it is definitely not as good. If a disk were to fail you are kinda sol and last I knew dynamic disk arrays couldn't be read by Linux which would make your data recovery options somewhat limited.

Sure. I've been running storage spaces on one 24/7 server for a couple years with zero issues, so I'd personally be confident enough to use it on a desktop without as much redundancy, and I'll probably do this when I get a bigger SSD just for the cost saving. But I don't mind tinkering with things if they fail or working from my laptop if my gaming desktop goes down. If you're using one ssd and one hdd storage spaces will not persist the data across both devices, it's either on one or the other, so you're just as vulnerable as raid 0. You can buy more physical disks if you want redundancy, which is great if you can afford it/have space for it. But just be aware of the risk and back up often. Have fun!