Basic RAID question. . .

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony Sperling
  • Start date Start date
T

Tony Sperling

Guest
Hi all!

I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0 based
system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30 successful
months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart from being slower,
may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a non-fragmented mirror
copy of all the data.

Is this correct?

It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image' that the
mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually maintaing the
fragmentation of the original?

I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.

It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused if this
comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to bite - if
not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?


Tony. . .
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A also
happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if the
controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1 off of
Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next _non-sequential_ sector
off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is fast.)

But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same time.
Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets broken.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi all!
>
> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0 based
> system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart from
> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image' that
> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually maintaing
> the fragmentation of the original?
>
> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>
> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused if
> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing, though.
Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions possible on a
RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical Drives?

I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but if
possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as well -
something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like to be in
the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future surprises.

The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room for
me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still have
a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID setup, the
MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions will be
counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I further
assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???

So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the RAID
itself?

Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors are
also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will be
enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?

Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?


Tony. . .


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if the
> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1 off of
> Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next _non-sequential_
> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
> fast.)
>
> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same time.
> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets broken.
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0 based
>> system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart from
>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>
>> Is this correct?
>>
>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image' that
>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>
>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>>
>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused if
>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems, so
this answer is a bit generic. That being said:

1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your options
are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or use as
is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.

2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored volumes
from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two disks
that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for vista
x64 (or whatever), and one for data.

3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks, and
then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's no
point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for the
boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should be
enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
create up to 126 primary partitions.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
> though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
> possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical
> Drives?
>
> I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but if
> possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
> well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like
> to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future
> surprises.
>
> The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room for
> me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still
> have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
> setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions
> will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I
> further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>
> So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the
> RAID itself?
>
> Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
> mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
> understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors are
> also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will be
> enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>
> Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
>> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if the
>> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1 off
>> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next _non-sequential_
>> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
>> fast.)
>>
>> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same time.
>> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>> broken.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
>>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart from
>>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>>
>>> Is this correct?
>>>
>>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image' that
>>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>>
>>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>>>
>>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused if
>>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
>>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony. . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

"something else in there" "that I don't quite know what it will be".
You may start thinking on "Windows 7".
Rumour says that it is on stage M1.
Carlos

"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing, though.
> Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions possible on a
> RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical Drives?
>
> I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but if
> possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as well -
> something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like to be in
> the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future surprises.
>
> The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room for
> me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still have
> a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID setup, the
> MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions will be
> counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I further
> assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>
> So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the RAID
> itself?
>
> Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
> mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
> understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors are
> also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will be
> enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>
> Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
> > no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
> > also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if the
> > controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1 off of
> > Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next _non-sequential_
> > sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
> > fast.)
> >
> > But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same time.
> > Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets broken.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Charlie.
> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >
> >
> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> > news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi all!
> >>
> >> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0 based
> >> system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
> >> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart from
> >> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
> >> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
> >>
> >> Is this correct?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image' that
> >> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
> >> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
> >>
> >> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
> >>
> >> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused if
> >> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
> >> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
> >>
> >>
> >> Tony. . .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems, so
> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>
> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your options
> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or use as
> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>
> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored volumes
> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two disks
> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for vista
> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>
> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks, and
> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's no
> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for the
> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should be
> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>
> --
> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>
> news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical
> > Drives?
>
> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but if
> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like
> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future
> > surprises.
>
> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room for
> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still
> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions
> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I
> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>
> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the
> > RAID itself?
>
> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors are
> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will be
> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>
> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>
> > Tony. . .
>
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if the
> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1 off
> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next _non-sequential_
> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
> >> fast.)
>
> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same time.
> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
> >> broken.
>
> >> --
> >> Charlie.
> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>> Hi all!
>
> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart from
> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>
> >>> Is this correct?
>
> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image' that
> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>
> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>
> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused if
> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>
> >>> Tony. . .

It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]

The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
Partition Commander.

If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.

BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
synchronized can be defragged.
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

I agree, RAID 10 (or RAID 0+1) is a good option here.

Didn't know that nVidia didn't offer RAID5.

Actually by partitioning, I mean that the BIOS _should_ allow you to create
multiple arrays, each using less than a full disk. This would allow you to
take those 250 Gb drives, add one to it, and create two or three separate
disk arrays, each one a RAID 10 or 0+1 using part of each disk.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:99946426-4a7f-41eb-abbd-98f86636ec48@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems, so
>> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>>
>> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
>> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your
>> options
>> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or use
>> as
>> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>>
>> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored
>> volumes
>> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two disks
>> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
>> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for
>> vista
>> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>>
>> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks,
>> and
>> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's no
>> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for the
>> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should be
>> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
>> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
>> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical
>> > Drives?
>>
>> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
>> > if
>> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
>> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would
>> > like
>> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty
>> > future
>> > surprises.
>>
>> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
>> > for
>> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still
>> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
>> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all
>> > partitions
>> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and
>> > I
>> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>>
>> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the
>> > RAID itself?
>>
>> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
>> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
>> > are
>> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
>> > be
>> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>>
>> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>>
>> > Tony. . .
>>
>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>> > message
>> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
>> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
>> >> the
>> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
>> >> off
>> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
>> >> _non-sequential_
>> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
>> >> fast.)
>>
>> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>> >> time.
>> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>> >> broken.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Charlie.
>> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >>> Hi all!
>>
>> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some
>> >>> 30
>> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>> >>> from
>> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>
>> >>> Is this correct?
>>
>> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>> >>> that
>> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>
>> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>>
>> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused
>> >>> if
>> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
>> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>
>> >>> Tony. . .
>
> It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
> are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
> level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
> level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]
>
> The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
> done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
> like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
> Partition Commander.
>
> If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
> and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
> Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.
>
> BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
> make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
> determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
> synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
> synchronized can be defragged.
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me, three drives cannot do RAID1! Actually, I
bought this system with RAID5 in mind, but the Win2k wouldn't conform and I
then chose a STRIPE set - now RAID5 will be the natural thing to do anyway.
My NVRAID chip will not do any RAID10, I'm afraid. I don't remember what the
SIS chip is capable of, except I think it is mostly there to handle the
external SATA connectors + offering some backwards compatibility for older
equipment in an upgrade situation, or perhaps a very crowded box.

I am not sure that I was aware that I could create several RAID volumes on
the same set of disks, will this apply to RAID5 as well? I doubt it that I
am about to be that adventurous, but I like the idea of having options that
are open to consideration.


Tony. . .


<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:99946426-4a7f-41eb-abbd-98f86636ec48@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems, so
>> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>>
>> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
>> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your
>> options
>> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or use
>> as
>> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>>
>> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored
>> volumes
>> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two disks
>> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
>> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for
>> vista
>> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>>
>> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks,
>> and
>> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's no
>> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for the
>> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should be
>> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
>> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
>> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical
>> > Drives?
>>
>> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
>> > if
>> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
>> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would
>> > like
>> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty
>> > future
>> > surprises.
>>
>> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
>> > for
>> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still
>> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
>> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all
>> > partitions
>> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and
>> > I
>> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>>
>> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the
>> > RAID itself?
>>
>> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
>> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
>> > are
>> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
>> > be
>> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>>
>> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>>
>> > Tony. . .
>>
>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>> > message
>> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
>> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
>> >> the
>> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
>> >> off
>> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
>> >> _non-sequential_
>> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
>> >> fast.)
>>
>> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>> >> time.
>> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>> >> broken.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Charlie.
>> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >>> Hi all!
>>
>> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some
>> >>> 30
>> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>> >>> from
>> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>
>> >>> Is this correct?
>>
>> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>> >>> that
>> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>
>> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>>
>> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused
>> >>> if
>> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
>> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>
>> >>> Tony. . .
>
> It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
> are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
> level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
> level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]
>
> The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
> done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
> like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
> Partition Commander.
>
> If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
> and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
> Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.
>
> BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
> make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
> determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
> synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
> synchronized can be defragged.
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Quite! Windows 7, is definitely on my mind, I'm having great expectations
for that, but I do not know what 'M1' implies. (Except there's a Toyota,
isn't there?)

I'll find the patience, somehow!


Tony. . .


"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D5CA4667-7693-4986-BC2A-146CE0AEB437@microsoft.com...
> "something else in there" "that I don't quite know what it will be".
> You may start thinking on "Windows 7".
> Rumour says that it is on stage M1.
> Carlos
>
> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>> though.
>> Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions possible on
>> a
>> RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical Drives?
>>
>> I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but if
>> possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
>> well -
>> something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like to be
>> in
>> the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future
>> surprises.
>>
>> The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
>> for
>> me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still
>> have
>> a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID setup,
>> the
>> MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions will be
>> counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I further
>> assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>>
>> So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the
>> RAID
>> itself?
>>
>> Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
>> mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>> understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors are
>> also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will be
>> enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>>
>> Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>> > no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
>> > also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
>> > the
>> > controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1 off
>> > of
>> > Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next _non-sequential_
>> > sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
>> > fast.)
>> >
>> > But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>> > time.
>> > Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>> > broken.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Charlie.
>> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> > news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >> Hi all!
>> >>
>> >> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>> >> based
>> >> system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
>> >> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>> >> from
>> >> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>> >> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>> >>
>> >> Is this correct?
>> >>
>> >> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>> >> that
>> >> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>> >> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>> >>
>> >> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>> >>
>> >> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused
>> >> if
>> >> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
>> >> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tony. . .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Tony,
Back in the Longhorn (pre-Vista) times, one of the alpha releases was named
"M1"
Don't know the meaning, though.
Carlos

"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> Quite! Windows 7, is definitely on my mind, I'm having great expectations
> for that, but I do not know what 'M1' implies. (Except there's a Toyota,
> isn't there?)
>
> I'll find the patience, somehow!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D5CA4667-7693-4986-BC2A-146CE0AEB437@microsoft.com...
> > "something else in there" "that I don't quite know what it will be".
> > You may start thinking on "Windows 7".
> > Rumour says that it is on stage M1.
> > Carlos
> >
> > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
> >> though.
> >> Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions possible on
> >> a
> >> RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical Drives?
> >>
> >> I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but if
> >> possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
> >> well -
> >> something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like to be
> >> in
> >> the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future
> >> surprises.
> >>
> >> The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
> >> for
> >> me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still
> >> have
> >> a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID setup,
> >> the
> >> MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions will be
> >> counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I further
> >> assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
> >>
> >> So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the
> >> RAID
> >> itself?
> >>
> >> Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
> >> mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
> >> understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors are
> >> also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will be
> >> enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
> >>
> >> Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
> >>
> >>
> >> Tony. . .
> >>
> >>
> >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> >> news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
> >> > no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
> >> > also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
> >> > the
> >> > controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1 off
> >> > of
> >> > Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next _non-sequential_
> >> > sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
> >> > fast.)
> >> >
> >> > But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
> >> > time.
> >> > Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
> >> > broken.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Charlie.
> >> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> >> > news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Hi all!
> >> >>
> >> >> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
> >> >> based
> >> >> system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
> >> >> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
> >> >> from
> >> >> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
> >> >> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is this correct?
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
> >> >> that
> >> >> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
> >> >> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
> >> >>
> >> >> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused
> >> >> if
> >> >> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
> >> >> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Tony. . .
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

If your controller will do RAID5, it should allow you to do RAID 5 with less
than the full disk for each array.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:ursgKj5YIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me, three drives cannot do RAID1! Actually,
> I bought this system with RAID5 in mind, but the Win2k wouldn't conform
> and I then chose a STRIPE set - now RAID5 will be the natural thing to do
> anyway. My NVRAID chip will not do any RAID10, I'm afraid. I don't
> remember what the SIS chip is capable of, except I think it is mostly
> there to handle the external SATA connectors + offering some backwards
> compatibility for older equipment in an upgrade situation, or perhaps a
> very crowded box.
>
> I am not sure that I was aware that I could create several RAID volumes on
> the same set of disks, will this apply to RAID5 as well? I doubt it that I
> am about to be that adventurous, but I like the idea of having options
> that are open to consideration.
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> news:99946426-4a7f-41eb-abbd-98f86636ec48@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>> <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems,
>>> so
>>> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>>>
>>> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
>>> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your
>>> options
>>> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or
>>> use as
>>> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>>>
>>> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored
>>> volumes
>>> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two disks
>>> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
>>> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for
>>> vista
>>> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>>>
>>> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks,
>>> and
>>> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's
>>> no
>>> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for
>>> the
>>> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should be
>>> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
>>> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>>> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
>>> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical
>>> > Drives?
>>>
>>> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
>>> > if
>>> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
>>> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would
>>> > like
>>> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty
>>> > future
>>> > surprises.
>>>
>>> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
>>> > for
>>> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and
>>> > still
>>> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
>>> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all
>>> > partitions
>>> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? )
>>> > and I
>>> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>>>
>>> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e.
>>> > the
>>> > RAID itself?
>>>
>>> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
>>> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>>> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
>>> > are
>>> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
>>> > be
>>> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>>>
>>> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>>>
>>> > Tony. . .
>>>
>>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>> > message
>>> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>>> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive
>>> >> A
>>> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
>>> >> the
>>> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
>>> >> off
>>> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
>>> >> _non-sequential_
>>> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors
>>> >> is
>>> >> fast.)
>>>
>>> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>>> >> time.
>>> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>>> >> broken.
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Charlie.
>>> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> >>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>>> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some
>>> >>> 30
>>> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>>> >>> from
>>> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>>> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>>
>>> >>> Is this correct?
>>>
>>> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>>> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>>
>>> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring
>>> >>> algorithm.
>>>
>>> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused
>>> >>> if
>>> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>>
>>> >>> Tony. . .
>>
>> It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
>> are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
>> level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
>> level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]
>>
>> The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
>> done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
>> like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
>> Partition Commander.
>>
>> If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
>> and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
>> Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.
>>
>> BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
>> make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
>> determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
>> synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
>> synchronized can be defragged.
>>
>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Ah-yes. On reflection, though, 'M1' I believe to be the Motorway from London
to Bristol going through Blackwall Tunnel? The Toyota was the MR1 and BMW
had a M3!

Just joking - where do you hear these rumours, Carlos?


Tony. . .


"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:58FD6571-2914-465F-BAB1-572BF6530427@microsoft.com...
> Tony,
> Back in the Longhorn (pre-Vista) times, one of the alpha releases was
> named
> "M1"
> Don't know the meaning, though.
> Carlos
>
> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
>
>> Quite! Windows 7, is definitely on my mind, I'm having great expectations
>> for that, but I do not know what 'M1' implies. (Except there's a Toyota,
>> isn't there?)
>>
>> I'll find the patience, somehow!
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:D5CA4667-7693-4986-BC2A-146CE0AEB437@microsoft.com...
>> > "something else in there" "that I don't quite know what it will be".
>> > You may start thinking on "Windows 7".
>> > Rumour says that it is on stage M1.
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>> >> though.
>> >> Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions possible
>> >> on
>> >> a
>> >> RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical Drives?
>> >>
>> >> I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
>> >> if
>> >> possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
>> >> well -
>> >> something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like to
>> >> be
>> >> in
>> >> the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future
>> >> surprises.
>> >>
>> >> The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
>> >> for
>> >> me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and
>> >> still
>> >> have
>> >> a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
>> >> setup,
>> >> the
>> >> MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions will be
>> >> counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I
>> >> further
>> >> assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>> >>
>> >> So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e.
>> >> the
>> >> RAID
>> >> itself?
>> >>
>> >> Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
>> >> mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>> >> understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
>> >> are
>> >> also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
>> >> be
>> >> enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tony. . .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>> >> > no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive
>> >> > A
>> >> > also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
>> >> > the
>> >> > controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
>> >> > off
>> >> > of
>> >> > Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
>> >> > _non-sequential_
>> >> > sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors
>> >> > is
>> >> > fast.)
>> >> >
>> >> > But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>> >> > time.
>> >> > Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>> >> > broken.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Charlie.
>> >> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> >> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> >> > news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Hi all!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>> >> >> based
>> >> >> system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
>> >> >> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>> >> >> from
>> >> >> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>> >> >> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is this correct?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>> >> >> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring
>> >> >> algorithm.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me
>> >> >> excused
>> >> >> if
>> >> >> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tony. . .
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Mine does - this is the 590 chipset, but no 0 + 1, alas! I think I can
remember Carlos had the same version as 'miso'???


Tony. . .


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:3DDF0D7B-A609-4A12-B707-81D2A26C0866@microsoft.com...
>I agree, RAID 10 (or RAID 0+1) is a good option here.
>
> Didn't know that nVidia didn't offer RAID5.
>
> Actually by partitioning, I mean that the BIOS _should_ allow you to
> create multiple arrays, each using less than a full disk. This would allow
> you to take those 250 Gb drives, add one to it, and create two or three
> separate disk arrays, each one a RAID 10 or 0+1 using part of each disk.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> news:99946426-4a7f-41eb-abbd-98f86636ec48@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>> <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems,
>>> so
>>> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>>>
>>> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
>>> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your
>>> options
>>> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or
>>> use as
>>> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>>>
>>> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored
>>> volumes
>>> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two disks
>>> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
>>> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for
>>> vista
>>> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>>>
>>> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks,
>>> and
>>> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's
>>> no
>>> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for
>>> the
>>> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should be
>>> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
>>> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>>> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
>>> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical
>>> > Drives?
>>>
>>> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
>>> > if
>>> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
>>> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would
>>> > like
>>> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty
>>> > future
>>> > surprises.
>>>
>>> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
>>> > for
>>> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and
>>> > still
>>> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
>>> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all
>>> > partitions
>>> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? )
>>> > and I
>>> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>>>
>>> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e.
>>> > the
>>> > RAID itself?
>>>
>>> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
>>> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>>> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
>>> > are
>>> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
>>> > be
>>> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>>>
>>> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>>>
>>> > Tony. . .
>>>
>>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>> > message
>>> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>>> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive
>>> >> A
>>> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
>>> >> the
>>> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
>>> >> off
>>> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
>>> >> _non-sequential_
>>> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors
>>> >> is
>>> >> fast.)
>>>
>>> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>>> >> time.
>>> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>>> >> broken.
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Charlie.
>>> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> >>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>>> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some
>>> >>> 30
>>> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>>> >>> from
>>> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>>> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>>
>>> >>> Is this correct?
>>>
>>> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>>> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>>
>>> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring
>>> >>> algorithm.
>>>
>>> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused
>>> >>> if
>>> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>>
>>> >>> Tony. . .
>>
>> It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
>> are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
>> level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
>> level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]
>>
>> The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
>> done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
>> like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
>> Partition Commander.
>>
>> If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
>> and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
>> Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.
>>
>> BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
>> make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
>> determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
>> synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
>> synchronized can be defragged.
>>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Thanks, that is interesting. Could be a valuable option for a later 'to-be'
dual-boot?


Tony. . .


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:AAB5BA71-4BC4-4116-9F23-982FAFAE32CC@microsoft.com...
> If your controller will do RAID5, it should allow you to do RAID 5 with
> less than the full disk for each array.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:ursgKj5YIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me, three drives cannot do RAID1! Actually,
>> I bought this system with RAID5 in mind, but the Win2k wouldn't conform
>> and I then chose a STRIPE set - now RAID5 will be the natural thing to do
>> anyway. My NVRAID chip will not do any RAID10, I'm afraid. I don't
>> remember what the SIS chip is capable of, except I think it is mostly
>> there to handle the external SATA connectors + offering some backwards
>> compatibility for older equipment in an upgrade situation, or perhaps a
>> very crowded box.
>>
>> I am not sure that I was aware that I could create several RAID volumes
>> on the same set of disks, will this apply to RAID5 as well? I doubt it
>> that I am about to be that adventurous, but I like the idea of having
>> options that are open to consideration.
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
>> news:99946426-4a7f-41eb-abbd-98f86636ec48@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>>> <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>>> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems,
>>>> so
>>>> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
>>>> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your
>>>> options
>>>> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or
>>>> use as
>>>> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>>>>
>>>> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored
>>>> volumes
>>>> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two
>>>> disks
>>>> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
>>>> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for
>>>> vista
>>>> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>>>>
>>>> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks,
>>>> and
>>>> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's
>>>> no
>>>> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for
>>>> the
>>>> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should
>>>> be
>>>> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
>>>> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>>>> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
>>>> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with
>>>> > Logical
>>>> > Drives?
>>>>
>>>> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
>>>> > if
>>>> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
>>>> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would
>>>> > like
>>>> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty
>>>> > future
>>>> > surprises.
>>>>
>>>> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough
>>>> > room for
>>>> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and
>>>> > still
>>>> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
>>>> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all
>>>> > partitions
>>>> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? )
>>>> > and I
>>>> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>>>>
>>>> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e.
>>>> > the
>>>> > RAID itself?
>>>>
>>>> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage
>>>> > the
>>>> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>>>> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
>>>> > are
>>>> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
>>>> > be
>>>> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>>>>
>>>> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>>>>
>>>> > Tony. . .
>>>>
>>>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>>> > message
>>>> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>>>> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive
>>>> >> A
>>>> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
>>>> >> off
>>>> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
>>>> >> _non-sequential_
>>>> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> fast.)
>>>>
>>>> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>>>> >> time.
>>>> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>>>> >> broken.
>>>>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Charlie.
>>>> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>>> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> >>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
>>>> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?)
>>>> >>> some 30
>>>> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>>>> >>> from
>>>> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
>>>> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>>>
>>>> >>> Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>>>> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>>>
>>>> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring
>>>> >>> algorithm.
>>>>
>>>> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me
>>>> >>> excused if
>>>> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>>>
>>>> >>> Tony. . .
>>>
>>> It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
>>> are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
>>> level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
>>> level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]
>>>
>>> The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
>>> done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
>>> like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
>>> Partition Commander.
>>>
>>> If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
>>> and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
>>> Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.
>>>
>>> BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
>>> make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
>>> determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
>>> synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
>>> synchronized can be defragged.
>>>
>>
>>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Tony,

M1 motorway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_motorway

We also have an M1 freeway here in Australia.

Now how about an M1 Abrams tank? <g>

M1 = Milestone 1 build.

--
Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :-)
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
MVP Windows Desktop Experience

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:eQ7e705YIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Ah-yes. On reflection, though, 'M1' I believe to be the Motorway from
> London to Bristol going through Blackwall Tunnel? The Toyota was the MR1
> and BMW had a M3!
>
> Just joking - where do you hear these rumours, Carlos?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

And then there's the M1 rifle.

"Jane C" <janecolman@invalid.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:CCD4FF1C-85EB-4A99-A90E-9C5134300939@microsoft.com...
> Tony,
>
> M1 motorway:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_motorway
>
> We also have an M1 freeway here in Australia.
>
> Now how about an M1 Abrams tank? <g>
>
> M1 = Milestone 1 build.
>
> --
> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :-)
> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
> MVP Windows Desktop Experience
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:eQ7e705YIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Ah-yes. On reflection, though, 'M1' I believe to be the Motorway from
>> London to Bristol going through Blackwall Tunnel? The Toyota was the MR1
>> and BMW had a M3!
>>
>> Just joking - where do you hear these rumours, Carlos?
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

On Jan 30, 3:35 pm, "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk>
wrote:
> Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me, three drives cannot do RAID1! Actually, I
> bought this system with RAID5 in mind, but the Win2k wouldn't conform and I
> then chose a STRIPE set - now RAID5 will be the natural thing to do anyway.
> My NVRAID chip will not do any RAID10, I'm afraid. I don't remember what the
> SIS chip is capable of, except I think it is mostly there to handle the
> external SATA connectors + offering some backwards compatibility for older
> equipment in an upgrade situation, or perhaps a very crowded box.
>
> I am not sure that I was aware that I could create several RAID volumes on
> the same set of disks, will this apply to RAID5 as well? I doubt it that I
> am about to be that adventurous, but I like the idea of having options that
> are open to consideration.
>
> Tony. . .
>
> <m...@sushi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:99946426-4a7f-41eb-abbd-98f86636ec48@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> > <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
> >> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems, so
> >> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>
> >> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
> >> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your
> >> options
> >> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or use
> >> as
> >> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>
> >> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored
> >> volumes
> >> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two disks
> >> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
> >> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for
> >> vista
> >> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>
> >> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two disks,
> >> and
> >> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's no
> >> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for the
> >> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should be
> >> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you can
> >> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>
> >> --
> >> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/ch...
>
> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> >> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
> >> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions
> >> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical
> >> > Drives?
>
> >> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
> >> > if
> >> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
> >> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would
> >> > like
> >> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty
> >> > future
> >> > surprises.
>
> >> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
> >> > for
> >> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and still
> >> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
> >> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all
> >> > partitions
> >> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and
> >> > I
> >> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>
> >> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e. the
> >> > RAID itself?
>
> >> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
> >> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
> >> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
> >> > are
> >> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
> >> > be
> >> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>
> >> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>
> >> > Tony. . .
>
> >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
> >> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive A
> >> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
> >> >> the
> >> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
> >> >> off
> >> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
> >> >> _non-sequential_
> >> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors is
> >> >> fast.)
>
> >> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
> >> >> time.
> >> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
> >> >> broken.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Charlie.
> >> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> >> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> >> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> >>> Hi all!
>
> >> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
> >> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some
> >> >>> 30
> >> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
> >> >>> from
> >> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
> >> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>
> >> >>> Is this correct?
>
> >> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
> >> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>
> >> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring algorithm.
>
> >> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me excused
> >> >>> if
> >> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want to
> >> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>
> >> >>> Tony. . .
>
> > It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
> > are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
> > level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
> > level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]
>
> > The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
> > done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
> > like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
> > Partition Commander.
>
> > If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
> > and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
> > Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.
>
> > BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
> > make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
> > determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
> > synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
> > synchronized can be defragged.

You can create multiple volumes on the same array, but not from the
bios as stated elsewhere. [At least on nforce4.] I created mine with
partition commander. The array just looks like a drive as far as the
OS is concerned. The only time you would mess with the bios is if you
are going to restore a drive. The bios checks the health of the array
every time you boot. I don't know if there is any "smart" reporting
with Nvidia raid.

For some reason, all the hard drives show up in the
"safely remove hardware" window. This makes no sense to me.

One last option is to ignore raid and do a JBOD. It's not on my radar.
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

yes, my thoughts exactly.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23GZl265YIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, that is interesting. Could be a valuable option for a later
> 'to-be' dual-boot?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:AAB5BA71-4BC4-4116-9F23-982FAFAE32CC@microsoft.com...
>> If your controller will do RAID5, it should allow you to do RAID 5 with
>> less than the full disk for each array.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:ursgKj5YIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me, three drives cannot do RAID1!
>>> Actually, I bought this system with RAID5 in mind, but the Win2k
>>> wouldn't conform and I then chose a STRIPE set - now RAID5 will be the
>>> natural thing to do anyway. My NVRAID chip will not do any RAID10, I'm
>>> afraid. I don't remember what the SIS chip is capable of, except I think
>>> it is mostly there to handle the external SATA connectors + offering
>>> some backwards compatibility for older equipment in an upgrade
>>> situation, or perhaps a very crowded box.
>>>
>>> I am not sure that I was aware that I could create several RAID volumes
>>> on the same set of disks, will this apply to RAID5 as well? I doubt it
>>> that I am about to be that adventurous, but I like the idea of having
>>> options that are open to consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony. . .
>>>
>>>
>>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
>>> news:99946426-4a7f-41eb-abbd-98f86636ec48@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>>>> <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>>>> I don't have access to an nvidia RAID controller on any of my systems,
>>>>> so
>>>>> this answer is a bit generic. That being said:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) with 3 drives, you can have 2 in a mirror (RAID 1) and one as a
>>>>> standalone. You need even numbers of drives for full mirroring. Your
>>>>> options
>>>>> are to add one more drive and have two mirrors, or move to RAID 5, or
>>>>> use as
>>>>> is with one drive unprotected and unmirrored.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.) The RAID software (BIOS) should let you create multiple mirrored
>>>>> volumes
>>>>> from those 250 GB disks. So, you could create 3 volumes on the two
>>>>> disks
>>>>> that are mirrored - two of say 60 GB each, and a third of 120 GB. To
>>>>> Windows, those will look like separate disks. One for xp x6, one for
>>>>> vista
>>>>> x64 (or whatever), and one for data.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.) You could, equally, simply have one single mirror of the two
>>>>> disks, and
>>>>> then let the OS's do partitioning. Create primary partitions - there's
>>>>> no
>>>>> point in using secondary ones any more. You still need to use MBR for
>>>>> the
>>>>> boot disk, so you're limited to 4 primary partitions, but that should
>>>>> be
>>>>> enough. Any additional disks can be either MBR or GPT. With GPT you
>>>>> can
>>>>> create up to 126 primary partitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.http://msmvps.com/xperts64http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:eWLwhY0YIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
>>>>> > though. Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of
>>>>> > partitions
>>>>> > possible on a RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with
>>>>> > Logical
>>>>> > Drives?
>>>>>
>>>>> > I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while,
>>>>> > but if
>>>>> > possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there
>>>>> > as
>>>>> > well - something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would
>>>>> > like
>>>>> > to be in the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty
>>>>> > future
>>>>> > surprises.
>>>>>
>>>>> > The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough
>>>>> > room for
>>>>> > me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and
>>>>> > still
>>>>> > have a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a
>>>>> > RAID
>>>>> > setup, the MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all
>>>>> > partitions
>>>>> > will be counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? )
>>>>> > and I
>>>>> > further assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
>>>>>
>>>>> > So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e.
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > RAID itself?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
>>>>> > understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the
>>>>> > mirrors are
>>>>> > also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create
>>>>> > will be
>>>>> > enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Tony. . .
>>>>>
>>>>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <char...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>>>> > message
>>>>> >news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
>>>>> >> no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on
>>>>> >> drive A
>>>>> >> also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads,
>>>>> >> if the
>>>>> >> controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
>>>>> >> off
>>>>> >> of Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
>>>>> >> _non-sequential_
>>>>> >> sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors
>>>>> >> is
>>>>> >> fast.)
>>>>>
>>>>> >> But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
>>>>> >> time.
>>>>> >> Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
>>>>> >> broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> --
>>>>> >> Charlie.
>>>>> >>http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>> >>http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>
>>>>> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>>>>> >>news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> >>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my
>>>>> >>> RAID0
>>>>> >>> based system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?)
>>>>> >>> some 30
>>>>> >>> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
>>>>> >>> from
>>>>> >>> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining
>>>>> >>> a
>>>>> >>> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Is this correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
>>>>> >>> that
>>>>> >>> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
>>>>> >>> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring
>>>>> >>> algorithm.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me
>>>>> >>> excused if
>>>>> >>> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want
>>>>> >>> to
>>>>> >>> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Tony. . .
>>>>
>>>> It probably matters which Nvidia RAID you have. I have nForce4. You
>>>> are generally correct, with the exception that my Nvidia RAID can't do
>>>> level 5. [My mobo also has a silicon image controller that does allow
>>>> level 5, but this is different from the nvidia raid.]
>>>>
>>>> The Nvidia bios can't partition the disks to my knowledge. What I have
>>>> done is create RAID10 using 4 drives. The Nvidia RAID makes that look
>>>> like one drive. From that point, I partitioned the drive with
>>>> Partition Commander.
>>>>
>>>> If the original poster has room, I would suggest adding another drive
>>>> and go RAID10. I got a 320GByte Maxtor a few months ago for $59.
>>>> Typically these are under $90 at Fry's.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Nvidia provides a "synchronization" program. I assume this is to
>>>> make the mirrored drives look identical sector by sector. I haven't
>>>> determine if it is proper to do a defrag before or after
>>>> synchronization, nor do I understand how drives that are not
>>>> synchronized can be defragged.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Tony,
"Where" is here:
http://keznews.com/4013_Windows_7_M1_build_shows_up_on_various_torrent_sites
Regarding the "M" thing, I think I recall it standed for Milestone.
Carlos

"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> Ah-yes. On reflection, though, 'M1' I believe to be the Motorway from London
> to Bristol going through Blackwall Tunnel? The Toyota was the MR1 and BMW
> had a M3!
>
> Just joking - where do you hear these rumours, Carlos?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:58FD6571-2914-465F-BAB1-572BF6530427@microsoft.com...
> > Tony,
> > Back in the Longhorn (pre-Vista) times, one of the alpha releases was
> > named
> > "M1"
> > Don't know the meaning, though.
> > Carlos
> >
> > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
> >
> >> Quite! Windows 7, is definitely on my mind, I'm having great expectations
> >> for that, but I do not know what 'M1' implies. (Except there's a Toyota,
> >> isn't there?)
> >>
> >> I'll find the patience, somehow!
> >>
> >>
> >> Tony. . .
> >>
> >>
> >> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D5CA4667-7693-4986-BC2A-146CE0AEB437@microsoft.com...
> >> > "something else in there" "that I don't quite know what it will be".
> >> > You may start thinking on "Windows 7".
> >> > Rumour says that it is on stage M1.
> >> > Carlos
> >> >
> >> > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks, Charlie - yes, that seems quite clear now. One other thing,
> >> >> though.
> >> >> Is any kind of interaction with the enumeration of partitions possible
> >> >> on
> >> >> a
> >> >> RAID, beyond alternating Primary Partitions with Logical Drives?
> >> >>
> >> >> I am thinking of putting XP x64 in there on it's own for a while, but
> >> >> if
> >> >> possible to try and be prepared for having something else in there as
> >> >> well -
> >> >> something that I don't quite know what it will be. So I would like to
> >> >> be
> >> >> in
> >> >> the best possible situation to not prepare for any nasty future
> >> >> surprises.
> >> >>
> >> >> The system has three 250GB Seagates on a NVRAID/SATA chip, enough room
> >> >> for
> >> >> me to dump the '0-level' and move into something that mirrors and
> >> >> still
> >> >> have
> >> >> a fair bit left over for a future dual-booting scheme. In a RAID
> >> >> setup,
> >> >> the
> >> >> MBR can only sit in one place and I assume that all partitions will be
> >> >> counted in a standard way ( one volume - Primaries first? ) and I
> >> >> further
> >> >> assume that the RAID level has no impact on this???
> >> >>
> >> >> So, under a mirroring scheme, there is still only one volume - i.e.
> >> >> the
> >> >> RAID
> >> >> itself?
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, if I put a second system in there, the RAID logic will manage the
> >> >> mirroring of that and keep it separate from the first system as I
> >> >> understand, and the creation of partitions that are to be the mirrors
> >> >> are
> >> >> also managed by the RAID logic and all (any) partitions I create will
> >> >> be
> >> >> enumerated in the standard way, and be available as USER space?
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, and the MBR - will that be mirrored as well?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Tony. . .
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
> >> >> message
> >> >> news:0A506041-5640-469E-A173-31ACFE98B5F2@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > no, incorrect. Mirroring means that everything that happens on drive
> >> >> > A
> >> >> > also happens on drive B. Mirrors can be somewhat faster at reads, if
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > controller is smart enough to read byte 0 off of drive A and byte 1
> >> >> > off
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > Drive B, etc. (Or, more realistically, read the next
> >> >> > _non-sequential_
> >> >> > sector off of the alternate drive, since reading sequential sectors
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > fast.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But writes have to happen to both drives at (essentially) the same
> >> >> > time.
> >> >> > Otherwise, there's the risk of data corruption and the mirror gets
> >> >> > broken.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Charlie.
> >> >> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> >> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:OO3AE1uYIHA.6044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> Hi all!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I am most probably about to embark on a re-installation on my RAID0
> >> >> >> based
> >> >> >> system, involving removing the 'dual-boot', after (what?) some 30
> >> >> >> successful months. It occurs to me that a mirroring setup - appart
> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> being slower, may posses the added benefit of allways maintaining a
> >> >> >> non-fragmented mirror copy of all the data.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is this correct?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It seems to me that since all work is relegated to the one 'image'
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> the mirror should be kept 'Pristine'? Or, is the mirror actually
> >> >> >> maintaing the fragmentation of the original?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I do realize that this may depend heavily on the mirroring
> >> >> >> algorithm.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It is very early in the next morning here, so please have me
> >> >> >> excused
> >> >> >> if
> >> >> >> this comes out as a bit 'fuzzy'. With the light-of-day, I may want
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> bite - if not my tongue, then at least my typing finger?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tony. . .
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
 
Re: Basic RAID question. . .

Down here in Argentina, "M1" is the term used by the economists to refer to
the amount of local currency in circulation in the country.
M1 divided into the Central Bank reserves in USD gives you the FX for the
"peso".
Carlos

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> And then there's the M1 rifle.
>
> "Jane C" <janecolman@invalid.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:CCD4FF1C-85EB-4A99-A90E-9C5134300939@microsoft.com...
> > Tony,
> >
> > M1 motorway:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_motorway
> >
> > We also have an M1 freeway here in Australia.
> >
> > Now how about an M1 Abrams tank? <g>
> >
> > M1 = Milestone 1 build.
> >
> > --
> > Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :-)
> > Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
> > MVP Windows Desktop Experience
> >
> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> > news:eQ7e705YIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> Ah-yes. On reflection, though, 'M1' I believe to be the Motorway from
> >> London to Bristol going through Blackwall Tunnel? The Toyota was the MR1
> >> and BMW had a M3!
> >>
> >> Just joking - where do you hear these rumours, Carlos?
> >>
> >>
> >> Tony. . .
> >>
> >
>
 
Back
Top