Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Where is MBR on RAID0 System?

Reply
Thread Tools

Where is MBR on RAID0 System?

 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2005
Hi!

I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of curiosity, I
want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though, it will
not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two HD's of 114
GB and offers to create a RAID on there.

So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old IDE
drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know if I could
make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly assume
that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0) since it is so
little data that it would make no sense to have it striped, and I also
assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any RAID is
present. But I just do not know - any advice???

TIA, Tony. . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2005
This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you got
there.

1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to the OS,
some require F6 to add.
2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID. It
manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears as yet
another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you need a
separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to be
designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a primary partition
and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a primary partition.
In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of Windows can reside on
extended partitions.)
5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level, therefore AFTER
drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's thing.
6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the raid level.
They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the hardware
raid.
7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off of your
RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID controller BIOS and
configure the arrays accordingly.

Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect you
against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive in that it
INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any single
drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and data loss of the
_entire array_. One power spike that blows out one of those cheap Maxtor
drives and you are TOAST.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of curiosity, I
> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though, it
> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two HD's
> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>
> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old IDE
> drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know if I could
> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly
> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0) since
> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it striped, and
> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any RAID
> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>
> TIA, Tony. . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2005
Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to read this a
couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though: Since I have decided to
make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that installation see the
bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from the same
Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it boot off of a floppy?
Or did you already answer that?


Tony. . .



"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you got
> there.
>
> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to the
> OS, some require F6 to add.
> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID. It
> manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears as
> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you need a
> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to be
> designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a primary
> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a primary
> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of Windows
> can reside on extended partitions.)
> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level, therefore
> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's thing.
> 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the raid level.
> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the
> hardware raid.
> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off of
> your RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID controller
> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>
> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect you
> against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive in that it
> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any single
> drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and data loss of
> the _entire array_. One power spike that blows out one of those cheap
> Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of curiosity, I
>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though, it
>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two HD's
>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>
>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old IDE
>> drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know if I
>> could
>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly
>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0) since
>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it striped, and
>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any RAID
>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>
>> TIA, Tony. . .

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2005
If you have drivers loaded into the OS for that IDE drive, then yes, it will
see it. (But keep in mind, load x64 AFTER x86 Windows.)

The only tricky part can come if somehow it decides that the RAID drive
should be a higher priority than the IDE, in which case you have to boot off
the RAID. But I don't think that will happen. (though I'm continually
surprised by the occasional odd behaviours of the boot process in NT.)


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to read this a
> couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though: Since I have decided to
> make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that installation see
> the bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from the same
> Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it boot off of a
> floppy? Or did you already answer that?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you got
>> there.
>>
>> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to the
>> OS, some require F6 to add.
>> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID. It
>> manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
>> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears as
>> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
>> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you need a
>> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to be
>> designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a primary
>> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a primary
>> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of Windows
>> can reside on extended partitions.)
>> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level, therefore
>> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's
>> thing. 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the raid
>> level.
>> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the
>> hardware raid.
>> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off of
>> your RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID controller
>> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>>
>> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect you
>> against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive in that it
>> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any
>> single drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and data
>> loss of the _entire array_. One power spike that blows out one of those
>> cheap Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of curiosity, I
>>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though, it
>>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two HD's
>>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>>
>>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old IDE
>>> drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know if I
>>> could
>>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly
>>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0) since
>>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it striped, and
>>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any RAID
>>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>>
>>> TIA, Tony. . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2005
My-oh-my! And I thought this was something relatively simple - something I
almost understood, such that I wouldn't have to bother you with the
specifics - but here goes: Before x64, I was running Win2K. I installed
three versions of the x64 public beta (including the trial), each on it's
own small partition. When I bought the release, I zapped those, converted to
RAID and am at the moment dual-booting from the RAID with Win2K and x64.
What I really would have wanted to do, was to put Suse Linux on the remains
of that RAID, and have it appear on the boot-menu.

O.K. - so the RAID driver is OS specific. I should have realized that, and
this explains why the Suse installer does not see the RAID - but would
happily configure one, thereby destroying the current one. This, last part,
I had already figured.

But when I Boot the machine, the BIOS is collecting all the information
about hardware resources, and this has to be before the RAID driver is
loaded, the boot process then transfers to the first available MBR, (right?)
and that brings up the question "is the Boot Record read before or after the
RAID driver is loaded?".

My original question assumed it does so, before, and that the MBR is not
part of the RAID mechanism (if I am allowed to call it that?). This gave me
the idea that I could install Suse on a spare IDE drive that is collecing
dust in a drawer, and that I could direct the Suse installer to re-configure
the MBR such that all three systems would appear on the Boot-Menu together,
even though they were not all on the RAID.

As I said, I would have no problem using a Boot-Floppy, but it would be much
nicer to have it all together in one place. You must excuse me if this is
completely 'bonkers', but is it not correct that - RAID or no RAID - the
Boot information is still in the MBR, and that the MBR that is used, is the
one on the first disk, and that it would not disturb the RAID to have
something tamper with the MBR, providing it is done with the kind of
excellence with which Linux habitually handles these matters? And of course,
without taking anything you say about it as as a recommendation to 'tamper'
with the MBR.

Regards, Tony. . .




"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you have drivers loaded into the OS for that IDE drive, then yes, it
> will see it. (But keep in mind, load x64 AFTER x86 Windows.)
>
> The only tricky part can come if somehow it decides that the RAID drive
> should be a higher priority than the IDE, in which case you have to boot
> off the RAID. But I don't think that will happen. (though I'm continually
> surprised by the occasional odd behaviours of the boot process in NT.)
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
>> Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to read this a
>> couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though: Since I have decided to
>> make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that installation see
>> the bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from the same
>> Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it boot off of a
>> floppy? Or did you already answer that?
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you got
>>> there.
>>>
>>> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to the
>>> OS, some require F6 to add.
>>> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID. It
>>> manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
>>> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears as
>>> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
>>> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you need
>>> a
>>> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to be
>>> designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a primary
>>> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a
>>> primary
>>> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of Windows
>>> can reside on extended partitions.)
>>> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level, therefore
>>> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's
>>> thing. 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the
>>> raid level.
>>> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the
>>> hardware raid.
>>> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off of
>>> your RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID controller
>>> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>>>
>>> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect you
>>> against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive in that
>>> it
>>> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any
>>> single drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and data
>>> loss of the _entire array_. One power spike that blows out one of those
>>> cheap Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of curiosity,
>>>> I
>>>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though, it
>>>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two
>>>> HD's
>>>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>>>
>>>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old IDE
>>>> drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know if I
>>>> could
>>>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly
>>>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0)
>>>> since
>>>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it striped,
>>>> and
>>>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any
>>>> RAID
>>>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>>>
>>>> TIA, Tony. . .

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2005
For what you want to do, the cleanest way to get there is let Linux install
its boot manager. That boot manager will "see" the RAID array, IF it has a
driver for it. it will offer you a choice of Linux or Windows. When you
choose Windows, it should go to the Windows dual boot configuration.

Another solution is to use one of the many third party boot managers. They
all work the same way -- they create and sit in a special partition on the
first disk. I'm not at all sure how well they'd handle the RAID.

RAID BIOS after system BIOS. System BIOS sees only physical hardware. RAID
BIOS presents a "drive" to the OS, which needs to be able to load its driver
to talk to it.

My personaly suggestion? Run Linux in a VM.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Tony Sperling wrote:
> My-oh-my! And I thought this was something relatively simple - something I
> almost understood, such that I wouldn't have to bother you with the
> specifics - but here goes: Before x64, I was running Win2K. I installed
> three versions of the x64 public beta (including the trial), each on it's
> own small partition. When I bought the release, I zapped those, converted
> to RAID and am at the moment dual-booting from the RAID with Win2K and
> x64. What I really would have wanted to do, was to put Suse Linux on the
> remains of that RAID, and have it appear on the boot-menu.
>
> O.K. - so the RAID driver is OS specific. I should have realized that, and
> this explains why the Suse installer does not see the RAID - but would
> happily configure one, thereby destroying the current one. This, last
> part, I had already figured.
>
> But when I Boot the machine, the BIOS is collecting all the information
> about hardware resources, and this has to be before the RAID driver is
> loaded, the boot process then transfers to the first available MBR,
> (right?) and that brings up the question "is the Boot Record read before
> or after the RAID driver is loaded?".
>
> My original question assumed it does so, before, and that the MBR is not
> part of the RAID mechanism (if I am allowed to call it that?). This gave
> me the idea that I could install Suse on a spare IDE drive that is
> collecing dust in a drawer, and that I could direct the Suse installer to
> re-configure the MBR such that all three systems would appear on the
> Boot-Menu together, even though they were not all on the RAID.
>
> As I said, I would have no problem using a Boot-Floppy, but it would be
> much nicer to have it all together in one place. You must excuse me if
> this is completely 'bonkers', but is it not correct that - RAID or no
> RAID - the Boot information is still in the MBR, and that the MBR that is
> used, is the one on the first disk, and that it would not disturb the
> RAID to have something tamper with the MBR, providing it is done with the
> kind of excellence with which Linux habitually handles these matters? And
> of course, without taking anything you say about it as as a
> recommendation to 'tamper' with the MBR.
>
> Regards, Tony. . .
>
>
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> If you have drivers loaded into the OS for that IDE drive, then yes, it
>> will see it. (But keep in mind, load x64 AFTER x86 Windows.)
>>
>> The only tricky part can come if somehow it decides that the RAID drive
>> should be a higher priority than the IDE, in which case you have to boot
>> off the RAID. But I don't think that will happen. (though I'm continually
>> surprised by the occasional odd behaviours of the boot process in NT.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>> Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to read this a
>>> couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though: Since I have decided to
>>> make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that installation see
>>> the bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from the same
>>> Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it boot off of a
>>> floppy? Or did you already answer that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony. . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you got
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to
>>>> the OS, some require F6 to add.
>>>> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID. It
>>>> manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
>>>> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears as
>>>> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
>>>> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you need
>>>> a
>>>> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to be
>>>> designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a primary
>>>> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a
>>>> primary
>>>> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of
>>>> Windows can reside on extended partitions.)
>>>> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level, therefore
>>>> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's
>>>> thing. 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the
>>>> raid level.
>>>> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the
>>>> hardware raid.
>>>> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off of
>>>> your RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID controller
>>>> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect
>>>> you against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive in
>>>> that it
>>>> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any
>>>> single drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and data
>>>> loss of the _entire array_. One power spike that blows out one of those
>>>> cheap Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>
>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of curiosity,
>>>>> I
>>>>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though, it
>>>>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two
>>>>> HD's
>>>>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old
>>>>> IDE drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know
>>>>> if I could
>>>>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly
>>>>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0)
>>>>> since
>>>>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it striped,
>>>>> and
>>>>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any
>>>>> RAID
>>>>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA, Tony. . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2005
Jeez, thanks, Charlie. I have installed so many Linuxes - but never on a
RAID. That the boot manager handled it, I didn't know at all. I guess this
makes a greate excuse to read the Grub manual I have on print. But it still
seems a bit 'hairy' to start configuring partitions at a time when the
installer apparently isn't aware of what is going on. I can still identify
the correct partition, and I don't doubt that the installer can handle it,
but it does look a bit scary. Well, I am not doing anything until I've read
what Grub has to say.

And run it in a VM? Ah, wouldn't that be nice! There's a trial on PAMD64
that I very nearly downloded, but I just know I couldn't live without it,
but here it costs the equivalent of a very nice 21" CRT. That's not
expensive, but it's also not the kind of money I carry around in my pocket
every day.

In fact, I am saving for that dual-core, triple-booting isn't my ideal, I
need a second 'actual' machine.

Tony. . .


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> For what you want to do, the cleanest way to get there is let Linux
> install its boot manager. That boot manager will "see" the RAID array, IF
> it has a driver for it. it will offer you a choice of Linux or Windows.
> When you choose Windows, it should go to the Windows dual boot
> configuration.
>
> Another solution is to use one of the many third party boot managers. They
> all work the same way -- they create and sit in a special partition on the
> first disk. I'm not at all sure how well they'd handle the RAID.
>
> RAID BIOS after system BIOS. System BIOS sees only physical hardware. RAID
> BIOS presents a "drive" to the OS, which needs to be able to load its
> driver to talk to it.
>
> My personaly suggestion? Run Linux in a VM.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
>> My-oh-my! And I thought this was something relatively simple - something
>> I
>> almost understood, such that I wouldn't have to bother you with the
>> specifics - but here goes: Before x64, I was running Win2K. I installed
>> three versions of the x64 public beta (including the trial), each on it's
>> own small partition. When I bought the release, I zapped those, converted
>> to RAID and am at the moment dual-booting from the RAID with Win2K and
>> x64. What I really would have wanted to do, was to put Suse Linux on the
>> remains of that RAID, and have it appear on the boot-menu.
>>
>> O.K. - so the RAID driver is OS specific. I should have realized that,
>> and
>> this explains why the Suse installer does not see the RAID - but would
>> happily configure one, thereby destroying the current one. This, last
>> part, I had already figured.
>>
>> But when I Boot the machine, the BIOS is collecting all the information
>> about hardware resources, and this has to be before the RAID driver is
>> loaded, the boot process then transfers to the first available MBR,
>> (right?) and that brings up the question "is the Boot Record read before
>> or after the RAID driver is loaded?".
>>
>> My original question assumed it does so, before, and that the MBR is not
>> part of the RAID mechanism (if I am allowed to call it that?). This gave
>> me the idea that I could install Suse on a spare IDE drive that is
>> collecing dust in a drawer, and that I could direct the Suse installer to
>> re-configure the MBR such that all three systems would appear on the
>> Boot-Menu together, even though they were not all on the RAID.
>>
>> As I said, I would have no problem using a Boot-Floppy, but it would be
>> much nicer to have it all together in one place. You must excuse me if
>> this is completely 'bonkers', but is it not correct that - RAID or no
>> RAID - the Boot information is still in the MBR, and that the MBR that is
>> used, is the one on the first disk, and that it would not disturb the
>> RAID to have something tamper with the MBR, providing it is done with the
>> kind of excellence with which Linux habitually handles these matters? And
>> of course, without taking anything you say about it as as a
>> recommendation to 'tamper' with the MBR.
>>
>> Regards, Tony. . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> If you have drivers loaded into the OS for that IDE drive, then yes, it
>>> will see it. (But keep in mind, load x64 AFTER x86 Windows.)
>>>
>>> The only tricky part can come if somehow it decides that the RAID drive
>>> should be a higher priority than the IDE, in which case you have to boot
>>> off the RAID. But I don't think that will happen. (though I'm
>>> continually
>>> surprised by the occasional odd behaviours of the boot process in NT.)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>> Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to read this a
>>>> couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though: Since I have decided
>>>> to
>>>> make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that installation
>>>> see
>>>> the bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from the same
>>>> Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it boot off of a
>>>> floppy? Or did you already answer that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony. . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you
>>>>> got
>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to
>>>>> the OS, some require F6 to add.
>>>>> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID. It
>>>>> manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
>>>>> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears
>>>>> as
>>>>> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
>>>>> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you
>>>>> need
>>>>> a
>>>>> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to be
>>>>> designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a primary
>>>>> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a
>>>>> primary
>>>>> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of
>>>>> Windows can reside on extended partitions.)
>>>>> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level, therefore
>>>>> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's
>>>>> thing. 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the
>>>>> raid level.
>>>>> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the
>>>>> hardware raid.
>>>>> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off of
>>>>> your RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID
>>>>> controller
>>>>> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect
>>>>> you against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive in
>>>>> that it
>>>>> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any
>>>>> single drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and data
>>>>> loss of the _entire array_. One power spike that blows out one of
>>>>> those
>>>>> cheap Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of
>>>>>> curiosity,
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two
>>>>>> HD's
>>>>>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old
>>>>>> IDE drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know
>>>>>> if I could
>>>>>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly
>>>>>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0)
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it striped,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any
>>>>>> RAID
>>>>>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA, Tony. . .

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2005
Then VMs make all the sense in the world for you. VMWare workstation is not
that expensive, and runs just fine on x64. It does Linux. (Heck, it even
does it the other way around, Linux for the host and Windows for the guest.)
The new version (5.5) is due out any minute and it even does x64 guests.
Seriously, take a look at it. A lot cheaper than a 21" CRT, and certainly
cheaper than a second machine.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Jeez, thanks, Charlie. I have installed so many Linuxes - but never on a
> RAID. That the boot manager handled it, I didn't know at all. I guess this
> makes a greate excuse to read the Grub manual I have on print. But it
> still seems a bit 'hairy' to start configuring partitions at a time when
> the installer apparently isn't aware of what is going on. I can still
> identify the correct partition, and I don't doubt that the installer can
> handle it, but it does look a bit scary. Well, I am not doing anything
> until I've read what Grub has to say.
>
> And run it in a VM? Ah, wouldn't that be nice! There's a trial on PAMD64
> that I very nearly downloded, but I just know I couldn't live without it,
> but here it costs the equivalent of a very nice 21" CRT. That's not
> expensive, but it's also not the kind of money I carry around in my pocket
> every day.
>
> In fact, I am saving for that dual-core, triple-booting isn't my ideal, I
> need a second 'actual' machine.
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> For what you want to do, the cleanest way to get there is let Linux
>> install its boot manager. That boot manager will "see" the RAID array, IF
>> it has a driver for it. it will offer you a choice of Linux or Windows.
>> When you choose Windows, it should go to the Windows dual boot
>> configuration.
>>
>> Another solution is to use one of the many third party boot managers.
>> They all work the same way -- they create and sit in a special partition
>> on the first disk. I'm not at all sure how well they'd handle the RAID.
>>
>> RAID BIOS after system BIOS. System BIOS sees only physical hardware.
>> RAID BIOS presents a "drive" to the OS, which needs to be able to load
>> its driver to talk to it.
>>
>> My personaly suggestion? Run Linux in a VM.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>> My-oh-my! And I thought this was something relatively simple - something
>>> I
>>> almost understood, such that I wouldn't have to bother you with the
>>> specifics - but here goes: Before x64, I was running Win2K. I installed
>>> three versions of the x64 public beta (including the trial), each on
>>> it's own small partition. When I bought the release, I zapped those,
>>> converted to RAID and am at the moment dual-booting from the RAID with
>>> Win2K and x64. What I really would have wanted to do, was to put Suse
>>> Linux on the remains of that RAID, and have it appear on the boot-menu.
>>>
>>> O.K. - so the RAID driver is OS specific. I should have realized that,
>>> and
>>> this explains why the Suse installer does not see the RAID - but would
>>> happily configure one, thereby destroying the current one. This, last
>>> part, I had already figured.
>>>
>>> But when I Boot the machine, the BIOS is collecting all the information
>>> about hardware resources, and this has to be before the RAID driver is
>>> loaded, the boot process then transfers to the first available MBR,
>>> (right?) and that brings up the question "is the Boot Record read before
>>> or after the RAID driver is loaded?".
>>>
>>> My original question assumed it does so, before, and that the MBR is not
>>> part of the RAID mechanism (if I am allowed to call it that?). This gave
>>> me the idea that I could install Suse on a spare IDE drive that is
>>> collecing dust in a drawer, and that I could direct the Suse installer
>>> to re-configure the MBR such that all three systems would appear on the
>>> Boot-Menu together, even though they were not all on the RAID.
>>>
>>> As I said, I would have no problem using a Boot-Floppy, but it would be
>>> much nicer to have it all together in one place. You must excuse me if
>>> this is completely 'bonkers', but is it not correct that - RAID or no
>>> RAID - the Boot information is still in the MBR, and that the MBR that
>>> is used, is the one on the first disk, and that it would not disturb the
>>> RAID to have something tamper with the MBR, providing it is done with
>>> the kind of excellence with which Linux habitually handles these
>>> matters? And of course, without taking anything you say about it as as a
>>> recommendation to 'tamper' with the MBR.
>>>
>>> Regards, Tony. . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> If you have drivers loaded into the OS for that IDE drive, then yes, it
>>>> will see it. (But keep in mind, load x64 AFTER x86 Windows.)
>>>>
>>>> The only tricky part can come if somehow it decides that the RAID drive
>>>> should be a higher priority than the IDE, in which case you have to
>>>> boot off the RAID. But I don't think that will happen. (though I'm
>>>> continually
>>>> surprised by the occasional odd behaviours of the boot process in NT.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>
>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>> Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to read this
>>>>> a couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though: Since I have
>>>>> decided to
>>>>> make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that installation
>>>>> see
>>>>> the bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from the
>>>>> same Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it boot off
>>>>> of a floppy? Or did you already answer that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony. . .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you
>>>>>> got
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to
>>>>>> the OS, some require F6 to add.
>>>>>> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID.
>>>>>> It manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
>>>>>> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
>>>>>> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to
>>>>>> be designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a primary
>>>>>> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of
>>>>>> Windows can reside on extended partitions.)
>>>>>> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level, therefore
>>>>>> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's
>>>>>> thing. 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the
>>>>>> raid level.
>>>>>> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the
>>>>>> hardware raid.
>>>>>> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off
>>>>>> of your RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID
>>>>>> controller
>>>>>> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect
>>>>>> you against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive in
>>>>>> that it
>>>>>> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any
>>>>>> single drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and
>>>>>> data loss of the _entire array_. One power spike that blows out one
>>>>>> of those
>>>>>> cheap Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of
>>>>>>> curiosity,
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two
>>>>>>> HD's
>>>>>>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old
>>>>>>> IDE drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know
>>>>>>> if I could
>>>>>>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I strongly
>>>>>>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0)
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it striped,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any
>>>>>>> RAID
>>>>>>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TIA, Tony. . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2005
Well, you make it sound so tempting that I will enter a binding agreement to
do that. In fact, I just checked on their site and it IS substantially less
than I expected. I remember it as being in the vicinity of $300 - when did
that change? I only fear it won't keep the next machine out the door. Would
you say, the boxed version - I assume, with printed manuals - is worth the
extra cost?

Thanks again.

Tony. . .


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Then VMs make all the sense in the world for you. VMWare workstation is
> not that expensive, and runs just fine on x64. It does Linux. (Heck, it
> even does it the other way around, Linux for the host and Windows for the
> guest.) The new version (5.5) is due out any minute and it even does x64
> guests. Seriously, take a look at it. A lot cheaper than a 21" CRT, and
> certainly cheaper than a second machine.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
>> Jeez, thanks, Charlie. I have installed so many Linuxes - but never on a
>> RAID. That the boot manager handled it, I didn't know at all. I guess
>> this
>> makes a greate excuse to read the Grub manual I have on print. But it
>> still seems a bit 'hairy' to start configuring partitions at a time when
>> the installer apparently isn't aware of what is going on. I can still
>> identify the correct partition, and I don't doubt that the installer can
>> handle it, but it does look a bit scary. Well, I am not doing anything
>> until I've read what Grub has to say.
>>
>> And run it in a VM? Ah, wouldn't that be nice! There's a trial on PAMD64
>> that I very nearly downloded, but I just know I couldn't live without it,
>> but here it costs the equivalent of a very nice 21" CRT. That's not
>> expensive, but it's also not the kind of money I carry around in my
>> pocket
>> every day.
>>
>> In fact, I am saving for that dual-core, triple-booting isn't my ideal, I
>> need a second 'actual' machine.
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> For what you want to do, the cleanest way to get there is let Linux
>>> install its boot manager. That boot manager will "see" the RAID array,
>>> IF
>>> it has a driver for it. it will offer you a choice of Linux or Windows.
>>> When you choose Windows, it should go to the Windows dual boot
>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> Another solution is to use one of the many third party boot managers.
>>> They all work the same way -- they create and sit in a special partition
>>> on the first disk. I'm not at all sure how well they'd handle the RAID.
>>>
>>> RAID BIOS after system BIOS. System BIOS sees only physical hardware.
>>> RAID BIOS presents a "drive" to the OS, which needs to be able to load
>>> its driver to talk to it.
>>>
>>> My personaly suggestion? Run Linux in a VM.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>> My-oh-my! And I thought this was something relatively simple -
>>>> something
>>>> I
>>>> almost understood, such that I wouldn't have to bother you with the
>>>> specifics - but here goes: Before x64, I was running Win2K. I installed
>>>> three versions of the x64 public beta (including the trial), each on
>>>> it's own small partition. When I bought the release, I zapped those,
>>>> converted to RAID and am at the moment dual-booting from the RAID with
>>>> Win2K and x64. What I really would have wanted to do, was to put Suse
>>>> Linux on the remains of that RAID, and have it appear on the boot-menu.
>>>>
>>>> O.K. - so the RAID driver is OS specific. I should have realized that,
>>>> and
>>>> this explains why the Suse installer does not see the RAID - but would
>>>> happily configure one, thereby destroying the current one. This, last
>>>> part, I had already figured.
>>>>
>>>> But when I Boot the machine, the BIOS is collecting all the information
>>>> about hardware resources, and this has to be before the RAID driver is
>>>> loaded, the boot process then transfers to the first available MBR,
>>>> (right?) and that brings up the question "is the Boot Record read
>>>> before
>>>> or after the RAID driver is loaded?".
>>>>
>>>> My original question assumed it does so, before, and that the MBR is
>>>> not
>>>> part of the RAID mechanism (if I am allowed to call it that?). This
>>>> gave
>>>> me the idea that I could install Suse on a spare IDE drive that is
>>>> collecing dust in a drawer, and that I could direct the Suse installer
>>>> to re-configure the MBR such that all three systems would appear on the
>>>> Boot-Menu together, even though they were not all on the RAID.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, I would have no problem using a Boot-Floppy, but it would be
>>>> much nicer to have it all together in one place. You must excuse me if
>>>> this is completely 'bonkers', but is it not correct that - RAID or no
>>>> RAID - the Boot information is still in the MBR, and that the MBR that
>>>> is used, is the one on the first disk, and that it would not disturb
>>>> the
>>>> RAID to have something tamper with the MBR, providing it is done with
>>>> the kind of excellence with which Linux habitually handles these
>>>> matters? And of course, without taking anything you say about it as as
>>>> a
>>>> recommendation to 'tamper' with the MBR.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Tony. . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> If you have drivers loaded into the OS for that IDE drive, then yes,
>>>>> it
>>>>> will see it. (But keep in mind, load x64 AFTER x86 Windows.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The only tricky part can come if somehow it decides that the RAID
>>>>> drive
>>>>> should be a higher priority than the IDE, in which case you have to
>>>>> boot off the RAID. But I don't think that will happen. (though I'm
>>>>> continually
>>>>> surprised by the occasional odd behaviours of the boot process in NT.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to read this
>>>>>> a couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though: Since I have
>>>>>> decided to
>>>>>> make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that installation
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> the bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from the
>>>>>> same Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it boot off
>>>>>> of a floppy? Or did you already answer that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony. . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see how you
>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built in to
>>>>>>> the OS, some require F6 to add.
>>>>>>> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual RAID.
>>>>>>> It manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
>>>>>>> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply appears
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
>>>>>>> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive", you
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition needs to
>>>>>>> be designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to be on a
>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be on a
>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions of
>>>>>>> Windows can reside on extended partitions.)
>>>>>>> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level,
>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done it's
>>>>>>> thing. 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's happening at the
>>>>>>> raid level.
>>>>>>> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented by the
>>>>>>> hardware raid.
>>>>>>> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives" presented off
>>>>>>> of your RAID controller. For this, you need to go into the RAID
>>>>>>> controller
>>>>>>> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not protect
>>>>>>> you against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a straight drive
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure of any
>>>>>>> single drive in the array will result in catastrophic failure and
>>>>>>> data loss of the _entire array_. One power spike that blows out one
>>>>>>> of those
>>>>>>> cheap Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of
>>>>>>>> curiosity,
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange, though,
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is seing two
>>>>>>>> HD's
>>>>>>>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in an old
>>>>>>>> IDE drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much like to know
>>>>>>>> if I could
>>>>>>>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I
>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS Disk 0)
>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it
>>>>>>>> striped,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR before any
>>>>>>>> RAID
>>>>>>>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TIA, Tony. . .

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2005
Up to you on the cost. Everything is available online. Personally, I'd save
the $$ and do the download. But YMMV.

--
Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
======================
Charlie.
http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


Tony Sperling wrote:
> Well, you make it sound so tempting that I will enter a binding
> agreement to do that. In fact, I just checked on their site and it IS
> substantially less than I expected. I remember it as being in the
> vicinity of $300 - when did that change? I only fear it won't keep
> the next machine out the door. Would you say, the boxed version - I
> assume, with printed manuals - is worth the extra cost?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Then VMs make all the sense in the world for you. VMWare workstation
>> is not that expensive, and runs just fine on x64. It does Linux.
>> (Heck, it even does it the other way around, Linux for the host and
>> Windows for the guest.) The new version (5.5) is due out any minute
>> and it even does x64 guests. Seriously, take a look at it. A lot
>> cheaper than a 21" CRT, and certainly cheaper than a second machine.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>> Jeez, thanks, Charlie. I have installed so many Linuxes - but never
>>> on a RAID. That the boot manager handled it, I didn't know at all.
>>> I guess this
>>> makes a greate excuse to read the Grub manual I have on print. But
>>> it still seems a bit 'hairy' to start configuring partitions at a
>>> time when the installer apparently isn't aware of what is going on.
>>> I can still identify the correct partition, and I don't doubt that
>>> the installer can handle it, but it does look a bit scary. Well, I
>>> am not doing anything until I've read what Grub has to say.
>>>
>>> And run it in a VM? Ah, wouldn't that be nice! There's a trial on
>>> PAMD64 that I very nearly downloded, but I just know I couldn't
>>> live without it, but here it costs the equivalent of a very nice
>>> 21" CRT. That's not expensive, but it's also not the kind of money
>>> I carry around in my pocket
>>> every day.
>>>
>>> In fact, I am saving for that dual-core, triple-booting isn't my
>>> ideal, I need a second 'actual' machine.
>>>
>>> Tony. . .
>>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> For what you want to do, the cleanest way to get there is let Linux
>>>> install its boot manager. That boot manager will "see" the RAID
>>>> array, IF
>>>> it has a driver for it. it will offer you a choice of Linux or
>>>> Windows. When you choose Windows, it should go to the Windows dual
>>>> boot configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Another solution is to use one of the many third party boot
>>>> managers. They all work the same way -- they create and sit in a
>>>> special partition on the first disk. I'm not at all sure how well
>>>> they'd handle the RAID. RAID BIOS after system BIOS. System BIOS sees
>>>> only physical
>>>> hardware. RAID BIOS presents a "drive" to the OS, which needs to
>>>> be able to load its driver to talk to it.
>>>>
>>>> My personaly suggestion? Run Linux in a VM.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>
>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>> My-oh-my! And I thought this was something relatively simple -
>>>>> something
>>>>> I
>>>>> almost understood, such that I wouldn't have to bother you with
>>>>> the specifics - but here goes: Before x64, I was running Win2K. I
>>>>> installed three versions of the x64 public beta (including the
>>>>> trial), each on it's own small partition. When I bought the
>>>>> release, I zapped those, converted to RAID and am at the moment
>>>>> dual-booting from the RAID with Win2K and x64. What I really
>>>>> would have wanted to do, was to put Suse Linux on the remains of
>>>>> that RAID, and have it appear on the boot-menu. O.K. - so the RAID
>>>>> driver is OS specific. I should have realized
>>>>> that, and
>>>>> this explains why the Suse installer does not see the RAID - but
>>>>> would happily configure one, thereby destroying the current one.
>>>>> This, last part, I had already figured.
>>>>>
>>>>> But when I Boot the machine, the BIOS is collecting all the
>>>>> information about hardware resources, and this has to be before
>>>>> the RAID driver is loaded, the boot process then transfers to the
>>>>> first available MBR, (right?) and that brings up the question "is
>>>>> the Boot Record read before
>>>>> or after the RAID driver is loaded?".
>>>>>
>>>>> My original question assumed it does so, before, and that the MBR
>>>>> is not
>>>>> part of the RAID mechanism (if I am allowed to call it that?).
>>>>> This gave
>>>>> me the idea that I could install Suse on a spare IDE drive that is
>>>>> collecing dust in a drawer, and that I could direct the Suse
>>>>> installer to re-configure the MBR such that all three systems
>>>>> would appear on the Boot-Menu together, even though they were not
>>>>> all on the RAID. As I said, I would have no problem using a
>>>>> Boot-Floppy, but it
>>>>> would be much nicer to have it all together in one place. You
>>>>> must excuse me if this is completely 'bonkers', but is it not
>>>>> correct that - RAID or no RAID - the Boot information is still in
>>>>> the MBR, and that the MBR that is used, is the one on the first
>>>>> disk, and that it would not disturb the
>>>>> RAID to have something tamper with the MBR, providing it is done
>>>>> with the kind of excellence with which Linux habitually handles
>>>>> these matters? And of course, without taking anything you say
>>>>> about it as as a
>>>>> recommendation to 'tamper' with the MBR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Tony. . .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> If you have drivers loaded into the OS for that IDE drive, then
>>>>>> yes, it
>>>>>> will see it. (But keep in mind, load x64 AFTER x86 Windows.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only tricky part can come if somehow it decides that the RAID
>>>>>> drive
>>>>>> should be a higher priority than the IDE, in which case you have
>>>>>> to boot off the RAID. But I don't think that will happen.
>>>>>> (though I'm continually
>>>>>> surprised by the occasional odd behaviours of the boot process
>>>>>> in NT.) --
>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks, Charlie. I do say, that was thorough - I'll need to
>>>>>>> read this a couple of times, I believe. One quickie, though:
>>>>>>> Since I have decided to
>>>>>>> make the installation on a separate IDE drive, can that
>>>>>>> installation see
>>>>>>> the bootsector of that RAID, to have everything available from
>>>>>>> the same Boot-Selection, or will it be a lot smarter to have it
>>>>>>> boot off of a floppy? Or did you already answer that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony. . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>>>>> in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>> This question doesn't actually make sense, though I can see
>>>>>>>> how you got
>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.) no hd can be seen without a driver. some drivers are built
>>>>>>>> in to the OS, some require F6 to add.
>>>>>>>> 2.) the hardware raid on your mobo/addin card does the actual
>>>>>>>> RAID. It manages this at a level below that which the OS sees.
>>>>>>>> 3.) When the hardware raid is presented to the OS, it simply
>>>>>>>> appears as
>>>>>>>> yet another single hd to the OS. for which it needs a driver.
>>>>>>>> 4.) if you want to install another os on part of that "drive",
>>>>>>>> you need
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> separate partition on it, and in some cases that partition
>>>>>>>> needs to be designated as a primary partition. (UNIX needs to
>>>>>>>> be on a primary
>>>>>>>> partition and the Windows XP/NT/Server boot files need to be
>>>>>>>> on a primary
>>>>>>>> partition. In a multiple boot Windows scenario, some versions
>>>>>>>> of Windows can reside on extended partitions.)
>>>>>>>> 5.) The partitioning of the "drive" happens at an OS level,
>>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>> AFTER drivers are loaded, and after the hardware raid has done
>>>>>>>> it's thing. 6.) the OS's don't know a thing about what's
>>>>>>>> happening at the raid level.
>>>>>>>> They do NOT see 2 disks. They see a single "drive" presented
>>>>>>>> by the hardware raid.
>>>>>>>> 7.) It is entirely possible to have multiple "drives"
>>>>>>>> presented off of your RAID controller. For this, you need to
>>>>>>>> go into the RAID controller
>>>>>>>> BIOS and configure the arrays accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, a word of warning. RAID0 is not redundant, does not
>>>>>>>> protect you against disaster, and is, in fact, WORSE than a
>>>>>>>> straight drive in
>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>> INCREASES your exposure to catastrophic failure. The failure
>>>>>>>> of any single drive in the array will result in catastrophic
>>>>>>>> failure and data loss of the _entire array_. One power spike
>>>>>>>> that blows out one of those
>>>>>>>> cheap Maxtor drives and you are TOAST.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony Sperling wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have some left over space on my RAID0 (aprx. 74GB) out of
>>>>>>>>> curiosity,
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> want to install some 'other' OS in a new release - strange,
>>>>>>>>> though, it
>>>>>>>>> will not recognize what is currently on that RAID, but is
>>>>>>>>> seing two HD's
>>>>>>>>> of 114 GB and offers to create a RAID on there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, instead, I have decided to not use the RAID, put back in
>>>>>>>>> an old IDE drive and use a BOOT-Floppy, but I would very much
>>>>>>>>> like to know if I could
>>>>>>>>> make good (and safe) use of the MBR on the existing RAID. I
>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>> assume that the MBR is on the first disk on the RAID (BIOS
>>>>>>>>> Disk 0) since
>>>>>>>>> it is so little data that it would make no sense to have it
>>>>>>>>> striped,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> I also assume that the BIOS would need access to the MBR
>>>>>>>>> before any RAID
>>>>>>>>> is present. But I just do not know - any advice???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TIA, Tony. . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does RAID0 Really Increase Disk Performance? Silverstrand Front Page News 0 11-02-2006 02:09 AM
RAID0 help, GA-965P-DS4, 3 x SATA drives Dave Doe NZ Computing 9 09-04-2006 08:03 AM
Advantages of RAID6 Over RAID0 and RAID5 Silverstrand Front Page News 0 04-17-2006 05:47 PM
Installing x64 on RAID0, nForce4 drivers ! =?Utf-8?B?SmVmZnJleQ==?= Windows 64bit 3 12-09-2005 12:09 PM
Impact of partitions on RAID0 Use.Netuser.01 Computer Support 6 07-29-2003 01:33 AM



Advertisments