Basic RAID question. . .

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Tony Sperling, Jan 30, 2008.

  1. 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. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 30, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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. . .
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 30, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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. . .
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 30, 2008
    #3
  4. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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. . .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 30, 2008
    #4
  5. Tony Sperling

    Carlos Guest

    "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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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. . .
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    > >

    >
    >
    >
     
    Carlos, Jan 30, 2008
    #5
  6. Tony Sperling

    Guest

    On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > 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" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> 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" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>> 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.
     
    , Jan 30, 2008
    #6
  7. 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


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    > <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > 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" <> wrote in
    >> > message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> >>news:...
    >> >>> 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.
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 30, 2008
    #7
  8. 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. . .


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    > <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > 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" <> wrote in
    >> > message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> >>news:...
    >> >>> 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.
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 30, 2008
    #8
  9. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > "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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > 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" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> 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. . .
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 30, 2008
    #9
  10. Tony Sperling

    Carlos Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    > > "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" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > 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" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> >> 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. . .
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    Carlos, Jan 30, 2008
    #10
  11. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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. . .
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    >> <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>> > 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" <> wrote in
    >>> > message
    >>> >news:...
    >>> >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>> >>news:...
    >>> >>> 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.
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 30, 2008
    #11
  12. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:D...
    >> > "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" <> wrote in
    >> >> message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > 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" <> wrote in message
    >> >> > news:...
    >> >> >> 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. . .
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 31, 2008
    #12
  13. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    >> <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>> > 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" <> wrote in
    >>> > message
    >>> >news:...
    >>> >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>> >>news:...
    >>> >>> 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.
    >>

    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 31, 2008
    #13
  14. Thanks, that is interesting. Could be a valuable option for a later 'to-be'
    dual-boot?


    Tony. . .


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    >>> <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>> > 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" <> wrote in
    >>>> > message
    >>>> >news:...
    >>>> >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>> >>news:...
    >>>> >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 31, 2008
    #14
  15. Tony Sperling

    Jane C Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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. . .
    >
     
    Jane C, Jan 31, 2008
    #15
  16. And then there's the M1 rifle.

    "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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. . .
    >>

    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 31, 2008
    #16
  17. Tony Sperling

    Guest

    On Jan 30, 3:35 pm, "Tony Sperling" <>
    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. . .
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    > > <> 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" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:...

    >
    > >> > 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" <> wrote in
    > >> > message
    > >> >news:...
    > >> >> 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" <> wrote in message
    > >> >>news:...
    > >> >>> 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.
     
    , Jan 31, 2008
    #17
  18. yes, my thoughts exactly.

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


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Thanks, that is interesting. Could be a valuable option for a later
    > 'to-be' dual-boot?
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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. . .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Jan 30, 6:44 am, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    >>>> <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > 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" <> wrote in
    >>>>> > message
    >>>>> >news:...
    >>>>> >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> >>news:...
    >>>>> >>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 31, 2008
    #18
  19. Tony Sperling

    Carlos Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:D...
    > >> > "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" <> wrote in
    > >> >> message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > 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" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> > news:...
    > >> >> >> 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. . .
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    Carlos, Jan 31, 2008
    #19
  20. Tony Sperling

    Carlos Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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, Jan 31, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    919
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    800
  3. SATA - Raid and Non Raid Question

    , Jan 10, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    807
  4. =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?=

    Does x64 require a SATA RAID Driver to install non-RAID SATA Drive

    =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?=, Jul 15, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,042
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jul 18, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    RAID 5 Down, RAID 6 To Go

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 23, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Feb 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page