Drive setup

Discussion in 'MCSA' started by annonymous, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. annonymous

    annonymous Guest

    I have a new server that I am setting up on the network.
    It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I originally
    wanted to setup one volume from a single hard drive using
    the RAID controller and install Windows on this volume.
    I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    remaining three drives for data/storage. My coworker
    that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives. Would or
    does this seem to be the best way to go? I told him that
    it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not loose
    data on the data volume in the event something happened
    to any of the system files. Maybe he is right this time.
     
    annonymous, Feb 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. annonymous

    Dan Guest

    Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will tell me if
    I am), it isn't possible to install or start Windows
    Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you installed
    Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then converted all
    four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to boot
    the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.

    Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using a
    separate drive. As you only have four, you'd need to
    create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of these
    and then use the remaining space to act as one part of
    the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit the
    space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in it to be
    of an equal size.

    If anyone can clarify this information for both myself
    and "annonymous", that would be helpful.

    >-----Original Message-----
    >I have a new server that I am setting up on the

    network.
    >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I originally
    >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard drive

    using
    >the RAID controller and install Windows on this volume.
    >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    >remaining three drives for data/storage. My coworker
    >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives. Would or
    >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told him

    that
    >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not loose
    >data on the data volume in the event something happened
    >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right this time.
    >.
    >
     
    Dan, Feb 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. annonymous

    Matt Guest

    Since its a hardware array windows will boot fine in a RAID5, it just sees
    the array as disk0. You may be thinking of the software RAID thats part of
    the OS. The most common way to set up a server is to have 2 drives mirrored
    as the boot drives for redundancy and the remainder set up in RAID5. Since
    he only has 4 drives in this case he should just use a RAID5 for all the
    disks, It doesn't hurt to have fault tolerance for the OS.

    "Dan" <> wrote in message
    news:eace01c3f18c$c3627170$...
    > Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will tell me if
    > I am), it isn't possible to install or start Windows
    > Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you installed
    > Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then converted all
    > four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to boot
    > the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.
    >
    > Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    > provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    > mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using a
    > separate drive. As you only have four, you'd need to
    > create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of these
    > and then use the remaining space to act as one part of
    > the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit the
    > space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    > drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in it to be
    > of an equal size.
    >
    > If anyone can clarify this information for both myself
    > and "annonymous", that would be helpful.
    >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >I have a new server that I am setting up on the

    > network.
    > >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I originally
    > >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard drive

    > using
    > >the RAID controller and install Windows on this volume.
    > >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    > >remaining three drives for data/storage. My coworker
    > >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    > >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives. Would or
    > >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told him

    > that
    > >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not loose
    > >data on the data volume in the event something happened
    > >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right this time.
    > >.
    > >
     
    Matt, Feb 12, 2004
    #3
  4. annonymous

    Guest Guest

    He didnt mention if he was going to use hardware or
    software raid.


    >-----Original Message-----
    >Since its a hardware array windows will boot fine in a

    RAID5, it just sees
    >the array as disk0. You may be thinking of the software

    RAID thats part of
    >the OS. The most common way to set up a server is to

    have 2 drives mirrored
    >as the boot drives for redundancy and the remainder set

    up in RAID5. Since
    >he only has 4 drives in this case he should just use a

    RAID5 for all the
    >disks, It doesn't hurt to have fault tolerance for the

    OS.
    >
    >"Dan" <> wrote in

    message
    >news:eace01c3f18c$c3627170$...
    >> Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will tell me

    if
    >> I am), it isn't possible to install or start Windows
    >> Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you installed
    >> Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then converted

    all
    >> four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to boot
    >> the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.
    >>
    >> Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    >> provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    >> mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using a
    >> separate drive. As you only have four, you'd need to
    >> create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of

    these
    >> and then use the remaining space to act as one part of
    >> the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit the
    >> space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    >> drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in it to

    be
    >> of an equal size.
    >>
    >> If anyone can clarify this information for both myself
    >> and "annonymous", that would be helpful.
    >>
    >> >-----Original Message-----
    >> >I have a new server that I am setting up on the

    >> network.
    >> >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I originally
    >> >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard drive

    >> using
    >> >the RAID controller and install Windows on this

    volume.
    >> >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    >> >remaining three drives for data/storage. My coworker
    >> >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    >> >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives. Would

    or
    >> >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told him

    >> that
    >> >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not loose
    >> >data on the data volume in the event something

    happened
    >> >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right this

    time.
    >> >.
    >> >

    >
    >
    >.
    >
     
    Guest, Feb 12, 2004
    #4
  5. annonymous

    Matt Guest

    He said he was using a RAID controller...thats hardware to me.

    <> wrote in message
    news:eb2d01c3f191$8c382eb0$...
    > He didnt mention if he was going to use hardware or
    > software raid.
    >
    >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >Since its a hardware array windows will boot fine in a

    > RAID5, it just sees
    > >the array as disk0. You may be thinking of the software

    > RAID thats part of
    > >the OS. The most common way to set up a server is to

    > have 2 drives mirrored
    > >as the boot drives for redundancy and the remainder set

    > up in RAID5. Since
    > >he only has 4 drives in this case he should just use a

    > RAID5 for all the
    > >disks, It doesn't hurt to have fault tolerance for the

    > OS.
    > >
    > >"Dan" <> wrote in

    > message
    > >news:eace01c3f18c$c3627170$...
    > >> Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will tell me

    > if
    > >> I am), it isn't possible to install or start Windows
    > >> Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you installed
    > >> Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then converted

    > all
    > >> four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to boot
    > >> the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.
    > >>
    > >> Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    > >> provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    > >> mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using a
    > >> separate drive. As you only have four, you'd need to
    > >> create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of

    > these
    > >> and then use the remaining space to act as one part of
    > >> the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit the
    > >> space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    > >> drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in it to

    > be
    > >> of an equal size.
    > >>
    > >> If anyone can clarify this information for both myself
    > >> and "annonymous", that would be helpful.
    > >>
    > >> >-----Original Message-----
    > >> >I have a new server that I am setting up on the
    > >> network.
    > >> >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I originally
    > >> >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard drive
    > >> using
    > >> >the RAID controller and install Windows on this

    > volume.
    > >> >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    > >> >remaining three drives for data/storage. My coworker
    > >> >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    > >> >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives. Would

    > or
    > >> >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told him
    > >> that
    > >> >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not loose
    > >> >data on the data volume in the event something

    > happened
    > >> >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right this

    > time.
    > >> >.
    > >> >

    > >
    > >
    > >.
    > >
     
    Matt, Feb 12, 2004
    #5
  6. annonymous

    ag Guest

    Yes, it is a hareware RAID created with the RAID
    controller. Thanks for all the help. After I posted the
    question I remembered that you couldn't or shouldn't
    install Windows on a dynamic disk which is what you would
    have to have in order to create a RAID volume. You
    were/are right in that Windows sees the hardware array as
    one large drive, less the space of one disk which I guess
    is for parity.

    That brings me to another question. Is it that you
    shouldn't or can't at all install Windows on a dynamic
    disk? Meaning, the OS has to be installed on a basic
    disk right?

    Thanks!


    >-----Original Message-----
    >He said he was using a RAID controller...thats hardware

    to me.
    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:eb2d01c3f191$8c382eb0$...
    >> He didnt mention if he was going to use hardware or
    >> software raid.
    >>
    >>
    >> >-----Original Message-----
    >> >Since its a hardware array windows will boot fine in a

    >> RAID5, it just sees
    >> >the array as disk0. You may be thinking of the

    software
    >> RAID thats part of
    >> >the OS. The most common way to set up a server is to

    >> have 2 drives mirrored
    >> >as the boot drives for redundancy and the remainder

    set
    >> up in RAID5. Since
    >> >he only has 4 drives in this case he should just use a

    >> RAID5 for all the
    >> >disks, It doesn't hurt to have fault tolerance for the

    >> OS.
    >> >
    >> >"Dan" <> wrote in

    >> message
    >> >news:eace01c3f18c$c3627170$...
    >> >> Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will tell

    me
    >> if
    >> >> I am), it isn't possible to install or start Windows
    >> >> Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you

    installed
    >> >> Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then

    converted
    >> all
    >> >> four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to

    boot
    >> >> the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.
    >> >>
    >> >> Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    >> >> provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    >> >> mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using a
    >> >> separate drive. As you only have four, you'd need

    to
    >> >> create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of

    >> these
    >> >> and then use the remaining space to act as one part

    of
    >> >> the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit

    the
    >> >> space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    >> >> drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in it

    to
    >> be
    >> >> of an equal size.
    >> >>
    >> >> If anyone can clarify this information for both

    myself
    >> >> and "annonymous", that would be helpful.
    >> >>
    >> >> >-----Original Message-----
    >> >> >I have a new server that I am setting up on the
    >> >> network.
    >> >> >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I

    originally
    >> >> >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard drive
    >> >> using
    >> >> >the RAID controller and install Windows on this

    >> volume.
    >> >> >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    >> >> >remaining three drives for data/storage. My

    coworker
    >> >> >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    >> >> >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives.

    Would
    >> or
    >> >> >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told

    him
    >> >> that
    >> >> >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not

    loose
    >> >> >data on the data volume in the event something

    >> happened
    >> >> >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right this

    >> time.
    >> >> >.
    >> >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >.
    >> >

    >
    >
    >.
    >
     
    ag, Feb 12, 2004
    #6
  7. annonymous

    Guest Guest

    You can still software RAID with a raid controller :)

    >-----Original Message-----
    >He said he was using a RAID controller...thats hardware

    to me.
    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:eb2d01c3f191$8c382eb0$...
    >> He didnt mention if he was going to use hardware or
    >> software raid.
    >>
    >>
    >> >-----Original Message-----
    >> >Since its a hardware array windows will boot fine in a

    >> RAID5, it just sees
    >> >the array as disk0. You may be thinking of the

    software
    >> RAID thats part of
    >> >the OS. The most common way to set up a server is to

    >> have 2 drives mirrored
    >> >as the boot drives for redundancy and the remainder

    set
    >> up in RAID5. Since
    >> >he only has 4 drives in this case he should just use a

    >> RAID5 for all the
    >> >disks, It doesn't hurt to have fault tolerance for the

    >> OS.
    >> >
    >> >"Dan" <> wrote in

    >> message
    >> >news:eace01c3f18c$c3627170$...
    >> >> Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will tell

    me
    >> if
    >> >> I am), it isn't possible to install or start Windows
    >> >> Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you

    installed
    >> >> Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then

    converted
    >> all
    >> >> four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to

    boot
    >> >> the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.
    >> >>
    >> >> Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    >> >> provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    >> >> mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using a
    >> >> separate drive. As you only have four, you'd need

    to
    >> >> create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of

    >> these
    >> >> and then use the remaining space to act as one part

    of
    >> >> the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit

    the
    >> >> space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    >> >> drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in it

    to
    >> be
    >> >> of an equal size.
    >> >>
    >> >> If anyone can clarify this information for both

    myself
    >> >> and "annonymous", that would be helpful.
    >> >>
    >> >> >-----Original Message-----
    >> >> >I have a new server that I am setting up on the
    >> >> network.
    >> >> >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I

    originally
    >> >> >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard drive
    >> >> using
    >> >> >the RAID controller and install Windows on this

    >> volume.
    >> >> >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    >> >> >remaining three drives for data/storage. My

    coworker
    >> >> >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    >> >> >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives.

    Would
    >> or
    >> >> >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told

    him
    >> >> that
    >> >> >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not

    loose
    >> >> >data on the data volume in the event something

    >> happened
    >> >> >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right this

    >> time.
    >> >> >.
    >> >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >.
    >> >

    >
    >
    >.
    >
     
    Guest, Feb 12, 2004
    #7
  8. annonymous

    Guest Guest

    By default i know windows 2003 makes basic disks on
    install (you cant make a dynamic on install). But you can
    convert the basic disk holding the boot/system to a
    volume (dynamic) after the install. Dynamic disks just
    cant be read by anything other then xp/2000/2003

    >-----Original Message-----
    >Yes, it is a hareware RAID created with the RAID
    >controller. Thanks for all the help. After I posted

    the
    >question I remembered that you couldn't or shouldn't
    >install Windows on a dynamic disk which is what you

    would
    >have to have in order to create a RAID volume. You
    >were/are right in that Windows sees the hardware array

    as
    >one large drive, less the space of one disk which I

    guess
    >is for parity.
    >
    >That brings me to another question. Is it that you
    >shouldn't or can't at all install Windows on a dynamic
    >disk? Meaning, the OS has to be installed on a basic
    >disk right?
    >
    >Thanks!
    >
    >
    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>He said he was using a RAID controller...thats hardware

    >to me.
    >>
    >><> wrote in message
    >>news:eb2d01c3f191$8c382eb0$...
    >>> He didnt mention if he was going to use hardware or
    >>> software raid.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> >-----Original Message-----
    >>> >Since its a hardware array windows will boot fine in

    a
    >>> RAID5, it just sees
    >>> >the array as disk0. You may be thinking of the

    >software
    >>> RAID thats part of
    >>> >the OS. The most common way to set up a server is to
    >>> have 2 drives mirrored
    >>> >as the boot drives for redundancy and the remainder

    >set
    >>> up in RAID5. Since
    >>> >he only has 4 drives in this case he should just use

    a
    >>> RAID5 for all the
    >>> >disks, It doesn't hurt to have fault tolerance for

    the
    >>> OS.
    >>> >
    >>> >"Dan" <> wrote in
    >>> message
    >>> >news:eace01c3f18c$c3627170$...
    >>> >> Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will

    tell
    >me
    >>> if
    >>> >> I am), it isn't possible to install or start

    Windows
    >>> >> Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you

    >installed
    >>> >> Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then

    >converted
    >>> all
    >>> >> four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to

    >boot
    >>> >> the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    >>> >> provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    >>> >> mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using

    a
    >>> >> separate drive. As you only have four, you'd

    need
    >to
    >>> >> create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of
    >>> these
    >>> >> and then use the remaining space to act as one

    part
    >of
    >>> >> the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit

    >the
    >>> >> space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    >>> >> drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in

    it
    >to
    >>> be
    >>> >> of an equal size.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> If anyone can clarify this information for both

    >myself
    >>> >> and "annonymous", that would be helpful.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> >-----Original Message-----
    >>> >> >I have a new server that I am setting up on the
    >>> >> network.
    >>> >> >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I

    >originally
    >>> >> >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard

    drive
    >>> >> using
    >>> >> >the RAID controller and install Windows on this
    >>> volume.
    >>> >> >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    >>> >> >remaining three drives for data/storage. My

    >coworker
    >>> >> >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    >>> >> >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives.

    >Would
    >>> or
    >>> >> >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told

    >him
    >>> >> that
    >>> >> >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not

    >loose
    >>> >> >data on the data volume in the event something
    >>> happened
    >>> >> >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right

    this
    >>> time.
    >>> >> >.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >.
    >>> >

    >>
    >>
    >>.
    >>

    >.
    >
     
    Guest, Feb 12, 2004
    #8
  9. annonymous

    Marko Guest

    Right off the bat, I am going to be controversial and suggest
    that there has been some very bad advice given here

    Hardware RAID is much better than software RAID. Always.
    I will cite speed, CPU utilisation and efficiency as just some
    obvious reasons

    Even if you convert a Basic disk to a Dynamic disk, you cannot
    make the changes yo want to if the boot disk sdtarted live as
    a Basic disk

    Given the choice, you would probably always create RAID5
    arrays using every disk, reducing the amount of wasted disk
    space through parity. Not only is it a good idea to have RAID
    for your system partition, but it will be much quicker, striping
    data across four fast disks. Create a partition for the paging
    file to further improve performance (no fragmentation)

    And yes, you can still software RAID even if you have a perfectly
    good hardware RAID controller

    And yes, you can still punch out the letters you want to type
    with an on-screen keyboard, even though you have a perfectly
    good keyboard sitting on the desk.
     
    Marko, Feb 12, 2004
    #9
  10. annonymous

    Herb Martin Guest

    "Marko" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Right off the bat, I am going to be controversial and suggest
    > that there has been some very bad advice given here.


    Perhaps...

    > Hardware RAID is much better than software RAID. Always.
    > I will cite speed, CPU utilisation and efficiency as just some
    > obvious reasons.


    The problem with such categorical statements is that no definition of
    "best" is given. Read the series on Inside SQL Server from MS Press,
    you will develop a much more complete idea of WHEN hardware
    RAID is preferable to software RAID and when it is not.

    You will have to go beyond the naive understanding that most people
    have of this topic.

    Hardware RAID is likely faster and isn't always a viable choice sometimes
    when software RAID will do the job (and sometimes cheaper.)

    Depends on the requirement and the technical constraints.

    --
    Herb Martin
     
    Herb Martin, Feb 13, 2004
    #10
  11. annonymous

    Dan Guest

    My apologies on mis-reading the question. With regards
    to Windows on Dynamic disks, you can't install windows on
    a "native" dynamic disk (that is one that was never a
    basic disk that's been upgraded).
    You can upgrade the disk from basic to dynamic after the
    OS has been installed, this doesn't cause any problems,
    but although Install can "see" dynamic disks, it won't
    let you select them as a recognizable partition and will
    ask you to select another one.


    >-----Original Message-----
    >Yes, it is a hareware RAID created with the RAID
    >controller. Thanks for all the help. After I posted

    the
    >question I remembered that you couldn't or shouldn't
    >install Windows on a dynamic disk which is what you

    would
    >have to have in order to create a RAID volume. You
    >were/are right in that Windows sees the hardware array

    as
    >one large drive, less the space of one disk which I

    guess
    >is for parity.
    >
    >That brings me to another question. Is it that you
    >shouldn't or can't at all install Windows on a dynamic
    >disk? Meaning, the OS has to be installed on a basic
    >disk right?
    >
    >Thanks!
    >
    >
    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>He said he was using a RAID controller...thats hardware

    >to me.
    >>
    >><> wrote in message
    >>news:eb2d01c3f191$8c382eb0$...
    >>> He didnt mention if he was going to use hardware or
    >>> software raid.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> >-----Original Message-----
    >>> >Since its a hardware array windows will boot fine in

    a
    >>> RAID5, it just sees
    >>> >the array as disk0. You may be thinking of the

    >software
    >>> RAID thats part of
    >>> >the OS. The most common way to set up a server is to
    >>> have 2 drives mirrored
    >>> >as the boot drives for redundancy and the remainder

    >set
    >>> up in RAID5. Since
    >>> >he only has 4 drives in this case he should just use

    a
    >>> RAID5 for all the
    >>> >disks, It doesn't hurt to have fault tolerance for

    the
    >>> OS.
    >>> >
    >>> >"Dan" <> wrote in
    >>> message
    >>> >news:eace01c3f18c$c3627170$...
    >>> >> Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will

    tell
    >me
    >>> if
    >>> >> I am), it isn't possible to install or start

    Windows
    >>> >> Server on a RAID-5 volume. Therefore, if you

    >installed
    >>> >> Windows on one of your SCSI drives and then

    >converted
    >>> all
    >>> >> four to a RAID-5 volume, you'd lose the ability to

    >boot
    >>> >> the OS, thus losing access to the volume anyway.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Unless you're using hardware RAID, the only way to
    >>> >> provide fault-tolerance to the system is to use a
    >>> >> mirrored drive set-up. Obviously this means using

    a
    >>> >> separate drive. As you only have four, you'd

    need
    >to
    >>> >> create a partition/volume for the mirror on one of
    >>> these
    >>> >> and then use the remaining space to act as one

    part
    >of
    >>> >> the RAID volume. This would, unfortunately, limit

    >the
    >>> >> space available to the RAID volume on the other two
    >>> >> drives as RAID requires all volumes contained in

    it
    >to
    >>> be
    >>> >> of an equal size.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> If anyone can clarify this information for both

    >myself
    >>> >> and "annonymous", that would be helpful.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> >-----Original Message-----
    >>> >> >I have a new server that I am setting up on the
    >>> >> network.
    >>> >> >It has 4 removable SCSI drives in it and I

    >originally
    >>> >> >wanted to setup one volume from a single hard

    drive
    >>> >> using
    >>> >> >the RAID controller and install Windows on this
    >>> volume.
    >>> >> >I then wanted to create a RAID5 volume out of the
    >>> >> >remaining three drives for data/storage. My

    >coworker
    >>> >> >that always thinks he has the best idea insists on
    >>> >> >creating one RAID5 volume out of the 4 drives.

    >Would
    >>> or
    >>> >> >does this seem to be the best way to go? I told

    >him
    >>> >> that
    >>> >> >it would be easiet to rebuild the system and not

    >loose
    >>> >> >data on the data volume in the event something
    >>> happened
    >>> >> >to any of the system files. Maybe he is right

    this
    >>> time.
     
    Dan, Feb 13, 2004
    #11
  12. annonymous

    Guest Guest

    >Right off the bat, I am going to be controversial and
    suggest
    >that there has been some very bad advice given here.


    You mean opinions. Bad Advice in my "opinion" is advice
    that doesnt work. All opinions given have accuracy, re-
    read the posts.

    >Hardware RAID is much better than software RAID.

    Always.
    >I will cite speed, CPU utilisation and efficiency as

    just some
    >obvious reasons.


    Was this questioned?

    >Given the choice, you would probably always create RAID5
    >arrays using every disk


    <snip>
    This completely depends on your situation. Whats going on
    the raid5? how much access to it? is it for sharing files
    or is it holding a 60gig exchange store. If it wasnt for
    the fact you said "probably" i would argue this much much
    more .


    >Not only is it a good idea to have RAID
    >for your system partition, but it will be much quicker,

    striping
    >data across four fast disks.


    and not only is it good to have your boot/system on a
    seperate duplexed mirror and the data being served on its
    own raid..youll see much better performance this way. How
    to you get the idea stripping 4 discs is faster and any
    different then striping 3 discs?

    I also offer the solution of obtaining another drive to
    duplex a mirror (is this an onboard RAID controller like
    in a HP DL380 or something?) If so each channel is its
    own controller. Then create the array. I just rebuilt a
    corporate exchange server from a straight 5 disc raid5 to
    a duplexed mirror for boot/system and 3 drive raid5 and
    the performance is crushing the previous one.
     
    Guest, Feb 13, 2004
    #12
  13. annonymous

    Marko Guest

    All opinions given have accuracy, re-read the posts

    OK, I did. Take this gem

    "You can still software RAID with a raid controller :)

    Yes, but why would you want to? Honestly, I can't think
    of a single reason I would ever do it, so can't see wh
    anybody else would

    >Hardware RAID is much better than software RAID.

    Always.
    >I will cite speed, CPU utilisation and efficiency as

    just some
    >obvious reasons


    Was this questioned

    Yes it was. Refer to gem statement. To me, that statemen
    leads you to believe that you would consider configuring THI
    machine with software RAID, foresaking the hardware controller

    >Given the choice, you would probably always create RAID5
    >arrays using every dis


    <snip
    This completely depends on your situation.

    I agree, but we are thinking of two different things. I a
    referring only to this machine and this scenario


    How do you get the idea stripping 4 discs is faster and any
    different then striping 3 discs

    Um...massive experience? The more disks I add to a RAI
    using hardware RAID and hot swap drives, the better the
    performance. Without exception. I use UltraWide SCS
    160Mb/sec as a minimum. Maybe the RAID controller
    on some of the cheaper boards for IDE RAID is different


    I also offer the solution of obtaining another drive to
    duplex a mirror (is this an onboard RAID controller like
    in a HP DL380 or something?) If so each channel is its
    own controller. Then create the array. I just rebuilt a
    corporate exchange server from a straight 5 disc raid5 to
    a duplexed mirror for boot/system and 3 drive raid5 and
    the performance is crushing the previous one

    If I read this right, your experience is with onboard IDE RAI
    controllers, and not separate SCSI controllers? The abilit
    of IDE to handle data on a single cable is not the same as
    the ability of SCSI to handle data on the same cable, given
    comparable drive speeds. So yes, separating drives t
    discrete IDE channels would massively improve performance

    In any case, I don't think I disagree with what you have said.
    just think we are focusing on different hardware choices
     
    Marko, Feb 13, 2004
    #13
  14. annonymous

    Marko Guest

    ----- Herb Martin wrote: ----

    > Hardware RAID is much better than software RAID. Always



    The problem with such categorical statements is that no definition o
    "best" is given. Read the series on Inside SQL Server from MS Press
    you will develop a much more complete idea of WHEN hardwar
    RAID is preferable to software RAID and when it is not

    I haven't read this and can only refer back to personal experience. Ther
    are not many instances I would choose software RAID, if there was a
    hardware RAID controller sitting in the box

    You will have to go beyond the naive understanding that most peopl
    have of this topic

    And this is why I am prepared to accept there are times I may conside
    software RAID. I can't see yet when, but I will concede it may happen

    Hardware RAID is likely faster and isn't always a viable choice sometime
    when software RAID will do the job (and sometimes cheaper.

    Depends on the requirement and the technical constraints

    I buy very good RAID controllers off EBAY for about US$25-50. If
    client has SCSI hard disks, I will normally suggest RAID0 as a minimum
    With IDE RAID, I generally suggest running the drives on separat
    controllers for speed, RAID0 or RAID1 most of the time. If someon
    wants RAID5, I think I have always gone SCSI, 3 but usually 4 or
    more disks

    --
    Herb Marti

    I wrote an explanation to you, Herb, about the Log Off Users problem
    I have noticed a lot of posts are not coming through, so will check agai
    tomorrow before reposting.

    It's after 1am so I am off to bed. C Ya
     
    Marko, Feb 13, 2004
    #14
  15. annonymous

    Guest Guest


    >Yes it was. Refer to gem statement. To me, that

    statement
    >leads you to believe that you would consider configuring

    THIS
    >machine with software RAID, foresaking the hardware

    controller.

    Not consider, but you have to keep in mind (and this is
    not an attack on ANYONE personal) but not all IT admins
    are smart. Think about it... is it easier to
    mirror/duplex via hardware or a few simple clicks of a
    gui? The original statement said it had hardware raid,
    but his questions related to software configuration.


    >
    > How do you get the idea stripping 4 discs is faster

    and any
    > different then striping 3 discs?
    >
    >Um...massive experience? The more disks I add to a RAID
    >using hardware RAID and hot swap drives, the better the
    >performance. Without exception. I use UltraWide SCSI
    >160Mb/sec as a minimum. Maybe the RAID controllers
    >on some of the cheaper boards for IDE RAID is different?
    >

    An array is an array. It depends on what your doing with
    it.. a 4 drive or 3 drive array is no different if used
    for the same cause....plus have the system/boot on a 4
    drive array oposed to a mirrored volume and raid5 for the
    other will be slower


    >If I read this right, your experience is with onboard

    IDE RAID
    >controllers, and not separate SCSI controllers? The

    ability
    >of IDE to handle data on a single cable is not the same

    as

    <snip>

    who said onboard IDE? have you ever played with a server
    like a DL380? Each channel is a seperate SCSI controller
    in itself. Now that I think of it, almost every
    commercial power server comes with this config , even
    poweredge.

    the conclusion... his orginal question has no best answer
    because he gave no details on what the server is or how
    its configured and what its to be used for. If its going
    to be a print server use one drive in a simple volume and
    ebay the rest as far as I am concerned. If he wants a
    valid answer with fact, he needs to present the "Problem"
    the "Goal" and the outcome is the "Solution". ...(now i
    may be going off topic here but)...at my Org. when we
    build servers they are custom tailored to what is the
    best solution for what its being used for. If the server
    has 4 drives and an array controller we dont just jump on
    raid5 if thats not the best solution. (yea I am off topic)
     
    Guest, Feb 13, 2004
    #15
  16. annonymous

    Marko Guest

    >If I read this right, your experience is with onboard
    IDE RAID

    <snip>

    who said onboard IDE? have you ever played with a server
    like a DL380?

    Nope. And I probably should have google searched to see
    what one was before assuming you were referring to
    discrete IDE and not SCSI channels.


    Your points are well taken.

    I'm not even sure we should be seen to be arguing? I think
    you and I are going to concur on most things most of the times.
     
    Marko, Feb 14, 2004
    #16
    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. =?Utf-8?B?SXJpc2hpcw==?=

    Network setup disk, no floppy drive

    =?Utf-8?B?SXJpc2hpcw==?=, Sep 14, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,795
    Jack \(MVP\)
    Sep 14, 2005
  2. bigtom

    larget sata drive setup

    bigtom, Jul 7, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    480
  3. Peter

    trying to open cdrom drive asks for setup.exe

    Peter, Oct 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    520
  4. =?Utf-8?B?UmFkYXIxNjU=?=

    Windows XP Setup Restarts the Setup Program

    =?Utf-8?B?UmFkYXIxNjU=?=, Dec 12, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,069
    Colin Barnhorst
    Dec 14, 2005
  5. hi2u
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,012
    philo
    Jul 30, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page