• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Advice for new hard drive and raid setup

F

FireStormGS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
1,425
My current set up is a 40 gig western digital for windows/games and my other drive is a 160 gig western digital for storage. About 6 months ago I lost a 200 gig storage drive, it started clicking then stopped working all together.

I've now decided I want to protect my self against another huge drive failure and want to setup a raid 1 array mirror with the 160 gig. I have a neo2 platinum board which has software nv raid onboard.

My first question is, if I bought another 160gig WD drive, would it be possible to setup raid 0 with my existing drive without data loss?

The second question is, should I bother getting an sata drive? I'm fairly certain nv raid can handle one ide drive while the other is sata, but it is worth it?

Thanks
 
RAID 0 is worse for data protection than a single drive, you want RAID 1.

Also, unless you setup a software mirror, when you create the array it will destroy the existing data on your drive.

==>Lazn
 
Re: SATA vs IDE, there would be no performance benifit, but personally I prefer the smaller cables of SATA, they are easier to deal with in the case. I like SATA so much that I got the Plextor SATA DVD burner instead of a IDE one.

But it really is more about the size of the cable than anything else.

==>Lazn
 
Alright, I'm going to get another ide wd 160gig hard drive. How exactly do I setup raid 1 in windows xp without losing the existing data? I've been searching google but havnt been able to find a good guide for exactly what I need.

Thanks
 
FireStormGS said:
Alright, I'm going to get another ide wd 160gig hard drive. How exactly do I setup raid 1 in windows xp without losing the existing data? I've been searching google but havnt been able to find a good guide for exactly what I need.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Well XP can not officially do it, you would have to hack it, and talking about how to do this is not allowed in this forum as it breaks the EULA and is thus illegal.

Besides using the BIOS would be a better solution anyways. Do you have another computer you could temporarily store the data on utill after the array is built? Or get another drive, and setup the array on the two new ones and then move the data over after it is built.

One thing to remember RAID is not a replacement for backup. If the controller fails, or the mb fails etc. you will still lose data. I guess it depends on how important the data is to you.

==>Lazn
 
Win XP wont be able to raid 1 my hard drives even with the nv software raid drivers? Ill have to check in a sec, but i dont remember raid settings in the neo2 plat bios.

I was hoping I wouldnt have to, but yes I have another computer I can use as a temporary hard drive while the array is built. Was hoping to avoid that because it would mean burning alot of stuff as well do to the fact that the other computers hard drive is a lot smaller.

If the MB/controller dies does it take the raid array out with it? You couldnt just replace with the same components and keep going?
 
Windows XP is not licensed to create mirrored or RAID-5 volumes on dynamic disks. This limitation in no way affects its ability to work normally with BIOS level or full blown hardware RAID arrays, as they are completely transparent to the Operating System. If you create a RAID-1 array in your system's BIOS, Windows XP will work with it normally once you install the appropriate mass storage driver (with F6 disk, slipstreaming, or using Device Manager).

Although this is not 100% true, replacing a dead motherboard/RAID controller with one of the exact same make/model/BIOS revision will pick up an existing RAID array without a hitch.
 
Ok thanks, I've tracked down my motherboard manual and found the steps outlined there. I'll get this setup as soon as the drive comes in next week. It also had options for keeping the old data, all though i will prolly transfer some more important files to another computer first.

You guys are making it sounds like the raid controller is tied into the arrays it creates. Why wouldnt they design raid so that any controller could be used. Make it so a raid array is just a general raid array. Do different controllers create them differently? That seems stupid.
 
FireStormGS said:
You guys are making it sounds like the raid controller is tied into the arrays it creates. Why wouldnt they design raid so that any controller could be used. Make it so a raid array is just a general raid array. Do different controllers create them differently? That seems stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes different controllers make them differently. To make them the same, they would have to share information on how they make them, and companies don't do this in general.

Usually if you stick with the same exact parts, the array can be rebuilt, but not always (if it is a poorly made controller). With RAID 1 though, your drives should work independantly though. Really it is RAID 0 and RAID 5 that have more of a problem.

I do know with good SCSI raid you can usually migrate the array to a different controller of the same brand. EG: if you upgrade the RAID controller in your HP server the array will work on the better HP contoller.. But you can't put say an Adaptec branded one in there and expect it to find your array.

==>Lazn
 
Hmm, if the controller is another possible failure point, what if it was bypassed as well. What I mean is, when I get the second 160 gig, what if I installed it as just another stand alone drive, and scheduled a full copy to the second drive every few days or weekly. There would be "downtime" i suppose as the copying takes place, but the controller failure is removed for the equation. Does anyone do anything like this?

Another thing is, I've been doing more research on raid 1 and read that if the controller does fail, either drive in the raid 1 array should be able to be plugged into an ide port and read as a normal drive. Is this true? I think there was another little bit about checkdisking the directory tree though.
 
FireStormGS said:
Hmm, if the controller is another possible failure point, what if it was bypassed as well. What I mean is, when I get the second 160 gig, what if I installed it as just another stand alone drive, and scheduled a full copy to the second drive every few days or weekly. There would be "downtime" i suppose as the copying takes place, but the controller failure is removed for the equation. Does anyone do anything like this?

Another thing is, I've been doing more research on raid 1 and read that if the controller does fail, either drive in the raid 1 array should be able to be plugged into an ide port and read as a normal drive. Is this true? I think there was another little bit about checkdisking the directory tree though.
Click to expand...
Another huge advantage of such a scheduled backup is that it gives you an opportunity to recover from errant deletions, corruptions, viruses, or other file system level problems that would trash data on a RAID array that is syncronized instantaneously. If corruption or a virus gets a hold of a RAID array, you have to restore from removable media backup to clean up the mess.
 
FireStormGS said:
Hmm, if the controller is another possible failure point, what if it was bypassed as well. What I mean is, when I get the second 160 gig, what if I installed it as just another stand alone drive, and scheduled a full copy to the second drive every few days or weekly. There would be "downtime" i suppose as the copying takes place, but the controller failure is removed for the equation. Does anyone do anything like this?

Another thing is, I've been doing more research on raid 1 and read that if the controller does fail, either drive in the raid 1 array should be able to be plugged into an ide port and read as a normal drive. Is this true? I think there was another little bit about checkdisking the directory tree though.
Click to expand...

As Doug noted, RAID is not BACKUP. They are different things. What you probably want is BACKUP, not RAID. The best backup is off site, so consider a removeable drive that you can store elsewhere, and then plug it in once a day (or whatever your schedule) and backup your data, then take it with you. Don't count on either one being good, but this way you have two copies of the data.

==>Lazn
 
Thanks, you guys are offering some really good advice. You're right, what I'm looking for is more of a backup solution to all of my documents/programming/mp3s/schoolwork/oldemails. Stuff that isnt mission critical, but I would really rather not lose.

So now that I've rushed into something as usuall and bought a 160 gig already. What would be the best option to use that as a removeable drive. A usb enclosure seems like it would take a long time for back ups. So maybe a removeable ide drive bay? Or is usb 2.0 fast enough?

Any recomendations on a product that will work well for this purpose?

Thanks again.
 
FireStormGS said:
So now that I've rushed into something as usuall and bought a 160 gig already. What would be the best option to use that as a removeable drive. A usb enclosure seems like it would take a long time for back ups. So maybe a removeable ide drive bay? Or is usb 2.0 fast enough?
Click to expand...

Sustained writespeeds for a 7200rpm drive is ~60MB/sec. Usb2 runs at 480mbit/sec = 60MB/sec so you shouldn't see a major bottleneck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top