Tim Nikias wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> Tim Nikias wrote:
>>> Tom Austin wrote:
>>>> If the setup can take a simple copy, that would work and save a lot 
>>>> of time.
>>>>
>>>> But if the system cannot take a simple copy, it is an alternative.
>>>
>>> Aside of a few troubles with how the software tells what it's doing 
>>> (I mirrored the old drive onto the new one to find that it didn't 
>>> rebuild the Raid 1, so I had to copy all over again when I said to 
>>> rebuil), it worked flawlessly:
>>> 1. Exchange first faulty HD with bigger one
>>> 2. Mirror small drive onto big one
>>> 3. Exchange second faulty small HD with bigger one
>>> 4. Mirror from big to big
>>> 5. Use Windows to partition the new 230GB worth of space
>>>
>>> No troubles with the controller figuring that out. :-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>
>> Excellent!
>>
>> Just in case I need to look up a good RAID controller in the future, 
>> what are you using?
> 
> It's an ULI Raid Controller which is integrated into the motherboard, 
> which is an Asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe. It's a few years old, when I switched 
> from Single Core to Dual Core and exchanged the old PC which had a 
> harddrive crash, which taught me the hard way of "better back up". ;-)
> 
> At the time I was told that hardware Raid controller are better than 
> software based, because there's no load on the processing OS, I'm not 
> sure if that has changed, but so far, it didn't fail and kept my data safe.
> 

When possible, I go hardware as well - but the cost can be a determining 
factor.

I don't mind software RAID, but I've found they are a bit more touchy 
when it comes to OS working smoothly with them (windows and linux).

When I have a true RAID setup I like to see 1 HD, not 3 (each physical, 
then 1 that is the RAID set).


I'm glad that your upgrade went smoothly.  I've found that the waters 
are not usually so clear :-)


Thanks for the info about the RAID controller, I'll keep it in mind.



LAter... Tom

Post a reply to this message