 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
--
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
thanks,
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Regards,
Tim
--
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> 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).
One advantage of a software RAID is that your OS will tell you when it
breaks. I never figured out, for example, how to get the Dell hardware
raid to actually tell me (under Linux) when one of the drives had
failed. Hence, it wasn't a whole lot of use, and I opened it up and used
the Linux software RAID instead.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> 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).
>
> One advantage of a software RAID is that your OS will tell you when it
> breaks. I never figured out, for example, how to get the Dell hardware
> raid to actually tell me (under Linux) when one of the drives had
> failed. Hence, it wasn't a whole lot of use, and I opened it up and used
> the Linux software RAID instead.
>
Mine tells me during boot-up. Usually it just flashes the RAID Stats for
one or two seconds (how many HDs were detected and in which kind of
RAID), leaving me little time to hit Ctrl+A to enter the setup, but when
a harddrive is faulty, or it finds the RAID to be compromised (happened
once during a system crash, data didn't arrive at both HDs), it'll wait
longer, something between 5 and 10 seconds, enough to realize it's not
functional.
Since it didn't occur in any other manner to me (HD didn't switch back
on during boot, or the system crash), I wouldn't know if it could tell
me something of that sort WHILE the system is running.
Regards,
Tim
--
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> Since it didn't occur in any other manner to me (HD didn't switch back
> on during boot, or the system crash), I wouldn't know if it could tell
> me something of that sort WHILE the system is running.
Are they hot-swap drives? Pull one out and see. :-)
In any case, most of the machines I had RAID on were in another city, so
even if I rebooted them regularly, I'd not see anymessages. I need a
page, not a screen message.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> 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).
>
> One advantage of a software RAID is that your OS will tell you when it
> breaks. I never figured out, for example, how to get the Dell hardware
> raid to actually tell me (under Linux) when one of the drives had
> failed. Hence, it wasn't a whole lot of use, and I opened it up and used
> the Linux software RAID instead.
>
That is a problem - that each RAID system needs it's own unique drivers
- windows or linux.
And of course - when you have the OS create/manage RAID you will have
access to information without special drivers.
I like hardware RAID because of the transparency it can offer - it can
appear as just 1 HD with no special OS functionality.
But it is because of this transparency that you need drivers to view the
status of the array.
I guess it depends on what one if after and needs.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> I like hardware RAID because of the transparency it can offer - it can
> appear as just 1 HD with no special OS functionality.
Well, on Linux, a RAID puts multiple block devices representing disks
together and the resulting redundant array is shown as another block
device. Which may be mounted if it has a file system :)
Among other things, you can easily make a RAID of RAIDs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Which may be mounted if it has a file system :)
One of the benefits is that it can work with any file system. One of the
drawbacks is it doesn't know about unused space. Put a terabyte RAID1
together and prepare to spend several hours waiting for the almost-empty
disks to rebuild.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
