Text 46769, 156 rader
Skriven 2008-06-20 06:59:27 av Gerald Miller (1:342/512)
  Kommentar till text 46698 av Jeff Guerdat (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: MAX HDD size for Win2K?
===============================
Hello Jeff,

    On Tuesday June 17 2008 at 08:54,
    Jeff Guerdat [1:123/789] wrote to Gerald Miller,
    about: MAX HDD size for Win2K?

 JG> The best thing to do would be to slipstream the latest service pack
 JG> with the original W2K install CD.  That will automatically give you
 JG> the latest atapi.sys, preventing other issues.

I had to go use the grandson's computer and go to Wikipedia to look up
slipstream...  I found:

  http://www.nliteos.com/index.html

    nLite needs .NET Framework 2.0 or newer to be installed, you can get
    the links on the Download page or search at Microsoft.com.

  http://hfslip.org/

    HFSLIP is an open source utility designed to update a Windows 2000, XP
    or 2003 installation source with the latest hotfixes.  The binaries
    (individual files) of fully supported hotfixes are slipstreamed
    directly.

  http://www.litepc.com/

    XPlite and 2000lite are powerful configuration utilities for Windows
    creating a modular Windows operating system where YOU are in control.
    XPlite gives you more than 160 ways to reduce the size, improve the
    security, and customize YOUR Windows XP or 2000 installation to suit
    YOU.

US$39.95 for one license.  Two to five licenses at US$35.00 each. UNCLEAR
if one license will slipstream one Windows 2000 Pro and two Windows XP Pro
installations because they "appear" to be two distinct programs...

At this point, I think that HFSLIP is possibly my best choice, but I am
open to suggestions from more knowledgeable persons.

 JG> Using a SATA drive may introduce other issues, such as the lack of a
 JG> SATA driver for W2K - check Intel's web site for W2K drivers for your
 JG> motherboard.  Since these are newer boards, there may be no W2K
 JG> drivers even available so you could end up with either compatibility
 JG> mode(s) (best case) or unknown/unusable devices (worst case).  For
 JG> compatibility mode, you may need to set things up in the BIOS.
 JG> However, if the chipset doesn't have an INF for W2K, all bets are off.

You are correct about W2K Setup not detecting the SATA drives, but it did
detect the 320GB PATA drive...  I went to the Intel web site to search for
W2K SATA drivers - no luck, so I sent a brief note via their online email
help request.  Now I wait.

I also went to the Microsoft web site and did a search of their Knowledge
Base looking for SATA drivers for W2K installation.  Rather pressed for
time with that search because the grandson wanted his computer back (kids
have no respect for old folks <grin>).

In the event that I can't get SATA drivers for W2K, I guess I can put a
couple of Promise Ultra133 Tx2 controller cards on the motherboard, use
nothing but PATA drives in that particular box and use the SATA drives in
one of the Windows XP boxes.  These tower cases will pack eleven HDDs...

 GM>> missing data onto the replacement drive.)  AND, no, I'm not
 GM>> planning to use this very large drive as my Boot drive.

 JG> Actually, using the RAID as the boot device helps get around the
 JG> BIOS/atapi.sys limitations, a la SCSI.  Since the driver is needed to
 JG> boot in the first place, there's no limitation - the BIOS emulation
 JG> will get you to the device driver in the very early stage of boot and
 JG> then the driver takes over from there.

Sounds very enticing, but using four Seagate 750GB drives in a RAID 10
(Intel refers to it as RAID 0+1) format, produces a drive of 1,397.3GB (so
you are entirely correct with "two mirrored sets of two drives each (RAID
1)" because 698.7 X 2 = 1,397.3 and it's being mirrored on the second set
of drives) and I don't think I like the idea of putting my software AND my
data on one big "honking" drive.  Besides, how would I back it up and onto
what?

 JG> As for RAID 10, that's the same thing as RAID 1 plus RAID 0.  From
 JG> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks:

 JG> RAID 1+0: mirrored sets in a striped set (minimum four disks; even
 JG> number of disks) provides fault tolerance and improved performance but
 JG> increases complexity. The key difference from RAID 0+1 is that RAID
 JG> 1+0 creates a striped set from a series of mirrored drives. In a
 JG> failed disk situation RAID 1+0 performs better because all the
 JG> remaining disks continue to be used. The array can sustain multiple
 JG> drive losses so long as no mirror loses both its drives.

So, RAID 0+1 and RAID 1+0 are two very different formats?  I also went to
your "pointed" Wikipedia site to read up on Redundant Array of Independent
Disks.  I had no idea there were so many RAID formats - I was only aware of
the three that are supported on the Intel DG965WHMKR motherboard as that's
what I've been exposed to.

 JG> So, no, the effective drive is not 3 drives with parity (or, as you
 JG> say, "the fourth drive for holding an image file").  You're creating
 JG> two mirrored sets of two drives each (RAID 1) so your capacity for
 JG> each set is only one drive (since the other in the RAID 1 set is a
 JG> mirror) x 2 (the stripe created by the RAID 0).  Using 100GB drives as
 JG> an example, your 4 drives would be split into two RAID 1 sets, each
 JG> with 100GB capacity, and then striped with the RAID 0 for a total
 JG> capacity of 200GB.  The capacity is the same as using two 100GB drives
 JG> in RAID 0 only but you have fault tolerance that RAID 0 doesn't

Thank you for the clarification.  This RAID terminology is so complicated.
It did work flawlessly on the one Windows XP Pro machine until I grunged
the network settings and couldn't recover / restore the network stuff.

 JG> supply.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels:

 JG> RAID 10 Capacity: (Size of Smallest Drive) * (Number of Drives) / 2

 JG> And:

 JG> All but one drive from each RAID 1 set could fail without damaging the
 JG> data. However, if the failed drive is not replaced, the single working
 JG> hard drive in the set then becomes a single point of failure for the
 JG> entire array. If that single hard drive then fails, all data stored in
 JG> the entire array is lost. As is the case with RAID 0+1, if a failed
 JG> drive is not replaced in a RAID 10 configuration then a single
 JG> uncorrectable media error occurring on the mirrored hard drive would
 JG> result in data loss. Some RAID 10 vendors address this problem by
 JG> supporting a "hot spare" drive, which automatically replaces and
 JG> rebuilds a failed drive in the array.

 JG> Given these increasing risks with RAID 10, many business and mission
 JG> critical enterprise environments are beginning to evaluate more fault
 JG> tolerant RAID setups that add underlying disk parity.

 JG> RAID 5, if available, may be a better solution since you gain capacity
 JG> while maintaining fault tolerance by using the 4th drive effectively
 JG> for parity information.  However, that depends on the RAID
 JG> controller's capability to supply RAID 5 as well as possible
 JG> performance issues in creating the parity information.  RAID 5 also
 JG> only provides for a single drive failure, period, while the RAID 10
 JG> scenario provides for limited ability to sustain multiple failures.

Using the RAID 5 option yields a 2,047.1GB drive, so I gained 649.8GB!
Again, it is a big temptation to go for the RAID 5 option, but I like the
safety factor of RAID 0+1.

 JG> Decisions, decisions.  It's only money...  ;)

Yeah, I'm spending the grandkids inheritance <vBg>

On a side note, I notice that the BIOS can set the drives to IDE but, since
these are SATA drives, I don't think they are detected as IDE drives.  Your
opinion please.

           Cheers ... Gerald

--- GoldED+/DPMI32 v1.1.5-b20060121 [msg of June 20, 2008]
 * Origin: And so it begins. (1:342/512)