Text 46775, 96 rader
Skriven 2008-06-20 11:55:38 av Jeff Guerdat (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Gerald Miller
Ärende: Re: MAX HDD size for Win2K?
===================================
Gerald Miller wrote:

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

Check out Autostreamer, which is free:

http://www.ubcd4win.com/slipstream.htm

> 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.

As you note later in this message the BIOS has an "IDE" setting.  That, 
if I'm guessing correctly, will make the SATA drives appear to the 
system as if they were PATA drives so no driver would be needed.  It's 
certainly worth a try.

>  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?

Not sure what your hesitation is to put data and OS on the same drive 
but that's a personal decision.  However, it's also wise to protect the 
OS drive the same way as data to eliminate downtime and data loss. 
Don't forget that you can still partition that large array into, say, a 
50GB slice for the OS and the rest or data.

As for backing it up, it's not the size of the partition/drive that's 
the issue, it's the size of the data to be backed up.  Doesn't matter 
whether it's a single 100GB drive or a massive 4TB array - you still are 
only backing up what you want, where you want.

> 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.

Yeah, when nesting RAID levels, there will always be one below the 
other.  That can start getting messy trying to understand what goes 
where.  In this case, it's a matter of whether the stripe is being 
mirrored or mirrors being striped.  It maybe too fine a point since I 
think they essentially do the same thing but it's worth reading further 
to make sure something isn't being missed.  Personally, unless there's 
an overriding need for some feature, I'd rather simplify by using RAID 
5, which is widely supported (but not necessarily by your chipset). 
RAID 6 would be nicer still (can survive 2 drives dying) but can quickly 
get pricey (Google "raid 6 controller").  They seem to start around $500 
- nice if you're a business with critical needs but not so nice for us 
peons.

> 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.

RAID 5 offers a single drive failure capability and is what many 
companies choose.  I have a 3ware RAID 5 controller that has survived a 
drive failure just fine (and an automatic rebuild when I stuck a 
replacement drive in).  Your setup will survive multiple drive failures 
_if_ they occur in the right places.  Me, I'd go with the symplicity but 
it's your money and data.

> 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.

That should just the BIOS and chipset twiddling things.  This is the 
setting I'd try (there may be other similar but different settings to 
try, also).  By the same token, if they're attached to the RAID chipset, 
set up the RAID first (BIOS setup) and then just load the driver during 
the OS install (either by installing the OS to the RAID or to a PATA 
drive).  The RAID controller masks the drive architecture - the OS just 
sees one big drive.  It's only if you're using the drives individually 
that there's a SATA driver issue.

-- 
Jeff Guerdat

The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating
any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement
of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all
totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.     Winston Churchill
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)