Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)
This might seem like an ultra-paranoid configuration to some but I
could use some advice.
I am going to get two raid cards that supports 6 PATA drives each. I
am going to get two of those cases that are NORMALLY used to mount
multiple cd/dvd drives for mass duplication and use it instead to
house 6 PATA drives each externally (from the PC).
So from now on I will refer to these things as follows:
PC = The computer that will house the two raid cards.
Case 1 = array of six 200g PATA drives which are powered within it's
own enclosure (has power supply).
Case 2 = Same as Case 1
RAID Card 1 = in PC
RAID Card 2 = in PC
Here is where it gets a bit sloppy. Case 1 will have 6 PATA IDE
ribbon cables leaving the case externally and entering the PC so that
it can go into Raid Card 1. Same goes with Case 2 into Raid Card 2.
Both Case 1 and Case 2 will be run in separate RAID-5 configurations.
Case 1 will appear to the PC as one drive letter and the same with
Case 2 but as a different drive letter. Neither Case 1 or Case 2 will
contain the boot/os drive. boot/OS drive will be a separate drive
inside the PC.
Case 2 will do periodic backup (maybe once a week or month) of the
entire contents of Case 1. Case 2 will have its power turned OFF in
between the periodic backups.
Why am I doing a Case 2 when I'm already running a RAID-5 with Case 1?
While RAID-5 configuration can protect data against a single drive
crashing in the array, it cannot protect against a trojan. That is
why I have Case 2.
What I need to know from some of you PC gurus is whether or not this
configuration is possible. For example, can WinXP Pro SP2 recognize a
single drive that is over 1TB. Are there any suggestions on improving
the configuration while satisfying my need to protect all data down to
the last second against a single drive crash *AND* a backup against a
trojan with data as recent as a week or month.
I would like to get this configuration within a few days o if anyone
has any inputs soon, it will be greatly appreciated.
This might seem like an ultra-paranoid configuration to some but I
could use some advice.
I am going to get two raid cards that supports 6 PATA drives each. I
am going to get two of those cases that are NORMALLY used to mount
multiple cd/dvd drives for mass duplication and use it instead to
house 6 PATA drives each externally (from the PC).
So from now on I will refer to these things as follows:
PC = The computer that will house the two raid cards.
Case 1 = array of six 200g PATA drives which are powered within it's
own enclosure (has power supply).
Case 2 = Same as Case 1
RAID Card 1 = in PC
RAID Card 2 = in PC
Here is where it gets a bit sloppy. Case 1 will have 6 PATA IDE
ribbon cables leaving the case externally and entering the PC so that
it can go into Raid Card 1. Same goes with Case 2 into Raid Card 2.
Both Case 1 and Case 2 will be run in separate RAID-5 configurations.
Case 1 will appear to the PC as one drive letter and the same with
Case 2 but as a different drive letter. Neither Case 1 or Case 2 will
contain the boot/os drive. boot/OS drive will be a separate drive
inside the PC.
Case 2 will do periodic backup (maybe once a week or month) of the
entire contents of Case 1. Case 2 will have its power turned OFF in
between the periodic backups.
Why am I doing a Case 2 when I'm already running a RAID-5 with Case 1?
While RAID-5 configuration can protect data against a single drive
crashing in the array, it cannot protect against a trojan. That is
why I have Case 2.
What I need to know from some of you PC gurus is whether or not this
configuration is possible. For example, can WinXP Pro SP2 recognize a
single drive that is over 1TB. Are there any suggestions on improving
the configuration while satisfying my need to protect all data down to
the last second against a single drive crash *AND* a backup against a
trojan with data as recent as a week or month.
I would like to get this configuration within a few days o if anyone
has any inputs soon, it will be greatly appreciated.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram