RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Thank you for reading. I know this will seem fussy on my part but I like to
see what I can do here.

I've set up a RAID 0 with a pair of Maxtor SATA drives on an Intel P4 mobo.
It works very well. But some questions came to mind during the setup
process.

I had to establish the striped *before* installing the OS. This involved
going into the bios, selecting the drives for the stipe and interestingly
enough selecting the --size-- of the stripe i.e. one of 32, 64, or 128 kB!
This is before either partitioning or formatting! The process turned two
harddrives into one 'drive'.

So I choose 128 for performance then started the Windows install process.

Through the facilities Windows provides I was able to change the active
partition and get Windows onto something other than a 4KB cluster formated
NTFS partition. Windows got installed on an NTFS partition formatted with
32KB clusters on my 128 KB striped RAID 0 'drive'.

To be honest, I do not have a clue as to what is going on. Does each 32KB
cluster take up 128KB of harddrive space? Should I have arranged for the
NTFS partiton to be formatted with 128KB clusters [ the Disk Management
option however only allows up to 64KB].

How are the 32KB clusters 'split' across the RAID 0 stripe?

Maybe I should have chosen a 64KB RAID 0 stripe then formatted NTFS with
64KB clusters?

BTW because the RAID 0 was set up *before* Windows was installed I didb't
have to upgrade the disks to dynamic.

Any insights welcome - and thanks.

Stephen
10 answers Last reply
More about raid formatting partitions crossposted
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Windows XP default is 4KB cluster size-Std NTFS size , changing to 32KB size
    is like going backwards to Fat 32, establishing the raid array is standard,
    before loading the operating system, I'm surprised you chose SATA,,Tests on
    many premier web sites, show SATA is slower than 7200RPM-ATA-5 with 8MB
    caches( Look for SATA v ATA on WWW), due to pci 2.2 specifications (33MHZ
    bandwidth buses or 133MB/s speed maximum), a lot of people have been
    "clipped" chasing the speed angle, One site tested SATA v ATA-5 and concluded
    WinXP does not support the bandwidth of 150mb/s, which makes a lot of sense ,
    as WinXP was released before
    SATA showed up on the market, Microsoft has said "Ataport", the new mini
    drivers,
    will support SATA nad ATA's , however this will be in "Future" operating
    systems.
    SATA attempts to send a lot of data ect," down very few lines", this quite
    different than normal to date, as transfer wires have incresed speed has
    increased.
    40 wire+shielded 66MB/s, 100MB/s, 133MB/s speeds
    68 wire+ shielded SCSI 160mb/s
    80 wire + shielded SCSI 320mb/s
    You understand ? Increase in transfer wires increase in speeds to from
    disk drives to memory, Now here comes SATA and transfer wires reduced to "7"
    or so and it goes 150MB/s, The new technology of SATA is a " faster clock
    chip", the compression on transfer data has sky rocketed, this slows things
    down, Plus WINXP has SCSI port drivers and ATA port drivers, NO SATA port
    drivers, Since Longhorn is a MS future operating system, ATAport may be in
    there, MS has not said yet it included in Longhorn, SATA will work with WINXP
    its still second class, The golden rule- If the operating system does not
    have initial support for Hardware, its like throwing dice "snake eyes" you
    lose, the operating system must be able to handle the hardware in its coding,
    RAID and its not working in many operating systems, till coding schemes were
    included is the " Number 1 example ". I'll wait until MS includes SATA
    drivers in the furture operting systems, this way "WHCL has optimized" the
    driver for the particular operating system of MS, SATA has no WHCL
    driver optimization.
    Rho1raid(VIP) not MVP

    "Stephen" wrote:

    > Thank you for reading. I know this will seem fussy on my part but I like to
    > see what I can do here.
    >
    > I've set up a RAID 0 with a pair of Maxtor SATA drives on an Intel P4 mobo.
    > It works very well. But some questions came to mind during the setup
    > process.
    >
    > I had to establish the striped *before* installing the OS. This involved
    > going into the bios, selecting the drives for the stipe and interestingly
    > enough selecting the --size-- of the stripe i.e. one of 32, 64, or 128 kB!
    > This is before either partitioning or formatting! The process turned two
    > harddrives into one 'drive'.
    >
    > So I choose 128 for performance then started the Windows install process.
    >
    > Through the facilities Windows provides I was able to change the active
    > partition and get Windows onto something other than a 4KB cluster formated
    > NTFS partition. Windows got installed on an NTFS partition formatted with
    > 32KB clusters on my 128 KB striped RAID 0 'drive'.
    >
    > To be honest, I do not have a clue as to what is going on. Does each 32KB
    > cluster take up 128KB of harddrive space? Should I have arranged for the
    > NTFS partiton to be formatted with 128KB clusters [ the Disk Management
    > option however only allows up to 64KB].
    >
    > How are the 32KB clusters 'split' across the RAID 0 stripe?
    >
    > Maybe I should have chosen a 64KB RAID 0 stripe then formatted NTFS with
    > 64KB clusters?
    >
    > BTW because the RAID 0 was set up *before* Windows was installed I didb't
    > have to upgrade the disks to dynamic.
    >
    > Any insights welcome - and thanks.
    >
    > Stephen
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:59:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
    > Thank you for reading. I know this will seem fussy on my part but I like to
    > see what I can do here.
    >
    > I've set up a RAID 0 with a pair of Maxtor SATA drives on an Intel P4 mobo.
    > It works very well. But some questions came to mind during the setup
    > process.
    >
    > I had to establish the striped *before* installing the OS. This involved
    > going into the bios, selecting the drives for the stipe and interestingly
    > enough selecting the --size-- of the stripe i.e. one of 32, 64, or 128 kB!
    > This is before either partitioning or formatting! The process turned two
    > harddrives into one 'drive'.
    >
    > So I choose 128 for performance then started the Windows install process.

    Based on what? This means (to me) that you will not see any read
    performance improvements for small files, since they will be coming
    entirely from one of your disks. Bigger is not necessarily better, in this
    case, but it all depends on what you do.

    > Through the facilities Windows provides I was able to change the active
    > partition and get Windows onto something other than a 4KB cluster formated
    > NTFS partition. Windows got installed on an NTFS partition formatted with
    > 32KB clusters on my 128 KB striped RAID 0 'drive'.
    >
    > To be honest, I do not have a clue as to what is going on. Does each 32KB
    > cluster take up 128KB of harddrive space? Should I have arranged for the
    > NTFS partiton to be formatted with 128KB clusters [ the Disk Management
    > option however only allows up to 64KB].

    No they are independent.

    If you have no clue, then why are you even screwing around with RAID0?
    Looking for trouble? You can definitely find it. For example, did you
    realize that you just doubled the probability that you will lose all of
    your disk files? If one disk fails, you lose it all! Make sure you are
    backing up your good stuff regularly. You don't want an "oh, no!" moment.

    > How are the 32KB clusters 'split' across the RAID 0 stripe?

    They are laid down sequentially. The first 4 32KB clusters are on the 1st
    disk (1st 128KB). Then the second 4 32KB clusters are on the 2nd disk.
    Then back to the 1st disk (2nd 128KB), etc.

    > Maybe I should have chosen a 64KB RAID 0 stripe then formatted NTFS with
    > 64KB clusters?

    The strips and cluster size are really independent. I don't have enough
    experience with NTFS to know whether they benefit from being identical.
    Others may tell us. I have not seen any notes to that effect.

    Who knows? It really depends on how your system will be used. These are
    tuning parameters. The usual way to tune a system is to find some tests
    (aka benchmarks) that are similar to your intended operation. Then you can
    measure the performance of your setup as you change the parameters and
    pick the best combination for you. Note that this is extremely time
    consuming. You have to configure with a set of parameters, install
    software, run tests, record values. Repeat for every combination of
    parameters that you want to consider. Then look at the recorded values and
    pick the "best" (different for different people/uses) one (for you).

    The other way to go is to Google around and find someone else who has
    already done this kind of tuning on their system, verify that they use
    their system in a similar way to your usage. Use their parameters.

    As an example, a machine that is a news bulletin server (many, many tiny
    files) would be tuned differently from one that is an apache web server
    serving up large .pdf files. YMMV

    > BTW because the RAID 0 was set up *before* Windows was installed I didb't
    > have to upgrade the disks to dynamic.

    --
    Juhan Leemet
    Logicognosis, Inc.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    WHQL-windows hardware quality labs has not tested and optimzed SATA drivers,
    plus ATA and SCSI was optimized in all components as they were around.

    "Rho_1r" wrote:

    > Windows XP default is 4KB cluster size-Std NTFS size , changing to 32KB size
    > is like going backwards to Fat 32, establishing the raid array is standard,
    > before loading the operating system, I'm surprised you chose SATA,,Tests on
    > many premier web sites, show SATA is slower than 7200RPM-ATA-5 with 8MB
    > caches( Look for SATA v ATA on WWW), due to pci 2.2 specifications (33MHZ
    > bandwidth buses or 133MB/s speed maximum), a lot of people have been
    > "clipped" chasing the speed angle, One site tested SATA v ATA-5 and concluded
    > WinXP does not support the bandwidth of 150mb/s, which makes a lot of sense ,
    > as WinXP was released before
    > SATA showed up on the market, Microsoft has said "Ataport", the new mini
    > drivers,
    > will support SATA nad ATA's , however this will be in "Future" operating
    > systems.
    > SATA attempts to send a lot of data ect," down very few lines", this quite
    > different than normal to date, as transfer wires have incresed speed has
    > increased.
    > 40 wire+shielded 66MB/s, 100MB/s, 133MB/s speeds
    > 68 wire+ shielded SCSI 160mb/s
    > 80 wire + shielded SCSI 320mb/s
    > You understand ? Increase in transfer wires increase in speeds to from
    > disk drives to memory, Now here comes SATA and transfer wires reduced to "7"
    > or so and it goes 150MB/s, The new technology of SATA is a " faster clock
    > chip", the compression on transfer data has sky rocketed, this slows things
    > down, Plus WINXP has SCSI port drivers and ATA port drivers, NO SATA port
    > drivers, Since Longhorn is a MS future operating system, ATAport may be in
    > there, MS has not said yet it included in Longhorn, SATA will work with WINXP
    > its still second class, The golden rule- If the operating system does not
    > have initial support for Hardware, its like throwing dice "snake eyes" you
    > lose, the operating system must be able to handle the hardware in its coding,
    > RAID and its not working in many operating systems, till coding schemes were
    > included is the " Number 1 example ". I'll wait until MS includes SATA
    > drivers in the furture operting systems, this way "WHCL has optimized" the
    > driver for the particular operating system of MS, SATA has no WHCL
    > driver optimization.
    > Rho1raid(VIP) not MVP
    >
    > "Stephen" wrote:
    >
    > > Thank you for reading. I know this will seem fussy on my part but I like to
    > > see what I can do here.
    > >
    > > I've set up a RAID 0 with a pair of Maxtor SATA drives on an Intel P4 mobo.
    > > It works very well. But some questions came to mind during the setup
    > > process.
    > >
    > > I had to establish the striped *before* installing the OS. This involved
    > > going into the bios, selecting the drives for the stipe and interestingly
    > > enough selecting the --size-- of the stripe i.e. one of 32, 64, or 128 kB!
    > > This is before either partitioning or formatting! The process turned two
    > > harddrives into one 'drive'.
    > >
    > > So I choose 128 for performance then started the Windows install process.
    > >
    > > Through the facilities Windows provides I was able to change the active
    > > partition and get Windows onto something other than a 4KB cluster formated
    > > NTFS partition. Windows got installed on an NTFS partition formatted with
    > > 32KB clusters on my 128 KB striped RAID 0 'drive'.
    > >
    > > To be honest, I do not have a clue as to what is going on. Does each 32KB
    > > cluster take up 128KB of harddrive space? Should I have arranged for the
    > > NTFS partiton to be formatted with 128KB clusters [ the Disk Management
    > > option however only allows up to 64KB].
    > >
    > > How are the 32KB clusters 'split' across the RAID 0 stripe?
    > >
    > > Maybe I should have chosen a 64KB RAID 0 stripe then formatted NTFS with
    > > 64KB clusters?
    > >
    > > BTW because the RAID 0 was set up *before* Windows was installed I didb't
    > > have to upgrade the disks to dynamic.
    > >
    > > Any insights welcome - and thanks.
    > >
    > > Stephen
    > >
    > >
    > >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Juhan Leemet" <juhan@logicognosis.com> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.09.20.14.48.15.159217@logicognosis.com...
    | On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:59:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
    | > <clip>
    |
    | --
    | Juhan Leemet
    | Logicognosis, Inc.
    |

    Thanks, yes I do back up my 'data' so I'm not worried *too* much. It's just
    that I decided I want to learn about this a bit. I figured the way to do it
    is to dive right in and have some fun.

    Stephen
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Rho_1r" <Rho_1r@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:25215C26-ED88-40E9-BFB9-E1685521E7FE@microsoft.com...
    | WHQL-windows hardware quality labs has not tested and optimzed SATA
    drivers,
    | plus ATA and SCSI was optimized in all components as they were around.
    |
    | "<clip>

    The SATA drives work very well and the performance, at least on the 'user'
    level is good. I read that performance can be increased on a 'basic' ATA
    drive by formatting larger clusters, although there's decrease in storage
    space efficiency.

    Stephen
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Juhan Leemet" <juhan@logicognosis.com> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.09.20.14.48.15.159217@logicognosis.com...
    > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:59:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
    > > Thank you for reading. I know this will seem fussy on my part but I like
    to
    > > see what I can do here.
    > >
    > > I've set up a RAID 0 with a pair of Maxtor SATA drives on an Intel P4
    mobo.
    > > It works very well. But some questions came to mind during the setup
    > > process.
    > >
    > > I had to establish the striped *before* installing the OS. This involved
    > > going into the bios, selecting the drives for the stipe and
    interestingly
    > > enough selecting the --size-- of the stripe i.e. one of 32, 64, or 128
    kB!
    > > This is before either partitioning or formatting! The process turned two
    > > harddrives into one 'drive'.
    > >
    > > So I choose 128 for performance then started the Windows install
    process.
    >
    > Based on what? This means (to me) that you will not see any read
    > performance improvements for small files, since they will be coming
    > entirely from one of your disks. Bigger is not necessarily better, in this
    > case, but it all depends on what you do.

    Yes, I'd have chosen 32K but there is an IF.

    The classic definition of stripe size is the element that spans the stripe
    set before starting over at the first drive again. If the size he set in
    initially is classic and two drives then there is 64K per drive. You have
    to read each RAID manual carefully as often they hide that or don't include
    that and SOMETIMES even their TS doesn't know. I've been waiting for over 4
    years for Promise to answer how they define stripe size. So I'd chose 32K
    'stripe units' per drive.
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Rho_1r" <Rho_1r@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1D776254-4927-4819-97B1-56A5CDCD426A@microsoft.com...
    > Windows XP default is 4KB cluster size-Std NTFS size , changing to 32KB
    size
    > is like going backwards to Fat 32, establishing the raid array is
    standard,
    > before loading the operating system, I'm surprised you chose SATA,,Tests
    on
    > many premier web sites, show SATA is slower than 7200RPM-ATA-5 with 8MB

    Nope, have a look at the figures for the SATA WDC Raptor.

    > caches( Look for SATA v ATA on WWW), due to pci 2.2 specifications (33MHZ
    > bandwidth buses or 133MB/s speed maximum), a lot of people have been
    > "clipped" chasing the speed angle, One site tested SATA v ATA-5 and
    concluded
    > WinXP does not support the bandwidth of 150mb/s, which makes a lot of
    sense ,

    HUH, an OS doesn't know about hardware bandwidths.

    > as WinXP was released before
    > SATA showed up on the market, Microsoft has said "Ataport", the new mini
    > drivers,
    > will support SATA nad ATA's , however this will be in "Future" operating
    > systems.
    > SATA attempts to send a lot of data ect," down very few lines", this quite
    > different than normal to date, as transfer wires have incresed speed has
    > increased.
    > 40 wire+shielded 66MB/s, 100MB/s, 133MB/s speeds
    > 68 wire+ shielded SCSI 160mb/s
    > 80 wire + shielded SCSI 320mb/s
    > You understand ? Increase in transfer wires increase in speeds to from
    > disk drives to memory, Now here comes SATA and transfer wires reduced to
    "7"
    > or so and it goes 150MB/s, The new technology of SATA is a " faster clock
    > chip", the compression on transfer data has sky rocketed, this slows
    things
    > down,

    Just NO!

    > Plus WINXP has SCSI port drivers and ATA port drivers, NO SATA port
    > drivers,

    HUH?

    > Since Longhorn is a MS future operating system, ATAport may be in
    > there, MS has not said yet it included in Longhorn, SATA will work with
    WINXP
    > its still second class,

    Nonsense.

    >The golden rule- If the operating system does not
    > have initial support for Hardware, its like throwing dice "snake eyes" you
    > lose, the operating system must be able to handle the hardware in its
    coding,
    > RAID and its not working in many operating systems, till coding schemes
    were
    > included is the " Number 1 example ". I'll wait until MS includes SATA
    > drivers in the furture operting systems, this way "WHCL has optimized" the
    > driver for the particular operating system of MS, SATA has no WHCL
    > driver optimization.

    Where did you make up all this trash from?
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Rho_1r" <Rho_1r@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:25215C26-ED88-40E9-BFB9-E1685521E7FE@microsoft.com...
    > WHQL-windows hardware quality labs has not tested and optimzed SATA
    drivers,
    > plus ATA and SCSI was optimized in all components as they were around.

    All that means absolutely NOTHING!

    > "Rho_1r" wrote:
    >
    > > Windows XP default is 4KB cluster size-Std NTFS size , changing to 32KB
    size
    > > is like going backwards to Fat 32, establishing the raid array is
    standard,
    > > before loading the operating system, I'm surprised you chose SATA,,Tests
    on
    > > many premier web sites, show SATA is slower than 7200RPM-ATA-5 with 8MB
    > > caches( Look for SATA v ATA on WWW), due to pci 2.2 specifications
    (33MHZ
    > > bandwidth buses or 133MB/s speed maximum), a lot of people have been
    > > "clipped" chasing the speed angle, One site tested SATA v ATA-5 and
    concluded
    > > WinXP does not support the bandwidth of 150mb/s, which makes a lot of
    sense ,
    > > as WinXP was released before
    > > SATA showed up on the market, Microsoft has said "Ataport", the new mini
    > > drivers,
    > > will support SATA nad ATA's , however this will be in "Future" operating
    > > systems.
    > > SATA attempts to send a lot of data ect," down very few lines", this
    quite
    > > different than normal to date, as transfer wires have incresed speed has
    > > increased.
    > > 40 wire+shielded 66MB/s, 100MB/s, 133MB/s speeds
    > > 68 wire+ shielded SCSI 160mb/s
    > > 80 wire + shielded SCSI 320mb/s
    > > You understand ? Increase in transfer wires increase in speeds to from
    > > disk drives to memory, Now here comes SATA and transfer wires reduced to
    "7"
    > > or so and it goes 150MB/s, The new technology of SATA is a " faster
    clock
    > > chip", the compression on transfer data has sky rocketed, this slows
    things
    > > down, Plus WINXP has SCSI port drivers and ATA port drivers, NO SATA
    port
    > > drivers, Since Longhorn is a MS future operating system, ATAport may be
    in
    > > there, MS has not said yet it included in Longhorn, SATA will work with
    WINXP
    > > its still second class, The golden rule- If the operating system does
    not
    > > have initial support for Hardware, its like throwing dice "snake eyes"
    you
    > > lose, the operating system must be able to handle the hardware in its
    coding,
    > > RAID and its not working in many operating systems, till coding schemes
    were
    > > included is the " Number 1 example ". I'll wait until MS includes SATA
    > > drivers in the furture operting systems, this way "WHCL has optimized"
    the
    > > driver for the particular operating system of MS, SATA has no WHCL
    > > driver optimization.
    > > Rho1raid(VIP) not MVP
    > >
    > > "Stephen" wrote:
    > >
    > > > Thank you for reading. I know this will seem fussy on my part but I
    like to
    > > > see what I can do here.
    > > >
    > > > I've set up a RAID 0 with a pair of Maxtor SATA drives on an Intel P4
    mobo.
    > > > It works very well. But some questions came to mind during the setup
    > > > process.
    > > >
    > > > I had to establish the striped *before* installing the OS. This
    involved
    > > > going into the bios, selecting the drives for the stipe and
    interestingly
    > > > enough selecting the --size-- of the stripe i.e. one of 32, 64, or 128
    kB!
    > > > This is before either partitioning or formatting! The process turned
    two
    > > > harddrives into one 'drive'.
    > > >
    > > > So I choose 128 for performance then started the Windows install
    process.
    > > >
    > > > Through the facilities Windows provides I was able to change the
    active
    > > > partition and get Windows onto something other than a 4KB cluster
    formated
    > > > NTFS partition. Windows got installed on an NTFS partition formatted
    with
    > > > 32KB clusters on my 128 KB striped RAID 0 'drive'.
    > > >
    > > > To be honest, I do not have a clue as to what is going on. Does each
    32KB
    > > > cluster take up 128KB of harddrive space? Should I have arranged for
    the
    > > > NTFS partiton to be formatted with 128KB clusters [ the Disk
    Management
    > > > option however only allows up to 64KB].
    > > >
    > > > How are the 32KB clusters 'split' across the RAID 0 stripe?
    > > >
    > > > Maybe I should have chosen a 64KB RAID 0 stripe then formatted NTFS
    with
    > > > 64KB clusters?
    > > >
    > > > BTW because the RAID 0 was set up *before* Windows was installed I
    didb't
    > > > have to upgrade the disks to dynamic.
    > > >
    > > > Any insights welcome - and thanks.
    > > >
    > > > Stephen
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Stephen" <replies@newsgroups.thnx> wrote in message
    news:qnB3d.97506$Q7D.48337@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

    > BTW because the RAID 0 was set up *before* Windows was installed I didb't
    > have to upgrade the disks to dynamic.

    That's expected as the dynamic part arises for the OS's intrinsic SW RAID
    functionality and not 3rd party add-on cards.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.win2000.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:22:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
    > "Juhan Leemet" <juhan@logicognosis.com> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.09.20.14.48.15.159217@logicognosis.com...
    > | On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:59:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
    > | > <clip>
    > |
    > | --
    > | Juhan Leemet
    > | Logicognosis, Inc.
    > |
    >
    > Thanks, yes I do back up my 'data' so I'm not worried *too* much. It's just
    > that I decided I want to learn about this a bit. I figured the way to do it
    > is to dive right in and have some fun.

    OK, that is the right attitude. I also like to learn about things by
    doing. That is how you really "fix" (as in photographic development) your
    "book learning". Didn't mean to be harsh or discouraging. Good luck!

    --
    Juhan Leemet
    Logicognosis, Inc.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware NAS / RAID Microsoft Windows XP