Assistance with RAID 1 Setup

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I am interested in using RAID 1 (Mirroring) on a Windows XP Pro system for
fault redundancy.

I have two identical 120 GB IDE Hard Drives installed on the PC and
connected to the secondary channel of a High Point HPT372 onboard controller.

The controller is functioning properly and the drives are visible from
Windows Explorer and the Drive Mgmt. applet as NTFS Formatted Basic Disks.

Neither of these drives is used for booting, data storage only.


At this point there seems to be two methods of creating a RAID array with
these disks.

The first is to use the Windows Drive Mgmt. applet to create the array. This
appears to require that both drives be converted first to Dynamic disks. When
setup using this method, if I wish to delete the array, it first requires
that each of the volumes be deleted, the drives converted back to basic and
then repartitioned and reformatted, thus removing all data from both drives.
No option to “break the mirror� is found in the Drive Mgmt. utility, in spite
of seeing reference to that option in many of the help files.

The second appears to be to use the High Point’s own BIOS to create the
array. This can be done by hitting Ctrl-H on bootup and stepping thru the
process. After creation, neither drive is visible to Windows until the
primary is “initialized� thru the Drive Mgmt. utility. After doing so, the
primary (only) is visible, still as a basic drive. When deleting the array,
again thru the High Point Utility, and rebooting to Windows, the drives again
have to be reinitialized, repartitioned, and reformatted to be visible again,
which also deletes all of the data.

Where is the benefit of having the redundant collection of data?

Is the benefit only if one drive of the array fails on its own, then
allowing the software to switch over to the second? I don’t like that because
there is no way to verify that the data is being properly duped onto the
second drive until you have a failure. Then if it was not configured properly
or something happened along the way, it’s too late.

Is there no way to, in effect, retain two automatically created copies of
the data on two separate drives and retain independent access to each?

Don’t say, Use MS Backup. I find that equally useless, when the copy of my
data is unreadable and thereby unverifiable unless I go thru a restore
process.

Am I missing something in the process? I would appreciate some advise.
Thanks. Chuck Mueller, ChuckM@optonline.net

 

[dl]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I would prefer to use hardware raid, as supplied by your controller, rather
than software raid.
When you create the mirror only a single drive will be visible to win.
If you have a disk with data, or whatever, its only neccessary to add the
second disk to the controller, then boot to the raid and build the mirror.
I certainly didn't have to initiate any disk when I created my mirror, other
than the initial disk format.
To break the mirror its only necessary to disconnect a drive, breaking the
mirror in raid management will destroy it.
A mirror raid is designed to do as it says, it doesn't give you the ability
to access the mirror disks independently.
The Raid controller has built in verifying. If your worrying about verifying
wont you have the same concerns in any backup app?
If you are seeking another solution there's always e.g. Ghost, or any number
of backup apps

"Chuck Mueller" <ChuckMueller@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news496E062-F8F2-4FAC-907E-0FC81F9BB46F@microsoft.com...
> I am interested in using RAID 1 (Mirroring) on a Windows XP Pro system for
> fault redundancy.
>
> I have two identical 120 GB IDE Hard Drives installed on the PC and
> connected to the secondary channel of a High Point HPT372 onboard
controller.
>
> The controller is functioning properly and the drives are visible from
> Windows Explorer and the Drive Mgmt. applet as NTFS Formatted Basic Disks.
>
> Neither of these drives is used for booting, data storage only.
>
>
> At this point there seems to be two methods of creating a RAID array with
> these disks.
>
> The first is to use the Windows Drive Mgmt. applet to create the array.
This
> appears to require that both drives be converted first to Dynamic disks.
When
> setup using this method, if I wish to delete the array, it first requires
> that each of the volumes be deleted, the drives converted back to basic
and
> then repartitioned and reformatted, thus removing all data from both
drives.
> No option to "break the mirror" is found in the Drive Mgmt. utility, in
spite
> of seeing reference to that option in many of the help files.
>
> The second appears to be to use the High Point's own BIOS to create the
> array. This can be done by hitting Ctrl-H on bootup and stepping thru the
> process. After creation, neither drive is visible to Windows until the
> primary is "initialized" thru the Drive Mgmt. utility. After doing so, the
> primary (only) is visible, still as a basic drive. When deleting the
array,
> again thru the High Point Utility, and rebooting to Windows, the drives
again
> have to be reinitialized, repartitioned, and reformatted to be visible
again,
> which also deletes all of the data.
>
> Where is the benefit of having the redundant collection of data?
>
> Is the benefit only if one drive of the array fails on its own, then
> allowing the software to switch over to the second? I don't like that
because
> there is no way to verify that the data is being properly duped onto the
> second drive until you have a failure. Then if it was not configured
properly
> or something happened along the way, it's too late.
>
> Is there no way to, in effect, retain two automatically created copies of
> the data on two separate drives and retain independent access to each?
>
> Don't say, Use MS Backup. I find that equally useless, when the copy of my
> data is unreadable and thereby unverifiable unless I go thru a restore
> process.
>
> Am I missing something in the process? I would appreciate some advise.
> Thanks. Chuck Mueller, ChuckM@optonline.net
>