Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- From: "Pavel" <Atin90@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:52:19 -0700
Zalman,
True, if one of the drives goes bad with RAID 0 then you will loose all on
that drive. But you may consider to make an image instead of cloning in
which case you can have multiple images of the same drive taken at different
times. Store the images on a separate drive. As an added bonus, the images
can be compressed so less space is used and can be placed on CD or DVD.
Since you already have Ghost then you already know this.
If you have an older version of Ghost then you may not know this but the
latest Ghost is actually different program originally called DriveImage 7
and it can create Image directly from Windows with out exiting.
--
Pavel
"Zalman" <zalman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OXkxQ$kVFHA.2540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hy Guys, thanks for taking the time :)
> Let's see if I got this right:
>
> When I installed XP-PRO on my current RAID 0 (2 SATAs), I had to install
> the driver for it in the early stage (¨F6 key.. you know the history).
> That driver is seen on XP as a SCSI driver, even though we know it is
> really not, so I assume it will NOT work if I clone to a real SCSI drive
> without installing the driver first.. right?.
>
> So my next step would be install the SCSI controller and SCSI drive and
> then install the driver in WinXP for it to recognize the SCSI and then
> clone using Ghost... that makes sense?..
> If I have to edit Boot.Ini, what should I edit there?
>
> Pavel, I need a fast drive for my OS now, I choose to use RAID O due to
> the speed gain but I am not happy with the setup. RAID 0 is stripe, so if
> one HD fails I loose everything. So I want to clone this perfect
> installation to a SCSI drive (faster) and boot from there, and them use
> those 2 sata barracudas as backup and storage for large data files.
>
> Waht do you mean by hassle? The installation?
>
>> Point taken. For most people the hassle and cost of SCSI outweigh the
>> benefits
>
> Thank you again.
>
> Zalman
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> escreveu na mensagem
> news:egk4fckVFHA.2796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Pavel" <Atin90@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:up6v3UkVFHA.3540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Kerry,
>>>
>>> For those that know SCSI as you do, you know that all this you mentioned
>>> is possible because the controller does all the processing instead of
>>> the CPU handling all the tasks. I may not have used the right words when
>>> I said that there is no difference but if the average person goes and
>>> spends the additional money for SCSI drive just to have his/hers Outlook
>>> PST file or some other data file be more fail safe then that person is
>>> simply wasting his money.
>>> As I have replied to Matt, I would not have anything else but fast 15k
>>> SCSI raid because of all the benefits that you mentioned.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>
>> Point taken. For most people the hassle and cost of SCSI outweigh the
>> benefits. If redundancy is the issue then a IDE RAID controller or even
>> software RAID can accomplish it much cheaper.
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>>
>>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote in message
>>> news:OUZ3BOkVFHA.2740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> "Pavel" <Atin90@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:euVJFAkVFHA.1404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Since the system was installed on non-scsi drive, most likely there is
>>>>> no scsi raid drive installed and your drive will most likely not boot
>>>>> with out this driver. This driver has to be installed in the early
>>>>> stages of installation.
>>>>> What you need to do before cloning is simply install the SCSI raid
>>>>> driver in the existing windows and then do the cloning. That should do
>>>>> it.
>>>>> But I am curious....are you adding the SCSI thinking that it will make
>>>>> your system more "fail safe"? or you just want to have a backup of
>>>>> your drive? The SCSI does not offer anything special. The only
>>>>> advantage with SCSI is the ability to do all the data processing on
>>>>> it's own controller instead of having the CPU do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pavel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your right about the driver. I forgot about that when posting about
>>>> editing boot.ini. Your wrong about SCSI only having one advantage. :-)
>>>> If you are doing video editing, running a server, generating large
>>>> database reports, anything that demands high CPU time while
>>>> simultaneously accessing the hard drive SCSI has much faster
>>>> performance. Also "most" SCSI drives have higher MTBF, faster rotation
>>>> therefore faster sustained data transfer etc. There is a reason SCSI
>>>> drives are more expensive. SATA may eventually equal them but at that
>>>> point they will cost the same and require expensive hardware
>>>> controllers as well.
>>>>
>>>> Kerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Zalman" <zalman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u%23NeZFjVFHA.3108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry if this has been answered before, I did a search and could not
>>>>>> find.
>>>>>> I have my Windows XP Pro setup and running ok on a RAID 0
>>>>>> configuration (2 seagate 80gb barracudas).
>>>>>> I know RAID 0 is not fail safe, so I am planning to buy a SCSI Hard
>>>>>> Drive and clone my OS to the SCSI using Northon Gosth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question: Will that work? I mean, everything is working fiine, if I
>>>>>> clone to the SCSI will I be able to boot?
>>>>>> What problems may I face if I ever do this?
>>>>>> Waiting your answer before rushing to the stores.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Raid 0 X SCSI
- From: Zalman
- Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- From: Pavel
- Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- From: Kerry Brown
- Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- From: Pavel
- Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- From: Kerry Brown
- Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- From: Zalman
- Raid 0 X SCSI
- Prev by Date: Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- Next by Date: Re: folder content disappear
- Previous by thread: Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- Next by thread: Re: Raid 0 X SCSI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
