Conversion to RAID 5

[Guest ritpg]

I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

subject either.

 

The more I research converting from a one-drive set-up with a hardware

RAID capability to RAID 5, the more it seems ridiculously hard to do

so. This is what I understand it involves. First, I have to image my

existing 500 gig SATA HD. Then I need to wipe that HD and install 2

more HDs identical to the one I have. I then configure the 3 HDs to

RAID 5 and then restore the image I created at the beginning.

 

Using Acronis Home, I tried to image the existing HD by connecting a

250 gig external (USB) HD (to store the image) and was told by Acronis

that the destination HD had to be identical to the source HD. I don't

understand why since only 140 gig of the source HD has been used. If

I can't work around this problem, that suggests that I would need a

4th (throw-away HD) for the image. Or I have to wipe and rebuild from

scratch. Surely, I must be missing something. Any thoughts out

there?

 

My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

 

I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

(non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

 

I'm running XP Pro on a Systemax with Q6600 processing. Only Vista

Business came on media with the machine so wiping the HD without first

imaging it will be a problem for me because I do not want to switch

(notice I did not say upgrade) to Vista at this time. And I just got

the PC the end of last year and I really don't want to go thru the

hassle of restoring Outlook, iTunes, Picassa, etc., etc. again so

soon.

 

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

[Guest Bob I]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

Better check your math! IF you have 500 gb drives AND you want 1.5 TB

total data storage you will need 4 drives for the array, not 3.

 

ritpg wrote:

> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

> subject either.

>

> The more I research converting from a one-drive set-up with a hardware

> RAID capability to RAID 5, the more it seems ridiculously hard to do

> so. This is what I understand it involves. First, I have to image my

> existing 500 gig SATA HD. Then I need to wipe that HD and install 2

> more HDs identical to the one I have. I then configure the 3 HDs to

> RAID 5 and then restore the image I created at the beginning.

>

> Using Acronis Home, I tried to image the existing HD by connecting a

> 250 gig external (USB) HD (to store the image) and was told by Acronis

> that the destination HD had to be identical to the source HD. I don't

> understand why since only 140 gig of the source HD has been used. If

> I can't work around this problem, that suggests that I would need a

> 4th (throw-away HD) for the image. Or I have to wipe and rebuild from

> scratch. Surely, I must be missing something. Any thoughts out

> there?

>

> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

> capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

>

> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

> two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

> (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

> striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>

> I'm running XP Pro on a Systemax with Q6600 processing. Only Vista

> Business came on media with the machine so wiping the HD without first

> imaging it will be a problem for me because I do not want to switch

> (notice I did not say upgrade) to Vista at this time. And I just got

> the PC the end of last year and I really don't want to go thru the

> hassle of restoring Outlook, iTunes, Picassa, etc., etc. again so

> soon.

>

> Any help will be greatly appreciated.

>

> Thanks.

[Guest Rod Speed]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this subject either.

> The more I research converting from a one-drive set-up with a hardware

> RAID capability to RAID 5, the more it seems ridiculously hard to do

> so. This is what I understand it involves. First, I have to image my

> existing 500 gig SATA HD. Then I need to wipe that HD and install 2

> more HDs identical to the one I have. I then configure the 3 HDs to

> RAID 5 and then restore the image I created at the beginning.

> Using Acronis Home, I tried to image the existing HD by connecting

> a 250 gig external (USB) HD (to store the image) and was told by

> Acronis that the destination HD had to be identical to the source HD.

 

Thats mad. God knows what you were actually doing or what it said that

made you 'think' that thats what it was saying, but it never ever says that.

 

You should be imaging the original drive, not cloning it.

> I don't understand why since only 140 gig of the source HD has been used.

 

Yeah, that operation will work fine.

> If I can't work around this problem,

 

Corse you can.

> that suggests that I would need a 4th (throw-away HD) for the image. Or I

> have to wipe and rebuild from scratch. Surely, I must be missing something.

 

Yep.

> Any thoughts out there?

 

You should be imaging the original drive, not cloning it.

> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin

> to capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a

> total of two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture

> ala an old EIDE (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the

> performance benefit from striping. But do I really need it?

 

Nope.

> Can I do this?

 

Yep.

> I'm running XP Pro on a Systemax with Q6600 processing. Only Vista

> Business came on media with the machine so wiping the HD without

> first imaging it will be a problem for me because I do not want to

> switch (notice I did not say upgrade) to Vista at this time. And I just

> got the PC the end of last year and I really don't want to go thru the

> hassle of restoring Outlook, iTunes, Picassa, etc., etc. again so soon.

> Any help will be greatly appreciated.

[Guest smlunatick]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

On Feb 27, 1:04 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> ritpg <ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this subject either.

> > The more I research converting from a one-drive set-up with a hardware

> > RAID capability to RAID 5, the more it seems ridiculously hard to do

> > so.  This is what I understand it involves.  First, I have to image my

> > existing 500 gig SATA HD.  Then I need to wipe that HD and install 2

> > more HDs identical to the one I have.  I then configure the 3 HDs to

> > RAID 5 and then restore the image I created at the beginning.

> > Using Acronis Home, I tried to image the existing HD by connecting

> > a 250 gig external (USB) HD (to store the image) and was told by

> > Acronis that the destination HD had to be identical to the source HD.

>

> Thats mad. God knows what you were actually doing or what it said that

> made you 'think' that thats what it was saying, but it never ever says that.

>

> You should be imaging the original drive, not cloning it.

>

> > I don't understand why since only 140 gig of the source HD has been used..

>

> Yeah, that operation will work fine.

>

> > If I can't work around this problem,

>

> Corse you can.

>

> > that suggests that I would need a 4th (throw-away HD) for the image.  Or I

> > have to wipe and rebuild from scratch.  Surely, I must be missing something.

>

> Yep.

>

> > Any thoughts out there?

>

> You should be imaging the original drive, not cloning it.

>

> > My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin

> > to capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS  and DV tapes.

> > I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a

> > total of two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture

> > ala an old EIDE (non-RAID) arrangement.  I won't get the

> > performance benefit from striping.  But do I really need it?

>

> Nope.

>

> > Can I do this?

>

> Yep.

>

>

>

> > I'm running XP Pro on a Systemax with Q6600 processing.  Only Vista

> > Business came on media with the machine so wiping the HD without

> > first imaging it will be a problem for me because I do not want to

> > switch (notice I did not say upgrade) to Vista at this time.  And I just

> > got the PC the end of last year and I really don't want to go thru the

> > hassle of restoring Outlook, iTunes, Picassa, etc., etc. again so soon.

> > Any help will be greatly appreciated.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

RAID 5 is mainly a RAID system based on a separate RAID controller

card. Make sure that the RAID 5 drivers exist for XP.

[Guest PaulMaudib]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:04:15 -0800 (PST), ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

>subject either.

>

>The more I research converting from a one-drive set-up with a hardware

>RAID capability to RAID 5, the more it seems ridiculously hard to do

>so. This is what I understand it involves. First, I have to image my

>existing 500 gig SATA HD. Then I need to wipe that HD and install 2

>more HDs identical to the one I have. I then configure the 3 HDs to

>RAID 5 and then restore the image I created at the beginning.

>

>Using Acronis Home, I tried to image the existing HD by connecting a

>250 gig external (USB) HD (to store the image) and was told by Acronis

>that the destination HD had to be identical to the source HD. I don't

>understand why since only 140 gig of the source HD has been used. If

>I can't work around this problem, that suggests that I would need a

>4th (throw-away HD) for the image. Or I have to wipe and rebuild from

>scratch. Surely, I must be missing something. Any thoughts out

>there?

>

>My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

>capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

>

>I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

>two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

>(non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

>striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>

>I'm running XP Pro on a Systemax with Q6600 processing. Only Vista

>Business came on media with the machine so wiping the HD without first

>imaging it will be a problem for me because I do not want to switch

>(notice I did not say upgrade) to Vista at this time. And I just got

>the PC the end of last year and I really don't want to go thru the

>hassle of restoring Outlook, iTunes, Picassa, etc., etc. again so

>soon.

>

>Any help will be greatly appreciated.

>

>Thanks.

RAID 5 is good for redundancy but for performance it is not stellar.

In a situation with 3 drives, you don't even have redundancy.

 

I think you need to revisit what you are doing and why you want a RAID

5 array so much.

[Guest HeyBub]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

ritpg wrote:

> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

> subject either.

>

> The more I research converting from a one-drive set-up with a hardware

> RAID capability to RAID 5, the more it seems ridiculously hard to do

> so. This is what I understand it involves. First, I have to image my

> existing 500 gig SATA HD. Then I need to wipe that HD and install 2

> more HDs identical to the one I have. I then configure the 3 HDs to

> RAID 5 and then restore the image I created at the beginning.

>

> Using Acronis Home, I tried to image the existing HD by connecting a

> 250 gig external (USB) HD (to store the image) and was told by Acronis

> that the destination HD had to be identical to the source HD. I don't

> understand why since only 140 gig of the source HD has been used. If

> I can't work around this problem, that suggests that I would need a

> 4th (throw-away HD) for the image. Or I have to wipe and rebuild from

> scratch. Surely, I must be missing something. Any thoughts out

> there?

>

> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

> capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

>

> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

> two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

> (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

> striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>

> I'm running XP Pro on a Systemax with Q6600 processing. Only Vista

> Business came on media with the machine so wiping the HD without first

> imaging it will be a problem for me because I do not want to switch

> (notice I did not say upgrade) to Vista at this time. And I just got

> the PC the end of last year and I really don't want to go thru the

> hassle of restoring Outlook, iTunes, Picassa, etc., etc. again so

> soon.

>

> Any help will be greatly appreciated.

>

 

RAID 5 involves striping. Why on earth would you want to split your data

over several drives? The usual reason to do this is to diminish access time

when accessing data randomly. With TV editting, you're essentially accessing

the data sequentially and striping will gain zilch!

 

I take that back; stripping will gain increased complexity.

 

To emphasise: there is NO performance benefit to striping when the data are

accessed sequentially (or anything approaching sequential).

[Guest Arno Wagner]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

> subject either.

 

[...]

> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

> capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

> two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

> (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

> striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

 

[...]

 

I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not for

speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable by its

price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed will

be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

not actually want RAID in any form.

 

Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

 

You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

disks are really not that expensive.

 

As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

and for free.)

 

Arno

[Guest ritpg]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> > I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

> > subject either.

>

> [...]

>

> > My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

> > capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS  and DV tapes.

> > I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

> > two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

> > (non-RAID) arrangement.  I won't get the performance benefit from

> > striping.  But do I really need it?  Can I do this?

>

> [...]

>

> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not for

> speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable by its

> price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed will

> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

> not actually want RAID in any form.

>

> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

> are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

>

> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

> disks are really not that expensive.

>

> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

> and for free.)

>

> Arno

 

Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel dumber

than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting to add a

dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all I want to

do at this point. I was under the impression that because my PC out

of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller card on the

motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply add a HD like I

would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture. I'm still not sure

what my options are. I guess I can understand that because I will be

dealing with large files that the data will be read into RAM serially

thus negating any benefit from striping (although I'd would wonder why

RAID wouldn't include the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even

for large files). So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID

0 (striping). And I don't really care about backing up the video

files (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

(although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

 

Thanks again.

[Guest R. McCarty]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

How many SATA channels does your motherboard provide ? To add

a new drive is basically just install the drive and connect it to a SATA

connector. I'd get a Seagate SATA with a 32-Megabyte cache that

uses Perpendicular data orientation. Just make sure you have adequate

power and cooling for the new drive. If your motherboard supports an

eSATA connector you might be better with an external drive to lessen

loading inside the PC cabinet. Sometimes you can even get a little more

performance by using a PCIe SATA card to host your new drive instead

of the on-board SATA controller.

 

"ritpg" <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:31da0650-060b-40b3-aa78-af6a5decb9fc@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> > I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

> > subject either.

>

> [...]

>

> > My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

> > capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

> > I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

> > two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

> > (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

> > striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>

> [...]

>

> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not for

> speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable by its

> price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed will

> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

> not actually want RAID in any form.

>

> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

> are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

>

> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

> disks are really not that expensive.

>

> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

> and for free.)

>

> Arno

 

Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel dumber

than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting to add a

dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all I want to

do at this point. I was under the impression that because my PC out

of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller card on the

motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply add a HD like I

would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture. I'm still not sure

what my options are. I guess I can understand that because I will be

dealing with large files that the data will be read into RAM serially

thus negating any benefit from striping (although I'd would wonder why

RAID wouldn't include the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even

for large files). So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID

0 (striping). And I don't really care about backing up the video

files (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

(although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

 

Thanks again.

[Guest HeyBub]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

ritpg wrote:

>

> Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel dumber

> than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting to add a

> dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all I want to

> do at this point. I was under the impression that because my PC out

> of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller card on the

> motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply add a HD like I

> would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture. I'm still not sure

> what my options are. I guess I can understand that because I will be

> dealing with large files that the data will be read into RAM serially

> thus negating any benefit from striping (although I'd would wonder why

> RAID wouldn't include the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even

> for large files). So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID

> 0 (striping). And I don't really care about backing up the video

> files (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

> (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

> So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

> 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

> to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

> supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

>

> Thanks again.

 

I'm glad we were able to prevent you from wandering down a maze with no end.

 

To answer you question of how to add a drive:

1) Plug in the power cable.

2) Plug in the data cable.

[3) Optional: secure drive with screws.]

4. Turn on computer. It should recognize the existence of the drive. You

might have to format the drive and should if it's not NTFS. The OS will

assign a drive letter.

[Guest Rod Speed]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

>>> subject either.

>>

>> [...]

>>

>>> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

>>> capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

>>> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

>>> two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

>>> (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

>>> striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>>

>> [...]

>>

>> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not

>> for speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable

>> by its price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed

>> will

>> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

>> not actually want RAID in any form.

>>

>> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

>> are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

>>

>> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

>> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

>> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

>> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

>> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

>> disks are really not that expensive.

>>

>> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

>> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

>> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

>> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

>> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

>> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

>> and for free.)

> Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel

> dumber than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting to

> add a dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all

> I want to do at this point. I was under the impression that because

> my PC out of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller

> card on the motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply

> add a HD like I would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture.

 

You still add an extra hard drive the same way. The RAID functionality

is optional and you will find that the original drive isnt RAID.

> I'm still not sure what my options are.

 

Just add a new drive of the size you feel you need, and forget about RAID.

> I guess I can understand that because I will be dealing with large files that

> the data will be read into RAM serially thus negating any benefit from striping

 

Its more complicated than that, but dont worry about it.

> (although I'd would wonder why RAID wouldn't include

> the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even for large files).

 

It does.

> So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID 0 (striping).

 

The short story is that while raid 0 does give some increase in performance,

that isnt very useful for the sort of thing you want to do because the speed

of video editing isnt limited by the speed of access to the file, it limited by

the work done on the file when editing, and so on the cpu horsepower etc.

> And I don't really care about backing up the video files

> (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

> (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

 

Yes, in that situation doubling the cost of the drive(s) isnt necessarily

worth it when you can get it from the VHS tapes again if you ever need to.

> So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

> 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

> to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are supposedly

> supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

 

Just plug the drive into the motherboard and see it show up in the bios.

[Guest ritpg]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> ritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >>> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

> >>> subject either.

>

> >> [...]

>

> >>> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

> >>> capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

> >>> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

> >>> two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

> >>> (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

> >>> striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>

> >> [...]

>

> >> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not

> >> for speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable

> >> by its price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed

> >> will

> >> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

> >> not actually want RAID in any form.

>

> >> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

> >> are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

>

> >> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

> >> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

> >> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

> >> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

> >> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

> >> disks are really not that expensive.

>

> >> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

> >> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

> >> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

> >> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

> >> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

> >> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

> >> and for free.)

> > Thanks to you all for the great feedback  - even though I feel

> > dumber than a rock at this point.  I had started out just wanting to

> > add a dedicated HD for video capture and editing.  And that is all

> > I want to do at this point.  I was under the impression that because

> > my PC out of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller

> > card on the motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply

> > add a HD like I would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture.

>

> You still add an extra hard drive the same way. The RAID functionality

> is optional and you will find that the original drive isnt RAID.

>

> > I'm still not sure what my options are.

>

> Just add a new drive of the size you feel you need, and forget about RAID.

>

> > I guess I can understand that because I will be dealing with large files that

> > the data will be read into RAM serially thus negating any benefit from striping

>

> Its more complicated than that, but dont worry about it.

>

> > (although I'd would wonder why RAID wouldn't include

> > the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even for large files).

>

> It does.

>

> > So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID 0 (striping).

>

> The short story is that while raid 0 does give some increase in performance,

> that isnt very useful for the sort of thing you want to do because the speed

> of video editing isnt limited by the speed of access to the file, it limited by

> the work done on the file when editing, and so on the cpu horsepower etc.

>

> > And I don't really care about backing up the video files

> > (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

> > (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

>

> Yes, in that situation doubling the cost of the drive(s) isnt necessarily

> worth it when you can get it from the VHS tapes again if you ever need to.

>

> > So I guess I go back to my original question.  How do I add a single

> > 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

> > to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are supposedly

> > supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

>

> Just plug the drive into the motherboard and see it show up in the bios.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

I can do that (just plug in a 2nd 500 gig SATA HD which I already

have) but how can I be sure I won't lose what is on the existing

drive. Is there any chance that could happen as I install the 2nd

drive?

 

Thanks.

[Guest Arno Wagner]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>> >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> >>> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

>> >>> subject either.

>>

>> >> [...]

>>

>> >>> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin to

>> >>> capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

>> >>> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total of

>> >>> two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an old EIDE

>> >>> (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance benefit from

>> >>> striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>>

>> >> [...]

>>

>> >> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not

>> >> for speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable

>> >> by its price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed

>> >> will

>> >> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

>> >> not actually want RAID in any form.

>>

>> >> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

>> >> are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

>>

>> >> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

>> >> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

>> >> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

>> >> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

>> >> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

>> >> disks are really not that expensive.

>>

>> >> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

>> >> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

>> >> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

>> >> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

>> >> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

>> >> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

>> >> and for free.)

>> > Thanks to you all for the great feedback  - even though I feel

>> > dumber than a rock at this point.  I had started out just wanting to

>> > add a dedicated HD for video capture and editing.  And that is all

>> > I want to do at this point.  I was under the impression that because

>> > my PC out of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller

>> > card on the motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply

>> > add a HD like I would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture.

>>

>> You still add an extra hard drive the same way. The RAID functionality

>> is optional and you will find that the original drive isnt RAID.

>>

>> > I'm still not sure what my options are.

>>

>> Just add a new drive of the size you feel you need, and forget about RAID.

>>

>> > I guess I can understand that because I will be dealing with large files that

>> > the data will be read into RAM serially thus negating any benefit from striping

>>

>> Its more complicated than that, but dont worry about it.

>>

>> > (although I'd would wonder why RAID wouldn't include

>> > the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even for large files).

>>

>> It does.

>>

>> > So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID 0 (striping).

>>

>> The short story is that while raid 0 does give some increase in performance,

>> that isnt very useful for the sort of thing you want to do because the speed

>> of video editing isnt limited by the speed of access to the file, it limited by

>> the work done on the file when editing, and so on the cpu horsepower etc.

>>

>> > And I don't really care about backing up the video files

>> > (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

>> > (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

>>

>> Yes, in that situation doubling the cost of the drive(s) isnt necessarily

>> worth it when you can get it from the VHS tapes again if you ever need to.

>>

>> > So I guess I go back to my original question.  How do I add a single

>> > 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

>> > to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are supposedly

>> > supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

>>

>> Just plug the drive into the motherboard and see it show up in the bios.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

> I can do that (just plug in a 2nd 500 gig SATA HD which I already

> have) but how can I be sure I won't lose what is on the existing

> drive. Is there any chance that could happen as I install the 2nd

> drive?

 

Unlikely. There can be partition shift (MS stupidity that

a primary partition on the second drive gets inserted in the

drive letter sequence in second place), but that is it.

 

If your new drive is unpartitioned, even that is not

really a risk. Just don't put a primary partition on it. Of

course if you accidentially mess with partitions or filesystems

on the first disk, instead of the second, you may losse data.

 

Arno

[Guest Eric Gisin]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:62qn1kF24nd3jU1@mid.individual.net...

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Just plug the drive into the motherboard and see it show up in the bios.- Hide quoted text -

>>>

>> I can do that (just plug in a 2nd 500 gig SATA HD which I already

>> have) but how can I be sure I won't lose what is on the existing

>> drive. Is there any chance that could happen as I install the 2nd

>> drive?

>

None at all.

> Unlikely. There can be partition shift (MS stupidity that

> a primary partition on the second drive gets inserted in the

> drive letter sequence in second place), but that is it.

>

Escaped Mental Patient ALERT! Arnie is having another episode.

> If your new drive is unpartitioned, even that is not

> really a risk. Just don't put a primary partition on it. Of

> course if you accidentially mess with partitions or filesystems

> on the first disk, instead of the second, you may losse data.

>

> Arno

[Guest Frank-FL]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

 

"ritpg" <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:31da0650-060b-40b3-aa78-af6a5decb9fc@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

 

Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel dumber

than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting to add a

dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all I want to

do at this point. I was under the impression that because my PC out

of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller card on the

motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply add a HD like I

would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture. I'm still not sure

what my options are. I guess I can understand that because I will be

dealing with large files that the data will be read into RAM serially

thus negating any benefit from striping (although I'd would wonder why

RAID wouldn't include the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even

for large files). So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID

0 (striping). And I don't really care about backing up the video

files (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

(although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

 

I have seen this many times on proprietary systems where they were set

up as a RAID (redundant array of inexpensive disks) with only one disk

installed. This is a misconfiguration in the CMOS/BIOS settings.

RAID/AHCI.

[Guest Rod Speed]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>>> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

>>>>> subject either.

>>

>>>> [...]

>>

>>>>> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin

>>>>> to capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

>>>>> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total

>>>>> of two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an

>>>>> old EIDE (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance

>>>>> benefit from striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>>

>>>> [...]

>>

>>>> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not

>>>> for speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable

>>>> by its price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed

>>>> will

>>>> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

>>>> not actually want RAID in any form.

>>

>>>> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

>>>> are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

>>

>>>> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

>>>> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

>>>> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

>>>> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

>>>> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

>>>> disks are really not that expensive.

>>

>>>> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

>>>> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

>>>> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

>>>> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

>>>> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

>>>> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

>>>> and for free.)

>>> Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel

>>> dumber than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting to

>>> add a dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all

>>> I want to do at this point. I was under the impression that because

>>> my PC out of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller

>>> card on the motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply

>>> add a HD like I would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture.

>>

>> You still add an extra hard drive the same way. The RAID

>> functionality

>> is optional and you will find that the original drive isnt RAID.

>>

>>> I'm still not sure what my options are.

>>

>> Just add a new drive of the size you feel you need, and forget about

>> RAID.

>>

>>> I guess I can understand that because I will be dealing with large

>>> files that the data will be read into RAM serially thus negating

>>> any benefit from striping

>>

>> Its more complicated than that, but dont worry about it.

>>

>>> (although I'd would wonder why RAID wouldn't include

>>> the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even for large files).

>>

>> It does.

>>

>>> So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID 0 (striping).

>>

>> The short story is that while raid 0 does give some increase in

>> performance,

>> that isnt very useful for the sort of thing you want to do because

>> the speed

>> of video editing isnt limited by the speed of access to the file, it

>> limited by

>> the work done on the file when editing, and so on the cpu horsepower

>> etc.

>>

>>> And I don't really care about backing up the video files

>>> (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

>>> (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

>>

>> Yes, in that situation doubling the cost of the drive(s) isnt

>> necessarily

>> worth it when you can get it from the VHS tapes again if you ever

>> need to.

>>

>>> So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

>>> 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of

>>> converting

>>> to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

>>> supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers

>>> added).

>>

>> Just plug the drive into the motherboard and see it show up in the bios.

> I can do that (just plug in a 2nd 500 gig SATA HD which I already have)

> but how can I be sure I won't lose what is on the existing drive.

 

That shouldnt happen, but the only way to be completely

sure is to have a full backup of the original drive.

> Is there any chance that could happen as I install the 2nd drive?

 

Its certainly possible to stuff things up when adding a 2nd drive.

 

It shouldnt happen if you are careful, but it does sound like

you arent all that fluent with systems, so there is some risk.

 

But you are taking a considerable risk not having a full backup of the original drive

anyway. That drive could just die at any time, even before you add a 2nd drive.

 

At least backup the stuff you cant just reinstall. A DVD burner doesnt cost much

and unless you have a lot of video files that you have created yourself etc, that

should be quite adequate to backup what most have created on a system.

[Guest ritpg]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

On Feb 29, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> ritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>ritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>> On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> >>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

> >>>>> subject either.

>

> >>>> [...]

>

> >>>>> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin

> >>>>> to capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

> >>>>> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a total

> >>>>> of two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture ala an

> >>>>> old EIDE (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the performance

> >>>>> benefit from striping. But do I really need it? Can I do this?

>

> >>>> [...]

>

> >>>> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is not

> >>>> for speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller (recognizable

> >>>> by its price, at the moment something like 500 USD and up), speed

> >>>> will

> >>>> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

> >>>> not actually want RAID in any form.

>

> >>>> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if you

> >>>> are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate it.

>

> >>>> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

> >>>> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

> >>>> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

> >>>> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

> >>>> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

> >>>> disks are really not that expensive.

>

> >>>> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

> >>>> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

> >>>> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

> >>>> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

> >>>> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

> >>>> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

> >>>> and for free.)

> >>> Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel

> >>> dumber than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting to

> >>> add a dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all

> >>> I want to do at this point. I was under the impression that because

> >>> my PC out of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller

> >>> card on the motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply

> >>> add a HD like I would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture.

>

> >> You still add an extra hard drive the same way. The RAID

> >> functionality

> >> is optional and you will find that the original drive isnt RAID.

>

> >>> I'm still not sure what my options are.

>

> >> Just add a new drive of the size you feel you need, and forget about

> >> RAID.

>

> >>> I guess I can understand that because I will be dealing with large

> >>> files that the data will be read into RAM serially thus negating

> >>> any benefit from striping

>

> >> Its more complicated than that, but dont worry about it.

>

> >>> (although I'd would wonder why RAID wouldn't include

> >>> the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even for large files).

>

> >> It does.

>

> >>> So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID 0 (striping).

>

> >> The short story is that while raid 0 does give some increase in

> >> performance,

> >> that isnt very useful for the sort of thing you want to do because

> >> the speed

> >> of video editing isnt limited by the speed of access to the file, it

> >> limited by

> >> the work done on the file when editing, and so on the cpu horsepower

> >> etc.

>

> >>> And I don't really care about backing up the video files

> >>> (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

> >>> (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

>

> >> Yes, in that situation doubling the cost of the drive(s) isnt

> >> necessarily

> >> worth it when you can get it from the VHS tapes again if you ever

> >> need to.

>

> >>> So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

> >>> 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of

> >>> converting

> >>> to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

> >>> supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers

> >>> added).

>

> >> Just plug the drive into the motherboard and see it show up in the bios..

> > I can do that (just plug in a 2nd 500 gig SATA HD which I already have)

> > but how can I be sure I won't lose what is on the existing drive.

>

> That shouldnt happen, but the only way to be completely

> sure is to have a full backup of the original drive.

>

> > Is there any chance that could happen as I install the 2nd drive?

>

> Its certainly possible to stuff things up when adding a 2nd drive.

>

> It shouldnt happen if you are careful, but it does sound like

> you arent all that fluent with systems, so there is some risk.

>

> But you are taking a considerable risk not having a full backup of the original drive

> anyway. That drive could just die at any time, even before you add a 2nd drive.

>

> At least backup the stuff you cant just reinstall. A DVD burner doesnt cost much

> and unless you have a lot of video files that you have created yourself etc, that

> should be quite adequate to backup what most have created on a system.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

I have 250 gig of USB external HD available which should hold the 140

gig of OS, apps, and data on my primary HD. I need to get up to speed

on how to image the primary HD. The version of Acronis I have seems

to be able to clone, buy not image, my HD. And cloning requires the

HDs to be identical in size which creates a problem for me.

[Guest Rod Speed]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

ritpg <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 29, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> ritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>>>>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>>> I'm not exactly a newbie but I haven't written any books on this

>>>>>>> subject either.

>>

>>>>>> [...]

>>

>>>>>>> My goal is to have 1.5 TBs in a RAID 5 arrangment so I can begin

>>>>>>> to capture hundreds of hours of video from old VHS and DV tapes.

>>>>>>> I'm tempted to just install one additional 500 gig HD for a

>>>>>>> total of two and just dedicate the second HD to video capture

>>>>>>> ala an old EIDE (non-RAID) arrangement. I won't get the

>>>>>>> performance benefit from striping. But do I really need it? Can

>>>>>>> I do this?

>>

>>>>>> [...]

>>

>>>>>> I think the question is what you want to actually do. RAID5 is

>>>>>> not for speed. Unless yu have a fast hardware controller

>>>>>> (recognizable by its price, at the moment something like 500 USD

>>>>>> and up), speed will

>>>>>> be slower than individual disks. My impression is that you do

>>>>>> not actually want RAID in any form.

>>

>>>>>> Also messing with your system drive is probably a bad idea, if

>>>>>> you are not sure you can actually reliably backup and recreate

>>>>>> it.

>>

>>>>>> You also do not seem to want the RAID5 for added reliability,

>>>>>> correct? If so, use additional drives for your video-data.

>>>>>> Current deives should be fast enough even for high-resolution

>>>>>> streaming. As to size, I would advise to honestly estimate

>>>>>> how much space you need and then get 1.5x ... 2x that. TB

>>>>>> disks are really not that expensive.

>>

>>>>>> As to reliability, RAID1 and RAID5 reduce down-time due to failed

>>>>>> disks. They do not replace backups. For backups the currently

>>>>>> cheapest solution is external USB HDDs. For files, just copy them

>>>>>> over. For system backups, yes, this is a bit difficult under

>>>>>> Windows, typically writing to an image file is best. (Linux:

>>>>>> use ye old tar archiver, which still does the trich reliably

>>>>>> and for free.)

>>>>> Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel

>>>>> dumber than a rock at this point. I had started out just wanting

>>>>> to add a dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is

>>>>> all I want to do at this point. I was under the impression that

>>>>> because my PC out of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the

>>>>> controller card on the motherboard) I was not going to be able to

>>>>> simply

>>>>> add a HD like I would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture.

>>

>>>> You still add an extra hard drive the same way. The RAID

>>>> functionality

>>>> is optional and you will find that the original drive isnt RAID.

>>

>>>>> I'm still not sure what my options are.

>>

>>>> Just add a new drive of the size you feel you need, and forget

>>>> about RAID.

>>

>>>>> I guess I can understand that because I will be dealing with large

>>>>> files that the data will be read into RAM serially thus negating

>>>>> any benefit from striping

>>

>>>> Its more complicated than that, but dont worry about it.

>>

>>>>> (although I'd would wonder why RAID wouldn't include

>>>>> the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even for large files).

>>

>>>> It does.

>>

>>>>> So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID 0 (striping).

>>

>>>> The short story is that while raid 0 does give some increase in

>>>> performance,

>>>> that isnt very useful for the sort of thing you want to do because

>>>> the speed

>>>> of video editing isnt limited by the speed of access to the file,

>>>> it limited by

>>>> the work done on the file when editing, and so on the cpu

>>>> horsepower etc.

>>

>>>>> And I don't really care about backing up the video files

>>>>> (RAID 1) because I'm not throwing away the source media

>>>>> (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

>>

>>>> Yes, in that situation doubling the cost of the drive(s) isnt

>>>> necessarily

>>>> worth it when you can get it from the VHS tapes again if you ever

>>>> need to.

>>

>>>>> So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a

>>>>> single 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of

>>>>> converting

>>>>> to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

>>>>> supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers

>>>>> added).

>>

>>>> Just plug the drive into the motherboard and see it show up in the

>>>> bios.

>>> I can do that (just plug in a 2nd 500 gig SATA HD which I already

>>> have) but how can I be sure I won't lose what is on the existing

>>> drive.

>>

>> That shouldnt happen, but the only way to be completely

>> sure is to have a full backup of the original drive.

>>

>>> Is there any chance that could happen as I install the 2nd drive?

>>

>> Its certainly possible to stuff things up when adding a 2nd drive.

>>

>> It shouldnt happen if you are careful, but it does sound like

>> you arent all that fluent with systems, so there is some risk.

>>

>> But you are taking a considerable risk not having a full backup of

>> the original drive anyway. That drive could just die at any time,

>> even before you add a 2nd drive.

>> At least backup the stuff you cant just reinstall. A DVD burner doesnt cost much

>> and unless you have a lot of video files that you have created yourself etc, that

>> should be quite adequate to backup what most have created on a system.

> I have 250 gig of USB external HD available which should

> hold the 140 gig of OS, apps, and data on my primary HD.

 

Yep, that will be fine.

> I need to get up to speed on how to image the primary HD. The version

> of Acronis I have seems to be able to clone, buy not image, my HD.

 

Thats not right. That wasnt true of any version of TI.

> And cloning requires the HDs to be identical in size

 

No it doesnt.

> which creates a problem for me.

 

I cant imagine what you are actually doing, but you're stuffing it up completely somehow.

 

Which version of TI are you actually using ?

[Guest Arno Wagner]

Re: Conversion to RAID 5

 

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Frank-FL <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote:

> "ritpg" <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:31da0650-060b-40b3-aa78-af6a5decb9fc@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 27, 10:23 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storageritpg<ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>

> Thanks to you all for the great feedback - even though I feel dumber

> than a rock at this point.

 

Don't worry about that, just keep being inquisitive.

> I had started out just wanting to add a

> dedicated HD for video capture and editing. And that is all I want to

> do at this point. I was under the impression that because my PC out

> of the factory, was set up for RAID (with the controller card on the

> motherboard) I was not going to be able to simply add a HD like I

> would on my old PC which had EIDE architecture. I'm still not sure

> what my options are.

 

Unfortunately that depends on the controller. If you are lucky,

you can just add a drive, nit set it up in the RAID BIOS

and have it show up as ordinary drive. The second best thing

is that you need to configure the new drive as "non RAID",

"pass through" or the like in the RAID BIOS. As to how to get

to the RAID BIOS, there should be a message during the booting

process about pressing some key or other to get into the RAID

controller BIOS/utility.

> I guess I can understand that because I will be

> dealing with large files that the data will be read into RAM serially

> thus negating any benefit from striping (although I'd would wonder why

> RAID wouldn't include the ability to initiate 2 reads in parallel even

> for large files).

 

Complexity and available bandwidth. I am using a setup at my

workplace that uses pretty expensive ARCEA RAID controllers

and they do deliver something like 250MB/s on RAID6, I think

also for writing. However these cost as much as several disks.

Slower controllers will not have the bandwidth and computing power.

I have seen 80MB/s reading speed with Linux software RAID1

and disks that deliver about 45MB/s in the past, but that was on

a fast server board. Again, bandwidth issues. On writing, there

was no speed-up.

 

You are right, that the designers of the cheap controllers could

do better. But then they would need 1) more time 2) more competence

3) management interesst in a better product. The low-end on-board

RAID controllers are typically unflexible and slow.

> So if this is true I have nothing to gain from RAID

> 0 (striping). And I don't really care about backing up the video

> files (RAID 1)

 

RAID1 is not backup. Just reduction of downtime if a disk fails.

> because I'm not throwing away the source media

> (although some of the VHS tapes are a bit long in the tooth).

> So I guess I go back to my original question. How do I add a single

> 500 gig HD to this PC without going thru the complexity of converting

> to any of the RAID options (0, 1, 5, 10, etc.) all of which are

> supposedly supported by my MB (with hardware RAID controllers added).

 

1. Plug it in (there may be different options)

If RAID and non-RAID conectors are available, use a non-RAID one.

2. If the OS sees it, fine, partition and use it.

3. If the OS does not see it, go into the RAID BIOS and

try to set it up as non-raided.

4. If all esle fails, you can get an SATA controller card for one or two

disks that does not support RAID and try to connect via that one.

 

Sorry about this, but device management in the PC is still a mess.

> I have seen this many times on proprietary systems where they were set

> up as a RAID (redundant array of inexpensive disks) with only one disk

> installed. This is a misconfiguration in the CMOS/BIOS settings.

> RAID/AHCI.

 

Indeed. And with some bad luck it can even cause serious problems.

 

Arno