Casper 4.0 cloning Win XP Pro SP3, SATA internal 0 to SATA intern

[D975XBX2 Blue]

I've been reading these posts here for a couple of days now. I'm new to the
discussion group community so please forgive any protocol mistakes. I've read
a lot information similar to my situation, but I wanted to ask about my
system specifically.

There seems to be some pretty knowledgeable folks here in the Win XP Pro
cloning department. I need some feedback and technical advice on cloning a
new install of Win XP Pro. It's taken me countless nights and weekends to get
this OS tweaked to a state of stability and usefulness and I want to save it.
When I built the system, I had the good sense to install one SATA 250 GB HDD
first (port 0). When I got all of the hardware operational, I loaded the
neccessary third party RAID drivers (Marvell and Intel) to support the eight
SATA ports on my MOB. AFTER I insalled the OS and got everything running
smoothly, I installed a SECOND 250 GB HDD (port 1), went into the Computer
Management Console and 'enabled' the second drive, and nothing else. The (0)
disk is listed as 'Basic' NTFS, and the (1) disk is listed as 'Dynamic'
unallocated. Now it's just sitting there waiting for someone smarter than I
am to help me use it!

Q1: Isn't it true that in a RAID system, there is a "Redundant Array" of
drives for the OS and data, but only ONE of these drives contains the
critical MBR? Even though I have RAID capability on this machine, I really
like the simplicity and security of being able to run cloning software and
copy the entire contents of the primary SATA (0) drive, MBR included, to the
second SATA (1) drive and be able to remove this drive and store it
seperately from the machine.

Q2: In the event of a failure of the primary drive, I could then re-insert
the cloned drive and boot up without any proprietary software or rescue disks?

Q3: Is using the Casper 4.0 software possible in this physical
configuration, SATA 0 to SATA 1 ?

Any thoughts about my overall logic, or technical advice on how to do what
I'm attempting, would be much appreciated.

Vegetarian is an old Cherokee word. It means 'Poor Hunter'

 

[Andrew E.]

"Marvel & intel" software,if youre mb hardware is intel-based,then it uses
ICH6,7,8,or9 controller for RAID,which runs on intel matrix software,where
does marvel fit in....You can add another hd & make up a RAID set,however
it needs to be in ntfs format,not dynamic..Also,RAID 1 is really mirroring
the
hds not cloning,also,if only 2 hds are used,then create a RAID 0 set,the
perform-
ance is much higher.Chk it out
at:http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/platform_technologies/storage_performance.htm
Also see:http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/emea/eng/242788.htm

 

[HeyBub]

I've been reading these posts here for a couple of days now. I'm new
to the discussion group community so please forgive any protocol
mistakes. I've read a lot information similar to my situation, but I
wanted to ask about my system specifically.

There seems to be some pretty knowledgeable folks here in the Win XP
Pro cloning department. I need some feedback and technical advice on
cloning a new install of Win XP Pro. It's taken me countless nights
and weekends to get this OS tweaked to a state of stability and
usefulness and I want to save it. When I built the system, I had the
good sense to install one SATA 250 GB HDD first (port 0). When I got
all of the hardware operational, I loaded the neccessary third party
RAID drivers (Marvell and Intel) to support the eight SATA ports on
my MOB. AFTER I insalled the OS and got everything running smoothly,
I installed a SECOND 250 GB HDD (port 1), went into the Computer
Management Console and 'enabled' the second drive, and nothing else.
The (0) disk is listed as 'Basic' NTFS, and the (1) disk is listed
as 'Dynamic' unallocated. Now it's just sitting there waiting for
someone smarter than I am to help me use it!

Q1: Isn't it true that in a RAID system, there is a "Redundant Array"
of drives for the OS and data, but only ONE of these drives contains
the critical MBR? Even though I have RAID capability on this
machine, I really like the simplicity and security of being able to
run cloning software and copy the entire contents of the primary SATA
(0) drive, MBR included, to the second SATA (1) drive and be able to
remove this drive and store it seperately from the machine.

There are many types of RAID. RAID 1 - Mirroring makes an exact duplicate of
the primary disk onto a secondary disk. The secondary disk is the equivalent
of cloning but it is dynamic. Every change made to the primary disk is
simultaneously echoed to the secondary. It is NOT true that only one drive
contains the MBR; they both do. The disks are identical in all respects.

Here's what you should do: Get a 3rd drive. Run with your primary(A) and
secondary (B). Periodically, pull out (B) and insert the other drive (C). To
make this easier, get drive caddies. As soon as the RAID controller
recognizes the swap, it will begin cloning (A) to (C). After a bit, the two
drives will be synched. Keep the spare drive in the safe.

To just use RAID for cloning loses other RAID features.

If during normal operation, the master, (A), fails, the secondary disk takes
over. Meanwhile the RAID controller fusses something fierce about the failed
drive. Point is, there's no disruption of use. It's like a reserve
parachute.

A second reason for keeping the RAID process active instead of just using it
for cloning, is efficiency. When a write is issued to the RAID controller,
the heads in both drives move and perform an identical write. But when a
READ operation is requested, the drive with its head closest to the desired
track gets the call. Depending on the type of load, this little trick can
cut overall access time in half.

Q2: In the event of a failure of the primary drive, I could then
re-insert the cloned drive and boot up without any proprietary
software or rescue disks?

In an ordinary RAID 1 configuration, you won't have to insert it. The
secondary drive will take up the slack without pause.

Q3: Is using the Casper 4.0 software possible in this physical
configuration, SATA 0 to SATA 1 ?

Caspar is cloning software. If you've got an operable RAID 1 hardware
controller, you don't need cloning software.

 

[Anna]

I've been reading these posts here for a couple of days now. I'm new to
the
discussion group community so please forgive any protocol mistakes. I've
read
a lot information similar to my situation, but I wanted to ask about my
system specifically.

There seems to be some pretty knowledgeable folks here in the Win XP Pro
cloning department. I need some feedback and technical advice on cloning a
new install of Win XP Pro. It's taken me countless nights and weekends to
get
this OS tweaked to a state of stability and usefulness and I want to save
it.
When I built the system, I had the good sense to install one SATA 250 GB
HDD
first (port 0). When I got all of the hardware operational, I loaded the
neccessary third party RAID drivers (Marvell and Intel) to support the
eight
SATA ports on my MOB. AFTER I insalled the OS and got everything running
smoothly, I installed a SECOND 250 GB HDD (port 1), went into the Computer
Management Console and 'enabled' the second drive, and nothing else. The
(0)
disk is listed as 'Basic' NTFS, and the (1) disk is listed as 'Dynamic'
unallocated. Now it's just sitting there waiting for someone smarter than
I
am to help me use it!

Q1: Isn't it true that in a RAID system, there is a "Redundant Array" of
drives for the OS and data, but only ONE of these drives contains the
critical MBR? Even though I have RAID capability on this machine, I
really
like the simplicity and security of being able to run cloning software and
copy the entire contents of the primary SATA (0) drive, MBR included, to
the
second SATA (1) drive and be able to remove this drive and store it
seperately from the machine.

Q2: In the event of a failure of the primary drive, I could then re-insert
the cloned drive and boot up without any proprietary software or rescue
disks?

Q3: Is using the Casper 4.0 software possible in this physical
configuration, SATA 0 to SATA 1 ?

Any thoughts about my overall logic, or technical advice on how to do what
I'm attempting, would be much appreciated.

Vegetarian is an old Cherokee word. It means 'Poor Hunter'

D9...
First of all I note your post's subject-line indicates that you're
apparently working with the XP Pro OS including the SP3 "Release Candidate"
or what many of us commonly refer to as a "beta" release. I would recommend
that at this time you work with *only* the XP Pro OS with the SP2 update and
wait until the final (non-beta) version of SP3 is released before installing
that new SP onto your OS. The final release should be forthcoming within the
next few months.

Anyway it seems apparent from your post that you're not really interested in
establishing a RAID configuration but just want to use your secondary SATA
HDD, the 250 GB one connected to your SATA1 connector (actually apparently
the second SATA connector on your motherboard) as the recipient of the
cloned contents of day-to-day boot drive, the SATA HDD connected to the
SATA0 connector on your motherboard. Do I have all this right as to your
basic objective?

If so, there's no reason why you can't use the Casper 4.0 program that you
mention to achieve your objective. We do this nearly every day.

Are you having some problem in doing so or are you just exploring the
possibility of using the Casper program in the way you want to?

As I've indicated this is a straightforward operation; Casper will see your
boot drive as the "source" drive and identify your secondary HDD as the
"destination" drive. So it's a simple matter to clone the contents of your
source disk to the destination disk. We highly recommend the Casper 4.0
program for basic disk-to-disk cloning purposes.

I'm assuming your overall objective is to establish & maintain a
comprehensive backup system and do so on a routine basis. If this be the
case it would surely be awkward to remove your destination HDD (the
recipient of the clone) from the system following every disk-cloning
operation. I can't imagine your doing this on any routine basis.

Given your objective, would it not be more practical to simply purchase a
USB-SATA enclosure designed to house your secondary SATA HDD and just clone
the contents of your boot drive to the external HDD on a routine basis?
Should your internal HDD fail or the OS become so corrupt that the system is
unbootable you could then (again using the Casper 4.0 program), either clone
the contents of the external HDD to the internal HDD for
recovery/restoration purposes or remove the SATA HDD from its enclosure and
install it as the new boot drive. Either way, a relatively simple &
straightforward process.

And should your motherboard contain a eSATA port, that would be even better
since it would accommodate SATA-to-SATA connectivity using a SATA external
enclosure designed for that purpose.

And in the event your system does not have an eSATA port there's another
option available involving fitting a SATA (or eSATA) adapter to the
backplane of your computer case and using an external SATA enclosure to
provide SATA-to-SATA connectivity, always a desirable objective.

You might even want to consider simply leaving your secondary HDD connected
as an internal HDD in your system and just use it as the destination drive
for the cloned contents of your boot drive. Obviously there's a certain risk
there but we know many users who prefer that configuration. Of course your
BIOS boot order priority setting would indicate the SATA HDD connected to
the SATA0 connector as first in boot order among your HDDs. Naturally for
safety's sake it's always preferable to use an external device as the
recipient of the clone rather than a continuously connected internal HDD.
Anna

 

[Anteaus]

Vegetarian is an old Cherokee word. It means 'Poor Hunter'

Some of use are quite good at fishing, though.

Matter of fact, if you tell me you're bringing your Vista machine for me to
fix, you are quite likely to find a notice to the effect that said activity
is in progress, hanging on the doorknob.

 

[D975XBX2 Blue]

Thanks Anteaus, now I know who to come to for the important questions,
where's the good fishing spot?! LoL

One of the reasons I chose to stick with XP Pro is so I wouldn't have to
spend so much time waiting for someone to help me fix my machine!

"If you want to use a piece of machinery, it helps to be smarter than the
machinery"
--
D975XBX2 Blue

:
Vegetarian is an old Cherokee word. It means 'Poor Hunter'
Some of use are quite good at fishing, though.

Matter of fact, if you tell me you're bringing your Vista machine for me to
fix, you are quite likely to find a notice to the effect that said activity
is in progress, hanging on the doorknob.

 

[D975XBX2 Blue]

Anna:
First of all I note your post's subject-line indicates that you're
apparently working with the XP Pro OS including the SP3
"Release Candidate" or what many of us commonly refer to as
a "beta" release. I would recommend that at this time you work
with *only* the XP Pro OS with the SP2 update and wait until
the final (non-beta) version of SP3 is released before installing
that new SP onto your OS. The final release should be
forthcoming within the next few months.

D9:
I agree with what you're telling me. I don't have the time, patience
or inclination to try to use 'beta' software. I have a hard enough
time using the stuff that's approve for public consumption! I ran
the Belarc advisor after I read this post. Lo and behold, it says
I'm only running SP1. I thought I bought XP Pro SP2, when I
purchased my OS. The OEM sleeve says it's 2002 software. I'm
pretty sure that isn't SP2 or 3. I did immediately go to Microsoft's
site and do an update after I got the OS installed. Microsoft says
I'm up to date. My mistake.

Anna:
Anyway it seems apparent from your post that you're not really
interested in establishing a RAID configuration but just want to
use your secondary SATA HDD, the 250 GB one connected to
your SATA1 connector (actually apparently the second SATA
connector on your motherboard) as the recipient of the cloned
contents of day-to-day boot drive, the SATA HDD connected
to the SATA0 connector on your motherboard. Do I have all
this right as to your basic objective?

D9:
Not entirely true. I'm partially depending on information I can
gather in this forum as to which road I'll take. I'm learning as I
go. Actually what drove me here was reading one of your posts
about using Casper 4.0. I can't remember now if it was in this
thread or another, great post btw. You provided much more
detail about the software behavior than I could ever find on the
developers site. That's one of the reason's I decided to join in and
ask all of these questions! I don't want to purchase additional
software if using the RAID I already have will give me the ability
to have multiple, fully self contained (read MBR...bootable)
drives.

Anna:
If so, there's no reason why you can't use the Casper 4.0
program that you mention to achieve your objective. We do
this nearly every day.

Are you having some problem in doing so or are you just
exploring the possibility of using the Casper program in the way
you want to?

D9:
Yes, yes. that's it. I don't have any problems yet, and I want it
to stay that way! I've made enough painful mistakes to learn,
it's a lot easier to ask and understand before I perform an action
than to perform the wrong action and then spend weeks undoing
the mistake.

Anna:
As I've indicated this is a straightforward operation; Casper will
see your boot drive as the "source" drive and identify your
secondary HDD as the "destination" drive. So it's a simple matter
to clone the contents of your source disk to the destination disk.
We highly recommend the Casper 4.0 program for basic
disk-to-disk cloning purposes.

I'm assuming your overall objective is to establish & maintain a
comprehensive backup system and do so on a routine basis. If this
be the case it would surely be awkward to remove your
destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) from the system
following every disk-cloning operation. I can't imagine your doing
this on any routine basis.

D9:
Absolutely true. That is my main goal, "to have a comprehensive
backup system and to use it on a routine basis"! I once lost all the
data on a hard drive...trying to install backup software!! LOL
it wasn't really funny at the time, but it is the definition of irony.
Which is another reason I'm here now trying to learn BEFORE
I load up this system with all of my resumes, photos, home videos,
and all of those valueable old emails I've been storing for three
years.

Anna:
Given your objective, would it not be more practical to simply
purchase a USB-SATA enclosure designed to house your
secondary SATA HDD and just clone the contents of your boot
drive to the external HDD on a routine basis? Should your internal
HDD fail or the OS become so corrupt that the system is
unbootable you could then (again using the Casper 4.0 program),
either clone the contents of the external HDD to the internal HDD
for recovery/restoration purposes or remove the SATA HDD
from its enclosure and install it as the new boot drive. Either way,
a relatively simple & straightforward process.

D9: I've already got a king's ransom tied up in this beast. I would
really rather NOT purchase anything else if I can learn how to
backup my OS, MBR and all of my files in one fell swoop.

Anna:
And should your motherboard contain a eSATA port, that would
be even better since it would accommodate SATA-to-SATA
connectivity using a SATA external enclosure designed for that
purpose.

And in the event your system does not have an eSATA port
there's another option available involving fitting a SATA
(or eSATA) adapter to the backplane of your computer case
and using an external SATA enclosure to provide SATA-to
-SATA connectivity, always a desirable objective.

D9:
I DO have an eSATA port. Is there a way to use the RAID
software to access an eSATA drive? Or would Casper 4.0 be
the better choice for this configuration? Again, this is something I'd
prefer to put off until I can replenish my 'pc budget'...sometime
around 2012! LoL...

Anna:
You might even want to consider simply leaving your secondary
HDD connected as an internal HDD in your system and just use
it as the destination drive for the cloned contents of your boot
drive. Obviously there's a certain risk there but we know many
users who prefer that configuration. Of course your BIOS boot
order priority setting would indicate the SATA HDD connected
to the SATA0 connector as first in boot order among your HDDs.
Naturally for safety's sake it's always preferable to use an
external device as the recipient of the clone rather than a
continuously connected internal HDD.
Anna

D9:
I think this would be my prefered method at this time. No
further hardware or softare purchases. Just a complete,
bootable system backup to the drive that I have. "HeyBub" said,
that my RAID software would create an MBR on seperate drives
in the right configuration. I'd really love that. I'm not day
trading on this machine, (yet!) just trying to learn and understand
how to use the hardware and software that I have, to practice a
sensible and convienent backup routine that will reduce my
chances of losing all of this data that I've spent years of my life
compiling. My current backup routine is: Either monthly, or after
I add some type of valueable data to my machine, copy all of
'my files only' to data dvds using Ahead InCD, drag and drop in
Windows Explorer. It's simple and I can see and understand
everything's that's going on.

This method is neither convienent, (it usually takes the better part
of half a day because I have enough data to have to split the
backup between two dvds AND I make TWO seperate
backups.) nor does it have the capability of backing up my
OS and PROGAMS. I have years of work tied up in my data.
I have hundreds of dollars and weeks of time tied up in
customizing the system and as of right now, no way to backup
all of this work.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my post and
respond so quickly. Your advice and the advice of the others
that responded is invaluable. There's a world of difference in
what the developers advertise, and what you people describe
in 'real world' experience! Mucho Gracias, Andrew E., HeyBub,
Anteaus!!

I'm almost out of weekend. Time to go back to my day job.
I may only be able to check back in here for the rest of today.
I'm not sure how hectic my week will be.
You've all been great, thanks again.

 

[D975XBX2 Blue]

:
There are many types of RAID. RAID 1 - Mirroring makes an
exact duplicate of the primary disk onto a secondary disk. The
secondary disk is the equivalent of cloning but it is dynamic. Every
change made to the primary disk is simultaneously echoed to the
secondary. It is NOT true that only one drive contains the MBR;
they both do. The disks are identical in all respects.

D975XBX2 Blue:
Hey HeyBub! I've spent all morning reading the replies to my
questions. All of them have helped shed light on my situation,
but this post is the direction I think I need to be moving.
Maybe I posted my question under the wrong category. It
wasn't a 'Casper 4.0 cloning' question, it was a RAID
question! I think your explanation was what I was searching
for.

I understand:
"The RAID 1 configuration 'mirrors' an exact duplicate of
the primary disk to the secondary." In order for this to occur,
the secondary disk needs to be dynamic. It looks like my RAID
software installation was a success. That's currently how the
secondary drive is displayed in my management console,
"drive (1) dynamic, unallocated".

HeyBub:
Here's what you should do: Get a 3rd drive. Run with your primary
(A) and secondary (B). Periodically, pull out (B) and insert the other
drive (C). To make this easier, get drive caddies. As soon as the RAID
controller recognizes the swap, it will begin cloning (A) to (C). After a
bit, the two drives will be synched. Keep the spare drive in the safe.

D975XBX2 Blue:
I knew and understood about the efficiency of a RAID system.
But I thought one had to be sacrificed for the other unless one
could afford 4 drives in a RAID 10 config, which right now,
I can't. I can probably sneak one more drive in without causing
too much chaos in my checking account. I have a drive caddy!

//** HeyBub:
To just use RAID for cloning loses other RAID features.

If during normal operation, the master, (A), fails, the secondary disk
takes over. Meanwhile the RAID controller fusses something fierce
about the failed drive. Point is, there's no disruption of use. It's like a
reserve parachute.

A second reason for keeping the RAID process active instead of just
using it for cloning, is efficiency. When a write is issued to the RAID
controller, the heads in both drives move and perform an identical write.
But when a READ operation is requested, the drive with its head closest
to the desired track gets the call. Depending on the type of load, this
little
trick can cut overall access time in half.

Q2: In the event of a failure of the primary drive, I could then
re-insert the cloned drive and boot up without any proprietary
software or rescue disks?

In an ordinary RAID 1 configuration, you won't have to insert it. The
secondary drive will take up the slack without pause.

Q3: Is using the Casper 4.0 software possible in this physical
configuration, SATA 0 to SATA 1 ?

Caspar is cloning software. If you've got an operable RAID 1 hardware
controller, you don't need cloning software. **//

D975XBX2 Blue:
The preceding string of text was the critical info I was seeking. "You don't
need
cloning software bonehead, you've got RAID! LOL... I thank you
and yield to your superior mental prowess! I'm sure I'll be asking
you to pull me up out of the quicksand again before I'm finished!

 

[HeyBub]

:
There are many types of RAID. RAID 1 - Mirroring makes an
exact duplicate of the primary disk onto a secondary disk. The
secondary disk is the equivalent of cloning but it is dynamic. Every
change made to the primary disk is simultaneously echoed to the
secondary. It is NOT true that only one drive contains the MBR;
they both do. The disks are identical in all respects.

D975XBX2 Blue:
Hey HeyBub! I've spent all morning reading the replies to my
questions. All of them have helped shed light on my situation,
but this post is the direction I think I need to be moving.
Maybe I posted my question under the wrong category. It
wasn't a 'Casper 4.0 cloning' question, it was a RAID
question! I think your explanation was what I was searching
for.

Umm... I think something's amiss. The secondary drive should be invisible to
the OS as it is part of a RAID "array" The "array" is treated as one drive
by the OS.

D975XBX2 Blue:
I knew and understood about the efficiency of a RAID system.
But I thought one had to be sacrificed for the other unless one
could afford 4 drives in a RAID 10 config, which right now,
I can't. I can probably sneak one more drive in without causing
too much chaos in my checking account. I have a drive caddy!

There's different kinds of "efficiency." In striped RAID configurations,
your data are scattered over how many disks you have in a (sometimes vain)
attempt to minimize head latency. If, for example, you read your data
sequentially, there's no gain at all in a striped RAID methodology. Only if
the drive's head operates like the "Old Maid's Delight" does striping help.
That said, with RAID 1 (mirroriing), the hardware manufacturers found they
could squeeze some out efficiency without sacrificing the main goal of
redundancy.

Caspar is cloning software. If you've got an operable RAID 1 hardware
controller, you don't need cloning software. **//

D975XBX2 Blue:
The preceding string of text was the critical info I was seeking.
"You don't need
cloning software bonehead, you've got RAID! LOL... I thank you
and yield to your superior mental prowess! I'm sure I'll be asking
you to pull me up out of the quicksand again before I'm finished!

There are other (remote) considerations. While it's true that RAID provides
redundancy, the RAID copy is of no help at all if the box catches fire,
stolen, or the victim of malice.

We had a user located in Hollister, California, the epicenter of the "San
Francisco" earthquake of 1989. The building collapsed. Then caught fire.
Then, from a warehouse across the street holding about a million cans of
tomato paste, a giant red ooze slithered over and extinguised the blaze.

RAID wouldn't have helped.

 

[D975XBX2 Blue]

:
Umm... I think something's amiss. The secondary drive should be invisible to
the OS as it is part of a RAID "array" The "array" is treated as one drive
by the OS.

D975XBX2 Blue:
I began my post BEFORE I attempted creating the RAID array. I'm learning...
No Problems what so ever! After reading the posts here, I re-read the help
files on
managing the RAID array in Intel Matrix Storage Manager, followed the
instructions
to the letter, and watched the array create itself. It took two hours and it
was a
thing of beauty. Being able to create a RAID array from within Windows, while
the system was operating, is amazing to me. I was listening to music in Media
Player and surfing the internet while this software copied the entire
contents of the
primary drive to the second drive. Whoever the people are that developed this
software, deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

The post you commented on, about me being able to see the dynamic, unallocated
space, I think that is the condition that has to exist for the RAID software
to create
the volume? The primary drive containing the MBR, OS and all of my files was
listed as basic. After I physically installed the second drive and powered
it up, I was
able to see it listed in the management console. All I did in the computer
management console, (LUCK) was select the drive, right click and select
'enable'.
The OS made it dynamic. I can't remember what my other options where now
(I think it was to make it basic too?) and I can't see them again because
now, the OS DOES see it as one physical drive: "C".

When I went to the RAID Console and began the volume creation, the only
hiccup
in the entire process, was when I tried to execute the very first action:
"Create Raid
Volume" (first action listed in the drop down menu) gave me an error message
about a paragraph long about why it couldn't do it. I had to execute the
SECOND
action, "Create Raid Volume "FROM EXISTING HARD DRIVE" ". Duh. I guess it was
existing, I installed and enabled it!

D975XBX2 Blue:
I knew and understood about the efficiency of a RAID system.
But I thought one had to be sacrificed for the other unless one
could afford 4 drives in a RAID 10 config, which right now,
I can't. I can probably sneak one more drive in without causing
too much chaos in my checking account. I have a drive caddy!

HeyBub:
There's different kinds of "efficiency." In striped RAID configurations,
your data are scattered over how many disks you have in a (sometimes vain)
attempt to minimize head latency. If, for example, you read your data
sequentially, there's no gain at all in a striped RAID methodology. Only if
the drive's head operates like the "Old Maid's Delight" does striping help.
That said, with RAID 1 (mirroriing), the hardware manufacturers found they
could squeeze some out efficiency without sacrificing the main goal of
redundancy.


Caspar is cloning software. If you've got an operable RAID 1 hardware
controller, you don't need cloning software. **//

D975XBX2 Blue:
The preceding string of text was the critical info I was seeking.
"You don't need
cloning software bonehead, you've got RAID! LOL... I thank you
and yield to your superior mental prowess! I'm sure I'll be asking
you to pull me up out of the quicksand again before I'm finished!

There are other (remote) considerations. While it's true that RAID provides
redundancy, the RAID copy is of no help at all if the box catches fire,
stolen, or the victim of malice.

We had a user located in Hollister, California, the epicenter of the "San
Francisco" earthquake of 1989. The building collapsed. Then caught fire.
Then, from a warehouse across the street holding about a million cans of
tomato paste, a giant red ooze slithered over and extinguised the blaze.

RAID wouldn't have helped.

D975XBX2 Blue:
I understand, any type of data that has value, needs to be backed up
and stored OFF SITE. I kept reading about other people losing their
valuable data to HDD failures. The drives I installed have 100,000 MTBF
rating. If my math is right, that's about 11 years +/-, (24/7). I don't let
mine run 24/7. I've read that the average age of a HDD that fails for most
people is around 5 years. I have a machine
that I've been using and abusing for almost four years now. This is the
first time
I've had the time and resources to build a machine from scratch while I
still had a
good one running. You know, kind of like cars...and phones...it's easier to
take care
of two...you've got a spare when one screws up. I guess my primary goal was
to
have a complete and BOOTABLE back up of what I've got the most money tied up
in,
my OS and programs.

I've yet to pull out the primary drive and see if my secondary will. That is
going to have to wait. I have work to do.

It was a lot easier to do with a little coaching! My sincere thanks.
Don't send me a bill yet, I'm saving my money for an eSATA drive so I can
get my data offsite...

Now...can I use the RAID software to copy to the eSATA drive...or will THAT
require
cloning?

 

[HeyBub]

Now...can I use the RAID software to copy to the eSATA drive...or
will THAT require
cloning?

I don't know. Around here, we pull the secondary (at which point the RAID
controller starts bitching like the third monkey on Noah's gangplank), then
we poke in any old drive (of the same capacity as the master). The RAID
controller mumbles something about "Why do I have to do all the work...",
and begins copying the master to the newly-inserted disk.

There's no formatting, partitioning, or praying over it necessary. It's all
done at the hardware level, track for track, sector for sector, byte for
byte.

 

[D975XBX2 Blue]

D975XBX2 Blue wrote:

Now...can I use the RAID software to copy to the eSATA drive...or will THAT
require cloning?

I don't know. Around here, we pull the secondary (at which point the RAID
controller starts bitching like the third monkey on Noah's gangplank), then
we poke in any old drive (of the same capacity as the master). The RAID
controller mumbles something about "Why do I have to do all the work...",
and begins copying the master to the newly-inserted disk.

There's no formatting, partitioning, or praying over it necessary. It's all
done at the hardware level, track for track, sector for sector, byte for
byte.

D975XBX2 Blue:
I'll have to do some reading and experimenting and let you know how it goes.
I think the Intel Martix Storage Manager only manages four (4) SATA ports on
the MOB, it has eight (8). Marvell RAID Monitor manages the other four. Of
course, the eSATA port is in the bank managed by the Marvell software...:)
So far, I've only experimented with the Intel software. I don't know why it's
set up that way. Maybe it's something to do with addressing the ports? I've
been wondering if the board actually has the ability to control two full sets
of (4) drives each, with TWO seperate sets of RAID controllers at one time,
or if it's an 'either/or' situation? It's gonna be a l-o-n-g time before I
can buy enough drives to test that out!

OCD patient that I am, I'm going to have to pull the primary drive and test
the RAID system out before I make any more modifications. I feel safe now.
I've got one machine with two drives in a RAID 1 array stable. I've got two
other machines with all of the same data, stable. And last but no least, l
also have all of my data backed up to dvd. I am out of time to tinker with
this thing now. It'll be months before I can get back to play with it.

In the Help files for the Intel software, it lists a table with the types of
RAID that can be converted 'From' - 'To' and vice versa. It looks to me like
since I started out with a 2-drive RAID 1 array, I can only 'convert' to a
RAID 5 of various disk amounts? I was starting to get my hopes up that I
could just add the appropriate number of drives and 'convert' up to a RAID
10? I don't see that option listed,
damn-it.

Give me your thoughts and ideas on how to procede, Wise One. I'm thinking I
should get that third drive as you suggested, first. Then I can test the
system by rotating one drive at the time out. Maybe I'll have time to study
the Marvell software a little bit and see what I can figure out. I wonder if
I could use the removed RAID disk, to test the eSATA port? I've read that
takes a bios modification?

So many computer parts, so little time...

Third monkey on Noah's gangplank...I'll have to remember that one .

 

[HeyBub]

D975XBX2 Blue wrote:

Now...can I use the RAID software to copy to the eSATA drive...or
will THAT require cloning?

I don't know. Around here, we pull the secondary (at which point the
RAID controller starts bitching like the third monkey on Noah's
gangplank), then we poke in any old drive (of the same capacity as
the master). The RAID controller mumbles something about "Why do I
have to do all the work...", and begins copying the master to the
newly-inserted disk.

There's no formatting, partitioning, or praying over it necessary.
It's all done at the hardware level, track for track, sector for
sector, byte for byte.

D975XBX2 Blue:
I'll have to do some reading and experimenting and let you know how
it goes. I think the Intel Martix Storage Manager only manages four
(4) SATA ports on the MOB, it has eight (8). Marvell RAID Monitor
manages the other four. Of course, the eSATA port is in the bank
managed by the Marvell software...:) So far, I've only experimented
with the Intel software. I don't know why it's set up that way. Maybe
it's something to do with addressing the ports? I've been wondering
if the board actually has the ability to control two full sets of (4)
drives each, with TWO seperate sets of RAID controllers at one time,
or if it's an 'either/or' situation? It's gonna be a l-o-n-g time
before I can buy enough drives to test that out!

OCD patient that I am, I'm going to have to pull the primary drive
and test the RAID system out before I make any more modifications. I
feel safe now. I've got one machine with two drives in a RAID 1 array
stable. I've got two other machines with all of the same data,
stable. And last but no least, l also have all of my data backed up
to dvd. I am out of time to tinker with this thing now. It'll be
months before I can get back to play with it.

In the Help files for the Intel software, it lists a table with the
types of RAID that can be converted 'From' - 'To' and vice versa. It
looks to me like since I started out with a 2-drive RAID 1 array, I
can only 'convert' to a RAID 5 of various disk amounts? I was
starting to get my hopes up that I could just add the appropriate
number of drives and 'convert' up to a RAID 10? I don't see that
option listed,
damn-it.

Give me your thoughts and ideas on how to procede, Wise One. I'm
thinking I should get that third drive as you suggested, first. Then
I can test the system by rotating one drive at the time out. Maybe
I'll have time to study the Marvell software a little bit and see
what I can figure out. I wonder if I could use the removed RAID disk,
to test the eSATA port? I've read that takes a bios modification?

So many computer parts, so little time...

Third monkey on Noah's gangplank...I'll have to remember that one .

You're getting beyond our humble experience. After suffering a hard disk
failure on our server, we went to RAID 1. While we had copious backups of
our data, the failure put us down for about a day. Buy another drive,
install the OS, reload all the programs from original distributions, apply
updates, blah-blah-blah, and only THEN were we able to restore the data
backups. All in all, we were down for a bit over a day.

So we went to RAID 1. Since then (about five years ago) we have had one hard
disk failure. The RAID 1 system didn't even hiccup but continued operating
(with the server beeping and honking like a chicken on fire). So, then, for
the $50 cost of a RAID controller card, we avoided one or two days down
time... well worth it.

The varieties of RAID involving striping, we don't use. As I said earlier,
we don't need the efficiencies that striped RAID can offer - our server
contains source code and other stuff that is almost always accessed
sequentially. We only have one random access database on the server, and
it's for accounting department. I don't give a shit how efficient those
people are.