SATA HDD's Set-up

[p.mc]

Hi

I've just ordered 2 Maxtor SATA HDD's, one for the O/S and the other for
Storage, these will run off a high speed 2-port Sata PCI Card (Adaptec
ASH-1205SA) Transfer rates of up to 1.5 Gbit/sec (150 MByte/sec.) The two
HDD's I've ordered transfer rates are 300 MBps, will this be a problem?

Maxtor DiamondMax10 160GB S300 ...(For O/S)
http://www.dabs.com/productview.asp...l&SearchMode=All&NavigationKey=0&v=2#infoarea

Maxtor Maxline III 300Gb S300 16MB... (For Storage)
http://www.dabs.com/productview.asp...chKey=All&SearchMode=All&NavigationKey=0&v=2#

Basically I'd like to ask how best to set them up from anyone knowledgeable
or has a similar set-up.

I was considering;

C:\ 160GB O/S...On port 1
D:\ 300GB Storage... On port 2, then moving "My Documents" folder to this
drive.

I will be installing WinXP Home SP1 (SP2 I don't want) so I've D/L the
Maxtor big drive enabler plus diag utills etc.
So any advanced info or advice before I start would be appreciated.

 

[DL]

You read the 'Note' in the big disk enabler blurb, re data loss if sp's not
applied?

The adaptec card is sata1, your Maxtor's are sata2, I assume the Maxtor has
a jumper to set it to sata1.
With a 160gb win drive you will have serious amount of free space, doing
nothing?
And your data backups will go where?

 

[p.mc]

Hi DL

You read the 'Note' in the big disk enabler blurb, re data loss if sp's
not
applied?

(Snip)
Solution
Currently, there are three options to remedy the 137 Gigabyte barrier.
Failure to implement one of the following installation options will result
in data loss when trying to access the hard disk beyond 137 Gigabytes.

(Quote)
"Installation Option 1. Upgrade the operating system to either Windows 2000
with Service Pack 3 (or newer) or Windows XP with Service Pack 1 (or newer)
and download the Maxtor Big Drive Enabler software patch. The Maxtor Big
Drive Enabler, once executed, will update the Windows registry for large
drive support. "

(I did mention)
"I will be installing WinXP Home SP1 (SP2 I don't want) so I've D/L the
Maxtor big drive enabler plus diag utills etc."

So if I'm reading it right I shouldn't experience any data loss? **

The adaptec card is sata1, your Maxtor's are sata2, I assume the Maxtor
has
a jumper to set it to sata1.

"Now I didn't know that" I didn't see anything in my research mentioning
SATA1 or SATA2 either on the host controller box or in any of the HDD's
specs!! And I don't know if I can do as you suggest, are the SATA cable
connections different on 1 & 2 or is it best to buy a SATA2 host controller?
** Or is it backwards compatible like USB2 to USB1? **

With a 160gb win drive you will have serious amount of free space, doing
nothing?

I would have filled it with the kids PC games and Norton ghost backups of
the D:\ drive and vice versa

And your data backups will go where?

D:\ drive, along with numerous .avi...vob...mpg...mp3 files. I used to have
a sata 250gb hdd used in the same manner which I filled no problem 'till it
eventually died.

I'm all in a tiz now, what shall I do? **

--

Regards
p.mc


(Original message)

 

[DL]

In theory installing winxp sp1 should automatically give you large disk
support
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013&Product=winxp
All the Maxtor utility does, however, is amend the registry, as seen in
above kb, so provided you use a winxp sp1 install cd there should'nt be a
problem. The data loss angle is only a theoretical possibility.

http://www.maxtor.com/_files/maxtor/en_us/documentation/quick_specs/diamondmax_10_quickspecs.pdf
Shows as sata2 with 150mb/sec
In theory sata2 should be backward compatible with sata1, however I've seen
posts where people could only get a Maxtor sata2 hd to work on a sata1
controller if they set the hd jumper to force sata1
The cables are the same.
In theory sata2 offers better performance, whether you would notice any over
sata1......?
http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/pr...l?cat=/Technology/Serial+ATA&source=home_menu

PS I assume winxp sp2 gave some problems

 

[p.mc]

Hi DL

Thanks for the links. Further investigations confirmed your advice, although
the "diamondmax 10 quickspecs.pdf" link didn't include my model (6V160E0) so
that's probably why I didn't see any references to sata2, I know now that
data transfer speeds of 150Mbps = sata1, were as 300Mbps = sata2. I also
notice that my host controller transferred at 150Mbps tops and the HDD's
could do 300Mbps but at the time I just thought I was future proofing, you'd
think they would've mentioned clearly that they where sata2 as we see USB
technology labelled.
I sent Maxtor a mail this morning also, as they have no support for the
Maxtor Maxline III 300Gb S300 16Mb (7V300F0) as yet.

I do have 2 other machines running winxp sp2, but I found sp1 worked a lot
better on the machine I'm posting about now, which I use mainly as a
multimedia pc with varying multimedia software.

I'll have to make sure I set the jumpers to force SATA1 on the HDD's if this
is the case

 

[Guest]

Why not set up a RAID configuration with the two SATA drives,youre
performance
would get increased from them set up individualy..This way you would see some
rates in the 150 mb range,otherwise you'll end up in the 110 range.To see the
diffrence,gp
to:http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/platform_technologies/chart_gif/storageB.gif

 

[Bob I]

That pair of drives isn't suitable for a RAID configuration.

 

[p.mc]

That pair of drives isn't suitable for a RAID configuration.

Hi Bob

Out of interest...Why!

 

[Bob I]

You're limited to using the size of the smallest drive. One is a 160 and
the other is a 300, so you pitch 140 GB storage in the dustbin. Never
mind the marginal speed increase you would get at the price of halving
the reliability.

BTW Please don't top post with a sig separator.

That pair of drives isn't suitable for a RAID configuration.

Hi Bob

Out of interest...Why!

 

[John John]

You're limited to using the size of the smallest drive. One is a 160 and
the other is a 300, so you pitch 140 GB storage in the dustbin. Never
mind the marginal speed increase you would get at the price of halving
the reliability.

In other words, the drives should be identical. Also, one hard drive
bites the dust and bye bye data, the whole works is gone!

John

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In other words, the drives should be identical. Also, one hard drive
bites the dust and bye bye data, the whole works is gone!

Two points here:

1. Losing the whole works if one drive "bites the dust" is a factor with
RAID 0 (striping), not with RAID 1 (mirroring). Clearly what people having
been talking here *is* RAID 0, but nobody has bothered to clarify that. I
mention this because lots of people don't know the difference and would
otherwise be led astray by your statement. Most people think of RAID as RAID
1, which is specifically designed to keep you running if one drive fails.

2. It's true that with striping, if one of the drive fails, all will be
lost. But it's equally true that if you have a single drive, and it fails,
all willl be lost. In either case, if you value the contents of your
drive(s) you institute a backup regimen to protect you against such loss.
That need for backup is true whether you have one drive, two separate
drives, two striped drives, or two mirrored drives.

 

[Bob I]

All that is true. RAID only came up because "Andrew E." suggested it as
a bad solution for a problem that didn't exist.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

All that is true. RAID only came up because "Andrew E." suggested it
as a bad solution for a problem that didn't exist.

Yup, typical of Andrew E., our resident specialist in bad solutions.

 

[John John]

John John wrote:





Two points here:

1. Losing the whole works if one drive "bites the dust" is a factor with
RAID 0 (striping), not with RAID 1 (mirroring). Clearly what people having
been talking here *is* RAID 0, but nobody has bothered to clarify that. I
mention this because lots of people don't know the difference and would
otherwise be led astray by your statement. Most people think of RAID as RAID
1, which is specifically designed to keep you running if one drive fails.

2. It's true that with striping, if one of the drive fails, all will be
lost. But it's equally true that if you have a single drive, and it fails,
all willl be lost. In either case, if you value the contents of your
drive(s) you institute a backup regimen to protect you against such loss.
That need for backup is true whether you have one drive, two separate
drives, two striped drives, or two mirrored drives.

Yes, that's true, however using RAID 1 with mirroring the storage
capacity of the array now falls by another 50%! So the 460 GB of
storage that the original poster had available now becomes 160 GB.
Also, while the reads will be fast, writes will acutally be slower than
using single drives. For what the original poster wanted to know I
don't know what RAID would give him as far as greater storage is
concerned. You are right that data will be secure in a properly
designed RAID setup but I don't think that is what the OP wants.

John

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Yes, that's true, however using RAID 1 with mirroring the storage
capacity of the array now falls by another 50%! So the 460 GB of
storage that the original poster had available now becomes 160 GB.
Also, while the reads will be fast, writes will acutally be slower
than using single drives. For what the original poster wanted to
know I don't know what RAID would give him as far as greater storage
is concerned. You are right that data will be secure in a properly
designed RAID setup but I don't think that is what the OP wants.

No argument from me. I'm not the one who suggested RAID; it was Andrew E.

My post was not at all meant to agree with Andrew E., but to clarify the
points made in your post.

 

[Rick]

Hi Bob

Out of interest...Why!

Both drives need to be of equal size or you will lose space.

--

Rick
Fargo, ND
N 46 53.251
W 096 48.279

 

[Rick]

In other words, the drives should be identical. Also, one hard drive
bites the dust and bye bye data, the whole works is gone!

John

no not if you set up RAID 1 so you get the same information on both drives

--

Rick
Fargo, ND
N 46 53.251
W 096 48.279

 

[Bob I]

no not if you set up RAID 1 so you get the same information on both drives

Then you would lose 300 gig of space, but RAID 0 was what the suggestion
was.

 

[Rick]

Then you would lose 300 gig of space, but RAID 0 was what the suggestion
was.

Exactly that is why a RAID configuration in this case is nonsense.
basically what I said you will loose space i.e. HD space

 

[John John]

John John wrote:





No argument from me. I'm not the one who suggested RAID; it was
Andrew E.

My post was not at all meant to agree with Andrew E., but to clarify
the points made in your post.

Darned Andrew, oh well at least we got a crash course in RAID because of
him. With pictures and animation it's easier to understand how
different RAID levels move data. The last one maybe Andrew will
understand... or maybe not.

http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html
http://www.sohoconsult.ch/raid/raid.html
http://www.epidauros.be/raid.jpg

John