Concerned About Upcoming Drive Copy

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Right, that's the last thing anyone wants is to pick the wrong
source/target.


I like the convenience of being able to take two drives and move them
around with little fuss.


I double check a new drive to make sure Cable Select is jumpered, but
I don't think I've had to change a jumper on a drive for at least five
years.


My computer case has two hard drive cages and I remember having to
shuffle the drives around in the beginning. It was a little bit of
trial and error until I had them connected and positioned the way I
wanted them. I think in the long run Cable Select may have made the
task easier.

That's certainly good news that Cable Select will work and I don't
have to change all the drives to Master and Slave to make the Clone
work correctly.

I mentioned above that the Clone would take place on two drives
connected to the same controller. While this has more to do with
convenience, it's not ideal for data transfers. Can I assume that it
is not necessary for both drives to reside on the same controller chain,
and that placing the 320GB on the secondary controller would also work,
Yes.

and would be a bit more efficient?

Really depends on what you are using to do the clone, whether
it can read one drive and write to the other simultaneously.
Plenty of cloners dont really do that very effectively so the
difference in the time to clone may well not be very great.

And there isnt a lot of point in getting too anal about it when
you have to go away and do something else while the clone
op is happening, whats most mechanically convenient often
makes most sense.

Once I start the process, I won't be able to come back here. So
can you think of anything a first-timer might need to know before
starting the process of moving the OS from drive A to drive B?

Nope, just that basic that you already know, its
important to get the source and destination right.

Thanks for all the help.

No problem.

 

[willbill]

Normally significantly less due to compression.

so the data transfer rate must really
take a hit when you do image backups
with software like Acronis True Image 9

Those are much more dangerous, too easy
to clone backwards and lose the original.

seems to me that with only image backups
(on a single backup HD), that you are
putting all the eggs in one basket

correct me if i'm wrong.

Not necessarily. That can get you into a considerable
mess with XP if you let the clone see the original for
the first boot of the clone after the clone has been made.
It will boot fine, but if the original dies or is unplugged,
you'll find that you cant boot the clone anymore
because the boot uses files off the original drive.

you must have no recent experience
doing clone backups

Yep, and the other advantage of using images
is that you can have more than one image of
the original
onto the drive you use for backup.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

all the eggs in one basket

And you can now do incremental and differential images
too. Most cloners cant do that. Some like xxclone can.

i'm using "clone" as it is used in Acronis'
True Image 9

bill

 

[Tom]

On Jul 29 2006, Rod Speed wrote:

[Drives on different controllers]

Really depends on what you are using to do the clone, whether it can
read one drive and write to the other simultaneously. Plenty of
cloners dont really do that very effectively so the difference in the
time to clone may well not be very great.

And there isnt a lot of point in getting too anal about it when you
have to go away and do something else while the clone op is happening,
whats most mechanically convenient often makes most sense.

That does makes sense. I plan to do the Clone overnight, so it should be
completed, either way of connecting the drive, by the time I wake up.
Looks like mechanically convenient is the best plan.

Nope, just that basic that you already know, its important to get the
source and destination right.

Yep, that is indeed important.

No problem.

The drive has arrived, I just need to get the software. Hopefully I can
start sometime this week. I'll report back in this thread my results to
close the issue.

I'm considering getting a mobile rack for the extra hard drives I have
around here. Perhaps the Vantec EZ Swap 2 (IDE):

http://www.vantecusa.com/p_mrk300fdbk.html

You wouldn't by chance happen to have a suggestion in that department,
would you?

Thanks.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

you must have no recent experience
doing clone backups

The difficulty with letting the clone see its "parent" OS
during the clone's 1st startup is that the clone seems to
form shortcuts to files in the "parent" that it sees in its
own file structure. Sometimes this means that a few
.doc files in My Documents folder of the clone are not
the physical copies, but merely shorcuts to files of the same
name in the "parent". Sometimes one of the files might
be a boot file, sometimes part of the registry, sometimes
an installed app. And you don't find out about it until
you take the "parent" OS away and then the file is found
to be missing in the clone. It's the random nature of this
problem that makes it insidious, and it can be avoided
by simply starting up the clone for its 1st runtime with
the "parent" OS invisible to it.

What makes a clone recognize its 'parent" isn't clear.
It's possible that with time, the "parent" and clone will
diverge in their appearance such that the clone won't
recognize its "parent", and so a 1st startup of the clone
after a few days won't require isolation from the "parent".
But if you wish to test or use the clone soon after its creation,
start it up for the 1st time in isolation from its "parent" OS.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

so the data transfer rate must really
take a hit when you do image backups
with software like Acronis True Image 9

Not if you have a decent system.

seems to me that with only image backups
(on a single backup HD), that you are
putting all the eggs in one basket

That is a completely bogus comparison because
you cant clone with just one drive. You should be
putting the image files on the drive you are cloning to.

correct me if i'm wrong.

You are.

you must have no recent experience
doing clone backups

Wrong again.

all the eggs in one basket

Nope, you write those images to the drive you are cloning
to, so the number of physical drives doesnt change.

i'm using "clone" as it is used in Acronis' True Image 9

Then you can only get incremental clones with something
like xxclone. If you use images instead, TI can do incremental
and differential images and so the total time to do that is
MUCH less than a clone takes.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Jul 29 2006, Rod Speed wrote:

[Drives on different controllers]

Really depends on what you are using to do the clone, whether it can
read one drive and write to the other simultaneously. Plenty of
cloners dont really do that very effectively so the difference in the
time to clone may well not be very great.

And there isnt a lot of point in getting too anal about it when you
have to go away and do something else while the clone op is
happening, whats most mechanically convenient often makes most sense.

That does makes sense. I plan to do the Clone overnight, so it should
be completed, either way of connecting the drive, by the time I wake
up. Looks like mechanically convenient is the best plan.

Nope, just that basic that you already know, its important to get the
source and destination right.

Yep, that is indeed important.

No problem.

The drive has arrived, I just need to get the software. Hopefully I
can start sometime this week. I'll report back in this thread my
results to close the issue.

I'm considering getting a mobile rack for the extra hard drives I have
around here. Perhaps the Vantec EZ Swap 2 (IDE):

http://www.vantecusa.com/p_mrk300fdbk.html

You wouldn't by chance happen to have a suggestion in that department,
would you?

I dont use IDE mobile racks because they flout the ATA standard.

SATA mobile racks dont if designed properly.

 

[willbill]

On Jul 29 2006, Rod Speed wrote:

[Drives on different controllers]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


odds are it won't make much difference

i've been seeing backup data transfer rates
(*clone*, not image (which i've never done))
of 2.0GB/min to 2.2GB/min for the last year
with a mix of 6 250GB 720IDE hard drives:
2 Hitachi (the slightly old ones)
1 Hitachi (the current HDT722525DLAT80)
2 WD RE
1 Seagate 7200.9

two machines, not the fastest, both Opteron 940,
one with an Opteron 142 (slow), the 2nd with
a single Opteron 248 (true dualie mobo, and
i expect to go to 2 CPUs (or a single dual core)
in another 4-to-7 months

two of the above are my primary master,
the other 4 are the clone backups

this past couple of weeks i got 2 Raptor 150's
(SATA) and am now using them as the boot hard
drives on both machines. i expect to see
a small overall improvement on my prior
2.0GB/min-2.2GB/min (based on the clone
backups that i've done so far (maybe 4/5
at this point))

i've gotten essentially the same data
transfer rates with either DOS Ghost 2003,
or the current Acronis True Image 9

fwiw, yesterday on my faster machine (with
the Raptor boot disk and a 3 disk Raid 1E array
(striped, similar to a 4 disk Raid 10), using
a $300+ Areca ARC-1210 as the controller), in Win
XP Pro (updated) i copied 1.71GB of Agent newsreader
files from the Raptor to the array (for minor backup)
and got 1.22GB/min. for kicks, i turned around
and copied it the other way (where i'm reading
from the striped array) and got 2.50GB/min!

anyhow, back to your question above (which
i underlined above):

1. i was doing my IDE backups on a single
80 wire cable that has 3 connectors.
i deliberately left the middle connector
unused and only used it when i plugged
in a 250GB IDE backup disk

2. i'm now using a SATA Raptor as my boot,
and have a 10" two connector round IDE
cable on one of my 2 mobo IDE connectors
(one is on the primary on one, and is on
the secondary on the other)

3. from what i've done so far, it's a little
bit faster on both machines, but not enough
to get excited about. the limiting factor
is the write speeds of the 6 250GB IDE drives
(which varies a fair amount, so i may still
have a revised opinion in another 3 weeks)

That does makes sense. I plan to do the Clone overnight, so it should be
completed, either way of connecting the drive, by the time I wake up.
Looks like mechanically convenient is the best plan.

you might keep in mind that rod appears
(to me) to have *no* recent clone experience

he's talking out of his hat

which is why he very often gets criticized
here as being a troll

maybe a useful troll, but a troll nonetheless

odds are he has a single SATA drive on the
machine(s) that he does his image backups to.
i mean, i'd NEVER want to setup doing clone
backups to a SATA drive (that you attach for
the backup and then detach), given their very
flimsy connectors



if you do any non-trivial changes (e.g. add
a SATA HD IDE controller), all bets are off
and you may have to load Windows from scratch

it's *easy* to test an IDE clone backup
(in my recent experience using Acronis
True Image 9):

pull the power and IDE connector from
your IDE boot drive; connect them to the
IDE drive you just backed up to

boot the machine

it either works (home free),
or it doesn't (homework assignment)


amen to that

rod does say some useful things.

in my recent experience with Acronis
True Image 9 for clone backups, it is
*very* easy to wipe out your source drive

be very very careful and proceed very
slowly the 1st time thru

The drive has arrived, I just need to get the software. Hopefully I can
start sometime this week. I'll report back in this thread my results to
close the issue.

i'm interested and i'll look for it.

I'm considering getting a mobile rack for the extra hard drives I have
around here. Perhaps the Vantec EZ Swap 2 (IDE):

http://www.vantecusa.com/p_mrk300fdbk.html

You wouldn't by chance happen to have a suggestion in that department,
would you?

forget it, waste of money

get a 12" length rod of 1.5" square wood,
and a few small paperbacks (of various thickness)

take your backup IDE drive and prop it up, one
edge on the bottom edge of the open case, and the
other on the wood rod

if you have more than 10GB to backup, get a fan
and blow air on the propped up hard drive

most i've backed up this way (clone) is 60GB
(taking a bit less than 30 min). the drive
was fairly cool when the backup finished.

take a piece of 3M blue masking tape, stick it
to the bottom (or top) the the cloned backup
drive and write the data and machine name

bill

 

[willbill]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Wrong again.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


from what i've seen of you and your
posting on the storage n/g, the odds
are HUGE that i'm right

"clone" meaning as used in Acronis
True Image 9 (which you are so
fond of, as am i)

bill

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Underlining that mindless crap changes nothing.

from what i've seen of you and your posting on the storage n/g, the odds are HUGE that
i'm right

Nope, you've just go egg all over your silly little face, as always.

You're so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out
that its stupid to image onto the same drive thats being imaged.

"clone" meaning as used in Acronis True Image 9 (which you are so fond of, as am i)

Irrelevant to the deep shit you can get into with some cloners
in the TI9 sense if you let XP see the original when you boot
the clone for the first boot after the clone has been made.

Completely trivial to prove its a problem. Do the clone,
let XP see the original during the first boot of the clone.

NOW physically unplug the original and you will find that it will no longer boot.

Because the boot involves files off both physical drives.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Jul 29 2006, Rod Speed wrote:

[Drives on different controllers]

and would be a bit more efficient?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


odds are it won't make much difference

i've been seeing backup data transfer rates
(*clone*, not image (which i've never done))
of 2.0GB/min to 2.2GB/min for the last year
with a mix of 6 250GB 720IDE hard drives:
2 Hitachi (the slightly old ones)
1 Hitachi (the current HDT722525DLAT80)
2 WD RE
1 Seagate 7200.9

two machines, not the fastest, both Opteron 940,
one with an Opteron 142 (slow), the 2nd with
a single Opteron 248 (true dualie mobo, and
i expect to go to 2 CPUs (or a single dual core)
in another 4-to-7 months

two of the above are my primary master,
the other 4 are the clone backups

this past couple of weeks i got 2 Raptor 150's
(SATA) and am now using them as the boot hard
drives on both machines. i expect to see
a small overall improvement on my prior
2.0GB/min-2.2GB/min (based on the clone
backups that i've done so far (maybe 4/5
at this point))

i've gotten essentially the same data
transfer rates with either DOS Ghost 2003,
or the current Acronis True Image 9

fwiw, yesterday on my faster machine (with
the Raptor boot disk and a 3 disk Raid 1E array
(striped, similar to a 4 disk Raid 10), using
a $300+ Areca ARC-1210 as the controller), in Win
XP Pro (updated) i copied 1.71GB of Agent newsreader
files from the Raptor to the array (for minor backup)
and got 1.22GB/min. for kicks, i turned around
and copied it the other way (where i'm reading
from the striped array) and got 2.50GB/min!

anyhow, back to your question above (which
i underlined above):

1. i was doing my IDE backups on a single
80 wire cable that has 3 connectors.
i deliberately left the middle connector
unused and only used it when i plugged
in a 250GB IDE backup disk

2. i'm now using a SATA Raptor as my boot,
and have a 10" two connector round IDE
cable on one of my 2 mobo IDE connectors
(one is on the primary on one, and is on
the secondary on the other)

3. from what i've done so far, it's a little
bit faster on both machines, but not enough
to get excited about. the limiting factor
is the write speeds of the 6 250GB IDE drives
(which varies a fair amount, so i may still
have a revised opinion in another 3 weeks)

That does makes sense. I plan to do the Clone overnight, so it
should be completed, either way of connecting the drive, by the time
I wake up. Looks like mechanically convenient is the best plan.

you might keep in mind that rod appears
(to me) to have *no* recent clone experience

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got
egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

The most recent was in the last month thanks.

he's talking out of his hat

I told you how to prove that I'm not.

which is why he very often gets criticized here as being a troll

Lying, as always when the shit hits the fan.

maybe a useful troll, but a troll nonetheless

odds are he has a single SATA drive on the
machine(s) that he does his image backups to.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got
egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

i mean, i'd NEVER want to setup doing clone backups to a SATA drive (that you attach for
the backup and then detach), given their very flimsy connectors

Pity about eSATA, child.

if you do any non-trivial changes (e.g. add
a SATA HD IDE controller), all bets are off
and you may have to load Windows from scratch

Not a ****ing clue, as always.

it's *easy* to test an IDE clone backup
(in my recent experience using Acronis True Image 9):

pull the power and IDE connector from your IDE boot drive; connect them to the IDE drive
you just backed up to boot the machine

it either works (home free),
or it doesn't (homework assignment)

amen to that

And you cant get it wrong if you use images instead.

rod does say some useful things.

in my recent experience with Acronis
True Image 9 for clone backups, it is
*very* easy to wipe out your source drive

be very very careful and proceed very slowly the 1st time thru

i'm interested and i'll look for it.

forget it, waste of money

get a 12" length rod of 1.5" square wood, and a few small paperbacks (of various
thickness)

take your backup IDE drive and prop it up, one edge on the bottom edge of the open case,
and the other on the wood rod

if you have more than 10GB to backup, get a fan and blow air on the propped up hard
drive

most i've backed up this way (clone) is 60GB
(taking a bit less than 30 min). the drive
was fairly cool when the backup finished.

take a piece of 3M blue masking tape, stick it
to the bottom (or top) the the cloned backup
drive and write the data and machine name

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use images instead.

 

[willbill]

willbill <[email protected]> wrote:

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use images instead.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

meaning all the eggs in one basket.

nothing is 100% safe, but doing *only*
multiple image backups to a single mounted
hard drive (SATA?) is dumb

to me it may take some time, but it will
get you in the long run

in the mean time, do us all a favor and
quit calling people names when they actually
post useful info, even if you don't agree

thank you

bill

 

[willbill]

Underlining that mindless crap changes nothing.

if you have not done clone backups
in the last 2 years (which i suspect),
then it is on topic and not "mindless"

meaning that you are talking off the top of
your head, and not based on recent experience

Nope, you've just go egg all over your silly little face, as always.

You're so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out
that its stupid to image onto the same drive thats being imaged.

this "silly/stupid" name calling stuff is so rod speed
(ron reaugh? (sp?)) when challenged to say something
useful.

tom (the OP) should get more than half
a clue on you from this!

Irrelevant to the deep shit you can get into with some cloners
in the TI9 sense if you let XP see the original when you boot
the clone for the first boot after the clone has been made.

Completely trivial to prove its a problem. Do the clone,
let XP see the original during the first boot of the clone.

NOW physically unplug the original and you will find that it will no longer boot.

Because the boot involves files off both physical drives.

in my recent experience, Acronis True Image 9
doesn't have a problem with it

you clearly don't have a clue as to the
issues involved when doing a clone
backup using Acronis True Image 9.

bill

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

if you have not done clone backups in the last 2 years

Pity I have much more recently than that.

(which i suspect),

More fool you, when I have told you repeatedly that is just plain wrong.

then it is on topic

Didnt say anything about whether it was on topic or not.

and not "mindless"

Completely mindless when I do in fact have a hell of a lot
more experience of that than you do in the last 2 years.

meaning that you are talking off the top of your head, and not based on recent
experience

Wrong, as always.

this "silly/stupid" name calling stuff is so rod speed (ron reaugh? (sp?)) when
challenged to say something useful.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

tom (the OP) should get more than half a clue on you from this!

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

in my recent experience, Acronis True Image 9
doesn't have a problem with it

It aint the only thing that can be used to clone with, ****wit.

you clearly don't have a clue as to the
issues involved when doing a clone
backup using Acronis True Image 9.

How odd that its what I used, ****wit.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

meaning all the eggs in one basket.

Even you cant actually be THAT thick.

YOU PUT THE IMAGES ON THE SAME DRIVE THAT YOU
WOULD OTHERWISE CLONE TO, YOU STUPID ****WIT.
SO THERE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF BASKETS
INVOLVED AS THERE ARE WHEN YOU CLONE, ****WIT.

AND YOU ELIMINATE ANY RISK OF CLONING BACKWARDS, ****WIT.

nothing is 100% safe, but doing *only* multiple image backups to a single mounted hard
drive (SATA?) is dumb

YOU DONT HAVE TO WRITE THE IMAGES TO
THE THE DRIVE YOU ARE IMAGING, ****WIT.

to me it may take some time, but it will get you in the long run

Wota terminal ****wit.

in the mean time, do us all a favor and quit calling people names when they actually
post useful info,

You've never ever managed that.

even if you don't agree

Neither does anyone else with your terminally silly shit.

 

[Tom]

I dont use IDE mobile racks because they flout the ATA standard.

SATA mobile racks dont if designed properly.

In which way does all IDE mobile rack flout the ATA standard?

 

[Tom]

forget it, waste of money

Is it because they flout the ATA standard as Rod Speed mentioned?

I have six perfectly good 120GB drives that I would like to put back
into service. It's not possible to fit them all into the case, nor is it
practical to swap them one at a time with a preexisting drive in the
case. The mobile rack seemed like a perfect solution.

What other removable method would you suggest?

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

In which way does all IDE mobile rack flout the ATA standard?

The ribbon cable is nothing like what the standard specifys,
most obviously at the connector on the back of the mobile rack.

 

[willbill]

On Jul 31 2006, willbill wrote:


Is it because they flout the ATA standard as Rod Speed mentioned?

forgive me, but i did not look at the ref
(above) and have no interest in doing that

just tell me, what is it going to cost you
to buy one of these things?

I have six perfectly good 120GB drives that I would like to put back
into service. It's not possible to fit them all into the case, nor is it
practical to swap them one at a time with a preexisting drive in the
case. The mobile rack seemed like a perfect solution.

What other removable method would you suggest?

why don't you think in terms of using
one of those 120's as your primary drive
and the other 5 as clone backups?

they're all IDE drives, right?

imo, IDE drives are the best
for clone backups

take the 320 that you just got (1?),
get another and mirror that as your
secondary drive

btw, is that 320 a SATA or an IDE?

that's basically where i'm at.

bill

 

[Anna]

Is it because they flout the ATA standard as Rod Speed mentioned?

I have six perfectly good 120GB drives that I would like to put back
into service. It's not possible to fit them all into the case, nor is it
practical to swap them one at a time with a preexisting drive in the
case. The mobile rack seemed like a perfect solution.

What other removable method would you suggest?

Tom:
Your inclination to use mobile racks housing removable hard drives could be
a wise move given your situation.

We've installed hundred of mobile racks in desktop PCs over the past six
years or so (primary PATA, of course, but more & more SATA HDs) and we're
great proponents of using that type of device. In the course of our work we
have used a wide variety of these mobile racks - all-plastic,
plastic-aluminum, and all-aluminum. Truth to tell, it's been hard to tell
the difference among them in terms of performance or longevity. Simply
stated, they all seem to work without problems or performance issues. By &
large, the $10 ones have worked just as well as the $75 ones. Naturally,
like any other computer component, they fail for one reason or another. But
we haven't found any special problem re defective mobile racks as compared
with other PC components.

As you probably know if you've done even a bit of research on these mobile
racks, there are a large number of different makes & models. I'm not
familiar with the Vantec model you mentioned, but it's probably as good as
any other.

Some things to consider...

I assume you're working with PATA drives. The overall length of mobile racks
is not standardized, so there are some racks (usually with its fan at the
end of the rack) that may simply be too long for your particular case, and
as such, butt up against the motherboard. In most cases this won't be a
problem, but keep it in mind.

I assume from your description that you would plan to purchase a single
mobile rack and install your six HDs in removable trays so that they could
be used in that mobile rack. Or possibly you would install two racks in your
desktop PC case. In general you can purchase additional removable trays for
the mobile rack and hopefully save some money that way rather than
purchasing six racks. On the other hand (unfortunately) in recent years we
have noticed that when these additional trays are even available for
purchase their cost is such that there's not much of an economic advantage
to purchase them separately from the mobile rack.

Anyway, if you haven't done so already, just do a Google search on "mobile
racks" or "removable hard drives", and you'll be pointed to many online
vendors carrying these products.

Since the investment is quite modest, all things considered, why not
purchase a single mobile rack and play around with it, even to the extent of
installing/uninstalling your different HDs in the rack at different times.
The HD installation and uninstallation operation is simple and not
particularly time-consuming. See how you like the concept.
Anna

 

[willbill]

forgive me, but i did not look at the ref
(above) and have no interest in doing that

i took a look at it and still think
it's a waste of money no matter what
the price is (see below)

just tell me, what is it going to cost you
to buy one of these things?

i'm still interested in that

why don't you think in terms of using
one of those 120's as your primary drive
and the other 5 as clone backups?

they're all IDE drives, right?

imo, IDE drives are the best
for clone backups

with all due respect to Anna's input,
the cheap ones she mentioned ($10 @)
typically have the very serious flaw
of very poor air flow (which means
the drive runs hot (BAD))

two other problem with these units:
they add one or two extra connection
points, the tend to force one to place
the unit high in the case (assuming you
are using a tower unit) which typically
means exceeding the recommended max 18"
IDE cable limit

there's nothing wrong with using bare
drives that you only plug in when you do
a weekly backup

the people who work in the hardware end
of the PC biz do it all the time

and you can't beet that it costs nothing
to do it. as i said in a prior post,
all you need is an 18" round IDE cable
(with pull tabs), for your primary IDE
connector, and only use the middle connector
when you do a weekly backup

take the 320 that you just got (1?),
get another and mirror that as your
secondary drive

change that coz odds are it'll result
in needing a new driver for whatever
you do for Raid, and that may cause
Win XP to die during the boot
(even safe boot)

i just fought thru a similar situation
with adding a Promise SATA 300 TX2plus
(an ok hard drive controller; not raid)

better to run the new 320 by itself
as your 2nd drive

back it up (in image mode) to your
120GB IDE drives. when you get more
than 50 or 80GB of data on it, take
to doing incremental backups. given
that the image backups undergo
compression, you should be able to
do a full image backup up to maybe
200GB of data (from the 320GB drive)

bill