David said:
Hi Anna,
{Ref: all the previous discussions re Dual-Removable HDs for backup}
Yesterday I went in to the local "WeBuildIt" place, with my requirements,
which included dual removable hard drives. The chap says, "aw, you don't
really need two RHDs to do what you are trying to do -- with good imaging
software and changes to your BIOS (to set the boot source(?)), you can do
that easily with *one* RHD and one internal HD."
Well, I wasn't clever enough or quick enough to defend my position, so I
said I'd get back to him. I am still convinced by all of your previous
arguments and experience that dual RHDs is the way that I want to go for
ease of backup. However, could you please enlighten me what the
weaknesses
might be with his argument? (Since I still have to "get back to him").
I think much of my problem is that I have never used imaging software, so
I
don't have a feeling for it's functionality. (He said that if I had, his
approach would seem "obvious"). Well, it isn't.
BTW, as an aside, if this tidbit might be useful to anyone; I just spent
three weeks, three intense weeks, trying to get Dell to work with me
regarding dual RHDs, (including even having them installed later,
elsewhere), and I finally just gave up -- completely frustrated. That is
the reason that I ended up at my local "WeBuildIt' shop. So, if anyone is
contemplating RHDs with Dell, be prepared ... and good luck.
Regards,
David
David:
Well, David, count your blessings. More times than not many of these local
shops try to dissuade the potential customer from having a desktop computer
built with *any* removable hard drives. At least the one you consulted
seemed open to installing one such device.
By & large, as I think I stated in my previous comments, we prefer to
install two removable hard drives rather than one. The additional cost
involved is relatively small since the user will be working with two hard
drives anyway, so the additional mobile rack is the only added cost. (We are
assuming, of course, that the computer case has available the necessary two
5 1/4" bays to house the mobile racks).
Having two removable HDs gives one an added degree of flexibility that just
isn't present with only one removable HD and one internal HD. Other than the
slight additional cost involved of the added mobile rack as noted above,
there's absolutely no downside to it. The ability to easily remove each HD
from the computer for portability or other reasons by a simple pull of the
mobile rack's handle is reason enough (in our view) to equip one's desktop
computer with two removable HDs. Then too, by simply switching the removable
tray containing the HD from one mobile rack to another it's an easy matter
to change (in the case of PATA HDs) their Primary/Secondary Master/Slave
relationships should this be necessary.
Simply stated, by having two removable hard drives - each HD is virtually
instantly available to the user when needed without the necessity of getting
inside the computer case and making the various data/power cable
connects/disconnects involving the hard drives involved. Changing a
defective HD with a new one is child's play when using removable HDs in
their mobile racks.
Believe me when I say - you'll never have any regrets save one equipping
your desktop computer with two removable HDs. And that one is that your
previous desktop computer(s) were not so equipped. We've built or helped
build hundreds of PCs equipped with two removable HDs and helped users to
install those devices as well. I can't recall a single case of
dissatisfaction with that hardware arrangement. On the contrary, once the
user works with two removable HDs, he or she never wants to go back to the
"old" way.
Now, having said the above, and understanding what a strong proponent I am
of the hardware arrangement we've been discussing...
If push comes to shove and for some reason or another you go that route of
having installed one internal HD and one removable HD, it's better than not
having *any* removable HDs installed on your system. Assuming you'll be
using PATA HDs, the configuration I would suggest in that case is to set the
removable HD as Primary Master and the internal HD as Secondary Master (or
possibly Primary Slave should the motherboard support a boot from that
position which most motherboards do). In that situation your internal HD
would be your day-to-day working HD and your removable HD the recipient of
the clone. So should you need to boot from the removable HD this could be
easily accomplished by merely turning its keylock to the ON position. And,
of course, you could still use the mobile rack to house additional HDs
should you need them for one reason or another.
If, however, your computer is being equipped with SATA HDs, that would
complicate matters a bit if you were using only one removable HD and one
internal HD. Presumably the internal SATA HD would be connected as SATA1 so
that the system would always boot from that position. Hopefully, you would
be able to change the boot order in the BIOS so as to boot from the SATA2
position (your removable SATA HD) should you want to boot to the removable
drive for some reason or another. Unfortunately we have encountered a few
motherboards where *only* the HD connected to the SATA1 position was
bootable, i.e., there was no option to boot from a SATA HD connected to any
other position. Note with two removable HDs there would be no problem. Just
a matter of slipping the removable tray in the rack that's connected to the
SATA1 position. So there would be no need to enter the BIOS to change boot
order assuming that option was even available to you.
In summary - my advice is to insist on having your desktop computer equipped
with two removable HDs, not one. As I previously stated the added cost
involved is rather trifling and the added degree of flexibility you get with
this approach is something you'll never regret. Believe me.
Anna
