Win2k, > 120gigs, 2x WD360, partitions, onboard sata a7n8x.d.v2

ginipigginipig OH, NOES
edited December 2003 in Hardware
Brace yourself for an incredible, knock-the-planets-out-of-alignment post:
  • Will Win2k recognize drives greater than 120g's? My plan is to implement win2k+sp4 slipstreamed on the new set of raptors I finally received. The raptors will be in a Raid-0 configuration, with an additional 80g maxtor serving as backup. The reason I ask, is because of the 2xWD1200JB's array that will serve as a file repository (backed up on 250gb.)
  • Has anybody had any success with partitioning schemes on raid-0 arrays? I read SiteAdmin's partitioning faq, and I have a nice layout that I have in mind:
    c:4g - (\windows) | d:1g (pagefile) | e:4g - (\Program Files) | f:4g - (\email,Documents&Settings) | g:2g - (\audio.editing) |
    h:4g (\Nero.staging.area) | i:8g - (\cstrike,mame.roms) | j:25g (\monkey.audio) | k:1g - (\bare.essentials) |
    l:15g - (\software.installers) | m:3g (\pending.dl's) | n:1g (\w2k,hotfixes) | o:6g (\ghosting.of.c) | p:1g (\temp,inet.tmps)
    I'll most likely rearrange these partitions for faster access.
    Will partitions negate any raid-0 advantages?
    Also, should I partition and label these drives from the get go- ie determine the sizes from within the w2k installer? Or is there a better way to do this?
  • If and when I get my Raptors functioning properly, I'll have to consider the 2xWD1200JB's. I have all the bits and pieces needed to set up the drives on a pci.raid.controller, but I'm afraid that it's installation will conflict with the raptor's. The a7n8x deluxe has options to specify the boot medium, errgo my concerns regarding onboard.sata conflicting with the array on the pci. Does Windows refuse to boot from onboard arrays simply because it's not the preferred array?

If you made this far down the post, kudos.

Comments

  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2003
    Win2K will see the 2-120's as a single drive of the full size thanks to the raid controller.
    Partitioning your array will slow it down but how much I'm not sure, according to what I've read it probably will negate the advantage of raiding them in a stripe so I'd suggest just leaving it as one big partition.
    You can label the drives from within windows by right clicking on them and choosing rename, so that's really a "6 one way half a dozen another" question, which method is easier for you?
    If the PCI raid controller isn't the same brand and model of controller as the sata controller then there shouldn't be and kind of conflict, just specify the sata array as boot device and do your install on it then after windows is up and running (but not with the computer running naturally) add the other controller and drives and install the drivers within windows.
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    Okay, it's nice to hear that the 2xJb's will be recognized.
    I guess I won't need the partitioning scheme after all (although, it would be nice to organize all of my data.) With regards to naming, I guess it won't be much of a problem if I'm running a single partition.

    Thanks for the reply :)
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2003
    I kinda forgot about partitioning the drives, you can partition the drives within windows with "disk management" which is under "computer management" in "administrative tools" in control panel.
    All but the main disk (C drive) can be done this way I believe.
    You can also use Partition Magic which is easier.
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    Yeh, I've been using P.M 8 until now. It should go over fine.
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2003
    Good deal, glad to help. :)
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    Forgot to mention earlier:
    I'm planning on hooking up my backup drives (80gb,250gb) directly to the mobo. Is this wise?
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2003
    Yeah, should be no problem but you'll have to partition the 250Gb drive as windows won't recognize it as anything above 137Gb.
    That's where XP SP1 and SATA come into play...
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    Yikes. Guess I'll have to manage my backups with that in mind. Thanks for the headsup.
    I hope that there is an app that I could use to split backups into 2 even sized archives, seeing as how I like to keep things symmetrical. Sheesh, I can imagine setting that up right now :banghead:
  • EQuitoEQuito SoCal, USA
    edited December 2003
    madmat wrote:
    Yeah, should be no problem but you'll have to partition the 250Gb drive as windows won't recognize it as anything above 137Gb.
    IIRC, W2K SP4 has 48bit LBA support (large drive).
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    I guess it's all gravy then. Woot!
  • madmatmadmat
    edited December 2003
    As far as I know 48bit LBA support only applies to ATA133 and SATA so if the drive's an ATA100 drive it will still need to be patitioned.
    I could be wrong though.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited December 2003
    ginipig wrote:
    Okay, it's nice to hear that the 2xJb's will be recognized.
    I guess I won't need the partitioning scheme after all (although, it would be nice to organize all of my data.) With regards to naming, I guess it won't be much of a problem if I'm running a single partition.

    Thanks for the reply :)
    You'll be glad in the long run if you go ahead with your partitioning ideas. Makes defrag a lot easier, plus leaves your data intact should you need to Format C:

    One thing I have been doing in these days of massive HD storage space is getting all my tweaks, etc, setup in Windows, then copy my C: partition to a blank space at the end of my drive - then I Hide it with PQM8. If something goes crappo, I'm only a half-hour away from a real system restore, simply by copying my hidden partition back to C:

    The non-raid drive is a good idea. Raid-0 is wonderful for performance, but is a real roll of the dice for data integrity. Copy anything you can't easily replace to your non-raid drive.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    ATA133 drives are not physically different from ATA100 drives.

    Maxtor introduced the "ATA133" spec to show that their drives were topping the 127GB barrier, and were able to work as a continuous, unpartitioned disk.

    ATA100 and ATA133 drives alike can be used to their unpartitioned maximum capacity with WIN2K SP4.
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    Will do, people.

    Thanks for taking time out of your nye.preparations to post a comment.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited December 2003
    ginipig wrote:
    Will do, people.

    Thanks for taking time out of your nye.preparations to post a comment.
    Keep in mind, some (much? most? all?) of the advice given today is coming from those getting an early start on the festivities... :bigggrin:
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    ehhe :buck:
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    Well, that just about does it. I got Windows2k+sp4 installed perfectly on c:, and successfully partitioned the raid-0 array the way I liked it. Everythings running perfectly. Backup drives have been recognized as well, so I'll get cracking on those as soon as I get the chance.

    Damn! This was worth every nonsensical post I've ever made on S-M forums!!

    Thanks a bunch guys. Looking forward till Next Year!!!

    btw:I wanted to recommend the raptors to a friend, but apparently newegg's removed them from their list; even their refurbished stock is all gone.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited December 2003
    ginipig wrote:
    Well, that just about does it. I got Windows2k+sp4 installed perfectly on c:, and successfully partitioned the raid-0 array the way I liked it...
    Wow! That was quick - you don't fool around, do you? :thumbsup:
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    hehe,

    I court them, nail 'em, then get the hell out of there.
Sign In or Register to comment.