[Ham-Computers] RE: Multiple drives, is there a way to . . .

Thu Feb 7 11:34:48 EST 2008

Why not just play it safe, simple and efficient and buy a larger HD to begin 
with? Since Phil is building a huge OTR folder his need for space is not 
going to end here! He has already gone beyond what he swore was as "big as 
it was going to get" twice already.

Better yet, why not a second minimal machine and network it to his main 
computer and put all of HD he already has in that machine?

Although what you suggest may work Aaron, would it not be less risky to just 
buy a larger drive?

Duane Fischer, W8DBF/WPE8CXO
dfischer at usol.com
HHI: Halligan's Hallicrafters International
http://www.w9wze.net
HHRP: Historic Halligan Radio Project
hhrp.w9wze.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hsu, Aaron (NBC Universal)" <aaron.hsu at nbcuni.com>
To: "I>Ham-Computers" <Ham-Computers at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:29 PM
Subject: [Ham-Computers] RE: Multiple drives, is there a way to . . .

> Hi Phil (et al),
>
> Yes, it is possible to do what you're describing via RAID-0 (RAID zero). 
> RAID-0 is truly a misnomer as there is no redundancy, but it's a RAID form 
> not the less.  Basically, RAID-0 is spanning - the data "spans" across the 
> drives, so if you have two 200GB drives, the RAID-0 volume will show up as 
> a single 400GB volume.  Three 200GB drives will make a 600GB RAID-0 volume 
> and so on.  RAID-0 is the fastest of all RAID types as there is no 
> checksum calculations nor redundant writes.
>
> Typical RAID arrays require drives of identical size.  if any drive is 
> smaller, then the smallest drive size is used as the "base".  So if you 
> have a 200GB and a 250GB drive, then both will be treated as 200GB each 
> and the RAID-0 volume will be 400GB in size.  An exception is if the RAID 
> controller supports "JBOD" (Just a Bunch Of Disks).  In JBOD, the full 
> capacity of each drive is used, so with the same example just mentioned, 
> the JBOD volume size would be 450GB.
>
>
> *** DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER! ***
>
> RAID-0 (and JBOD) comes with a risk - if any drive in the array fails, 
> then the data in the entire array is lost.  So the recommendation for most 
> is to use RAID-0 only for temporal storage - not archives.  An example 
> would be a scratch drive for video editing or for a PVR/Tivo.  Another 
> example is a hard core gamer who wants the absolute shortest "load time" 
> when playing games (to be the first to "jump in" a game level).  So be 
> aware of this limitation of RAID-0/JBOD - make backups of all data you 
> want to permanently store if it's on a RAID-0/JBOD array.
>
>
> Depending on your system's motherboard, it may already have a RAID 
> controller built-in (many do these days).  If so, you may only need to 
> attach the drives to the RAID controller and enable RAID functionality. 
> NOTE: you'll need to backup the data on the original drives first as once 
> the RAID volume is created, everything on the drives is wiped when the 
> RAID volume is created.  You can also add an inexpensive RAID controller 
> for under $50 - these and most motherboard-based RAID controllers utilize 
> the PC's CPU for much of the RAID functionality.  Higher priced RAID 
> controllers include their own CPU's to take the burden off the PC.
>
> There are also external USB/Firewire/eSATA enclosures out there that will 
> create the RAID-0/JBOD volume for you.  Most of these also support RAID-1 
> (mirroring) and possibly RAID-5 (striped parity)  One of the most 
> innovative is the "Drobo" (http://www.drobo.com), but it's also one of the 
> most expensive - many great reviews and designed to be very simple to 
> operate and includes some proprietary data protection.
>
> So, Phil, going by your description(s), it sounds like you need an 
> "archive" which would eliminate RAID-0 as a possibility.  An exception is 
> if you have a way of backing up the RAID-0 array.  My suggestion is to buy 
> a 750GB or 1TB drive (about $170 & $250, respectively) and not consider 
> RAID-0.  Or, buy smaller drives and catalog by drive - each drive has a 
> genre/program type/etc.  You may also want to consider using a desktop 
> search engine like Google Desktop to assist with searches - Google Desktop 
> builds it's database in the background and searches are fairly quick. 
> Never really used it as I don't have a large library, but I know people 
> who love it.
>
> One other alternative...build a RAID-5 array.  This is redundant, but 
> requires at least 3 drives of the same size (smallest size drive rule 
> applies if they're not the same size).  You lose the capacity of one 
> drive, but the array is redundant - if one drive fails, the array itself 
> still works and you can replace that drive and have the array rebuild 
> itself.  So if you have 3 200GB drives, the RAID-5 capacity is 400GB.  If 
> you have 5 200GB drives, the RAID-5 capacity is 800GB.  With some RAID 
> controllers, you can even add a second redundant drive (sometimes called 
> RAID-6) so if two drives fail at the same time, the volume is still 
> usable.  RAID-5 is most commonly found in data centers, sometimes combined 
> with RAID-1 (mirroring) to form RAID 5/1 - this requires twice as many 
> drives, so it's only used on "mission critical" data.  If you have an old 
> PC laying around, setup a simple Linux server with a RAID-5 volume.
>
> BTW, I'm in a similar boat as you - my PVR has 800GB of TV shows on a 
> 2-drive RAID-0 array that need to be archived - slowly putting them onto 
> DVD's now.  And, with the new High-Def formats, I need to reconsider 
> exactly how I'm going to handle 8GB files (1 hour of HDTV).
>
> 73,
>
>  - Aaron, NN6O
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:21 PM
> Subject: [Ham-Computers] Multiple drives, is there a way to . . .
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have what may seem like an odd question.  But here goes.  My XP-Pro SP3
> tower has two internal hard drives, an 80 and a 500.  OS and most programs
> reside on the 80GB, all my MP3 Old Time Radio files (~300GB) reside on the
> 500GB "D" drive.  There is also a 320GB "H" external drive (Firewire) used
> as a backup drive for the MP3 stuff. That drive is, for all practical
> purposes full and needs replacement with a larger drive (probably a 500).
>
> I can probably get another 320GB external drive much cheaper than a 500, 
> or
> for that matter, an external drive "case" for the 320GB SATA drive that 
> came
> out of the main machine when I installed the 500, making that a 3230 GB
> external drive.
>
> My question is this.  Is there a way to make TWO external hard drives 
> appear
> as one drive of the combined size of both?  That is, where I could just
> "copy" all files from the "D" drive to the two external drives without
> having to manually "split" the files and put some in drive "I: and the 
> rest
> in drive "J", or whatever.  The reason I ask this is, I have a very
> "structured" folder hierarchy for all my Old time radio shows, by genre,
> program etc so that I can easily find something.  With over 36,000 shows I
> HAVE to have it well structured  as I'm often replacing files with ones 
> that
> have better audio etc, and need to easily find what I have without having 
> to
> do repetitive "file searches" ;^)
>
>
> 73 de Phil,  KO6BB
> http://www.geocities.com/ko6bb/index.html
> http://ko6bb.multiply.com/
>
> DX begins at the noise floor!
> RADIOS: Yaesu FT-2000, FT-8800, FT-1802, FT-60.
> Merced, Central California, 37.3N 120.48W  CM97sh
> ______________________________________________________________
> Ham-Computers mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ham-computers
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:Ham-Computers at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/2/2008 
> 1:50 PM
> 