Jetheat
asked on
How do you configure settings for a 2nd HDD
I have a Raptor 36 GB as my Primary Hard Drive. I have just installed a WD 250 GB SATA HDD.
In Computer Management ~ Disk Management, it has named it Disk 1 whilst the primary is Disk 0.
It also says it has 232.88 GB and that it is unallocated.
Here is the problem:
When I right Click on it, it has a menu.
One option says "New Volume" and another option says "Convert to Basic Disk" which means that it is set as a Dynamic Disk at the moment. I can change between the two just by clicking on that option.
All I need is a simple hard drive with a partion within it. I also want the option of implementing Raid at a future date if I want to.
Can someone please explain the difference between a Basic Disk and a Dynamic Disk and which option I should choose.
At the same time, what should I do with the "New Volume" option?
Appreciate the help on this,
Thanks
JH
In Computer Management ~ Disk Management, it has named it Disk 1 whilst the primary is Disk 0.
It also says it has 232.88 GB and that it is unallocated.
Here is the problem:
When I right Click on it, it has a menu.
One option says "New Volume" and another option says "Convert to Basic Disk" which means that it is set as a Dynamic Disk at the moment. I can change between the two just by clicking on that option.
All I need is a simple hard drive with a partion within it. I also want the option of implementing Raid at a future date if I want to.
Can someone please explain the difference between a Basic Disk and a Dynamic Disk and which option I should choose.
At the same time, what should I do with the "New Volume" option?
Appreciate the help on this,
Thanks
JH
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Yes, a volume is essentially analogous to a partition. You can do anything a partition can do, plus spanning, mirroring, etc. on up to (software) RAID-5. I don't recommend using software as it will be slower and more CPU intensive than a hardware solution, but that's another story.
ONLY 2000, XP and 2003 can access dynamic drives, so if you multiboot ot need to put the drive in a PC running a different OS, it will be inaccessible. This does not affect access over the network, though. That would be the biggest drawback.
By logical drives, yese, I mean the drives within a physical. For example, taking an 80GB drive and putting 3 partitions on it (40GB primary, 20GB extended, 20GB extended) would yield 3 logical drives: c:\ (40GB), d:\ (20GB) and e:\ (20GB). Anything you can subdivide digitally is usually going to be logical. Physical stuff can only be sibdivided with a saw. ;)
ONLY 2000, XP and 2003 can access dynamic drives, so if you multiboot ot need to put the drive in a PC running a different OS, it will be inaccessible. This does not affect access over the network, though. That would be the biggest drawback.
By logical drives, yese, I mean the drives within a physical. For example, taking an 80GB drive and putting 3 partitions on it (40GB primary, 20GB extended, 20GB extended) would yield 3 logical drives: c:\ (40GB), d:\ (20GB) and e:\ (20GB). Anything you can subdivide digitally is usually going to be logical. Physical stuff can only be sibdivided with a saw. ;)
ASKER
Im only going to be using the new drive for putting and installing most of my program files and Video Files etc.. I don't plan to use it for boot up or anything special.
When you said "This does not affect access over the network, though. That would be the biggest drawback.", if it does not affect the network, how can that be considered a drawback? Surely it would be a drawback if it DID affect the network.
Finally, which one would you recommend? Basic or Dynamic?
Thanks
When you said "This does not affect access over the network, though. That would be the biggest drawback.", if it does not affect the network, how can that be considered a drawback? Surely it would be a drawback if it DID affect the network.
Finally, which one would you recommend? Basic or Dynamic?
Thanks
Sorry. I meant the lack of accessibility from other OSes. Just reverse those two sentences, and I think it should express my meaning better.
Oh, and if you never plan on doing anything fancy like adding another drive and extending the volume onto that or mirroring it or something, either one will work just fine. There isn't a performance difference between them, just a features difference.
Might be problem with 3rd party wares here:
> WD 250 GB SATA HDD.
Since you specify intended usage such as video, A/V whatever, know that some can mess up (if not updated) for some out of bounds conditions, such as provided by your Large disk drive. With updates XP can do so well enough, for moving files around. but for applications having direct access to disk, that could be problem. Were that the case then your two scenarios would be different. For you could either partition a disk to confine old application to a smaller area, or, confine application to the front of HD (1st partition) were that needed. Without partioning (subdividing HD), that capability is lost.
Other than that, I leave this to Brainded to conclude
> WD 250 GB SATA HDD.
Since you specify intended usage such as video, A/V whatever, know that some can mess up (if not updated) for some out of bounds conditions, such as provided by your Large disk drive. With updates XP can do so well enough, for moving files around. but for applications having direct access to disk, that could be problem. Were that the case then your two scenarios would be different. For you could either partition a disk to confine old application to a smaller area, or, confine application to the front of HD (1st partition) were that needed. Without partioning (subdividing HD), that capability is lost.
Other than that, I leave this to Brainded to conclude
ASKER
Ok, I have changed the Drive to a Dynamic Drive and have Formatted it as a New Volume.
It has now made the new secondary Hard Drive as Disk 0 and has changed the previous Primary C Drive to Disk 1
Is there a problem with that? Has it changed any of the settings I should know about?
Secondly, How do I partition this new Drive (Drive F - called "Major Storage" in Volume Name) into 2 logical drives? I want 170 GB in one and the rest in the other?
Please see my website for the picture: http://www.lentrica.co.uk/images/Disk.gif
Thanks
It has now made the new secondary Hard Drive as Disk 0 and has changed the previous Primary C Drive to Disk 1
Is there a problem with that? Has it changed any of the settings I should know about?
Secondly, How do I partition this new Drive (Drive F - called "Major Storage" in Volume Name) into 2 logical drives? I want 170 GB in one and the rest in the other?
Please see my website for the picture: http://www.lentrica.co.uk/images/Disk.gif
Thanks
Partitioning your drive F: into two smaller partitions should (in this case, since I assume there is not any data on it yet) be done at the time you create the volumes. Rather than creating a single 250GB new volume, create one at 170GB and one for the remainder. Once the drive is actively in use, you will have to either move the data stored there to a different physical disk to remove the volumes and re-create them at the desired sizes, or use a third-party partitioning utility since Windows does not have the capability to resize partitions.
Although I'm not sure exactly how you managed to reverse the drive letters, this should not be a problem as far as system functionality. Just keep it in mind if you ever have to do any work with your BOOT.INI file. Apps and such generally don't care WHERE your boot/system partition(s) are, just what the drive letter is. IT sounds like the drive letter did not change, so you should be OK.
Although I'm not sure exactly how you managed to reverse the drive letters, this should not be a problem as far as system functionality. Just keep it in mind if you ever have to do any work with your BOOT.INI file. Apps and such generally don't care WHERE your boot/system partition(s) are, just what the drive letter is. IT sounds like the drive letter did not change, so you should be OK.
ASKER
When you say LOGICAL Drive, does that mean the drives within a Physical drive?