mckeough
asked on
None Raid Ghost Restored to Raid 5 Ghost - Will it work?
We're running Windows 2003 Standard with a single hard drive right now. We want to keep the data that's on there right now. We know once we put a raid controller in this server, we will lose our data on drive 0.
My question is if we Ghost this main drive, configure the raid, then restore the image to the raid array, does anybody know for certain if it will it work or not? We would obviously be on the new disk controller, so I'm wondering if Windows and/or Norton Ghost will allow this or not. If anybody wants to see a screenshot of our drives right now, you can view it at the following link:
http://www.mckeough.com/raid5.jpg
My question is if we Ghost this main drive, configure the raid, then restore the image to the raid array, does anybody know for certain if it will it work or not? We would obviously be on the new disk controller, so I'm wondering if Windows and/or Norton Ghost will allow this or not. If anybody wants to see a screenshot of our drives right now, you can view it at the following link:
http://www.mckeough.com/raid5.jpg
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
this problem easy to fix, but as above note - if IDE drive is boot, not boot OS on RAID.
do this -
have OS on IDE drive. Put in 2 blank hard disk on raid controller, separate from IDE boot drive.
format drive on raid, it format both hard disk. now copy data to raid drive/drives.
Now if you want raid bootable, you remove IDE drive and use XP CD to make RAID drive bootable.
but must register RAID with OS as C drive, if not, windows not work right, bios must see as C drive.
so can't use IDE master boot drive and RAID together if want to boot off RAID.
If yo want OS on RAID, must use RAID 0 -- true mirror, only way work right,
must remove IDE boot drive or deactivate bootable status of IDE drive.
do this -
have OS on IDE drive. Put in 2 blank hard disk on raid controller, separate from IDE boot drive.
format drive on raid, it format both hard disk. now copy data to raid drive/drives.
Now if you want raid bootable, you remove IDE drive and use XP CD to make RAID drive bootable.
but must register RAID with OS as C drive, if not, windows not work right, bios must see as C drive.
so can't use IDE master boot drive and RAID together if want to boot off RAID.
If yo want OS on RAID, must use RAID 0 -- true mirror, only way work right,
must remove IDE boot drive or deactivate bootable status of IDE drive.
ASKER
No no... we're running Windows 2003 Standard SERVER.
Mckeough,
You can use the windows 2003 standard server to boot the system and make the RAID drive bootable. I believe this is what scratchcyboy was saying.
Basically, you need to label the RAID drive as bootable prior to copying the data from your current system drive to the RAID setup. If you do not label the RAID drive as bootable. Copying the data might not be enough.
You can use the windows 2003 standard server to boot the system and make the RAID drive bootable. I believe this is what scratchcyboy was saying.
Basically, you need to label the RAID drive as bootable prior to copying the data from your current system drive to the RAID setup. If you do not label the RAID drive as bootable. Copying the data might not be enough.
ASKER
We've got a total of six bays we can put hard drives in. Three of them have drives in them right now. Take a look at the screen shot.
I don't think the drive mirror is a bad idea if we don't want to mess with creating a raid array for the system drive.
I don't think the drive mirror is a bad idea if we don't want to mess with creating a raid array for the system drive.
ASKER
Hmmm... Have to run to a meeting, I'll review what you said as soon as I get done with the meeting.
Arnold, can you explain in more detail why it is a bad idea to do a Raid 5 array on something like this?
Arnold, can you explain in more detail why it is a bad idea to do a Raid 5 array on something like this?
ASKER
To clarify my last post, I don't think it is a bad idea to do a Raid 5 on a hardware raid controller with the OS on that array. I realize this isn't a good idea with a software array.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/ateQuestionNResponse/0,289625,sid5_gci1100907_tax298689,00.html?bucket=ETA
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_01.html
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html
RAID 5 is optimized for read transaction (SQL server, Fileserver,etc)
Your OS writes quite frequently to the drive.
RAID 1 provides two simulteneous writes and is equivalent to the single drive setup while improving the response to a read request.
While you will be using more drives, you will have a tolerance for two disk failure (one on each RAID configuration) in this setup as opposed to a single disk failure (only one dirve can fail. A second drive failure will lead to loss of data)
mckeough,
While less likely with a hardware raid 5 as compared to a software raid 5, the possibility still exists that when there are many writes to RAID 5 device that the write will not go through on at least two of the RAID 5 configured drives. At that point the RAID 5 device is corrupted and might be unrecoverable without complete/partial data loss.
While less likely with a hardware raid 5 as compared to a software raid 5, the possibility still exists that when there are many writes to RAID 5 device that the write will not go through on at least two of the RAID 5 configured drives. At that point the RAID 5 device is corrupted and might be unrecoverable without complete/partial data loss.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
The battery backup module for a Smart Array 642 (or any HP Smart Array for that matter) is required to enable write caching on the controller. Without it, the controller will only do read caching.
A big disadvantage of RAID 5 is that when a disk fails, the performance of the RAID 5 set will be very poor until the disk is replaced and the RAID set is rebuilt. The performance gets even worse during a rebuild.
Generally speaking, RAID 1 is the best choice for the OS. Disks are so cheap nowadays that RAID 10 (or 0+1 or 1+0) is a great choice for data - high performance and high availability, with no performance degradation on the loss of a disk, and up to half the disks can die without data loss.
The method that I suggested for moving the current partitions to a RAID set on the new RAID controller will work. I've used it a few times before.
A big disadvantage of RAID 5 is that when a disk fails, the performance of the RAID 5 set will be very poor until the disk is replaced and the RAID set is rebuilt. The performance gets even worse during a rebuild.
Generally speaking, RAID 1 is the best choice for the OS. Disks are so cheap nowadays that RAID 10 (or 0+1 or 1+0) is a great choice for data - high performance and high availability, with no performance degradation on the loss of a disk, and up to half the disks can die without data loss.
The method that I suggested for moving the current partitions to a RAID set on the new RAID controller will work. I've used it a few times before.
>The battery backup module for a Smart Array 642 (or any HP Smart Array for that matter) is required to enable write caching on the controller. Without it, the controller will only do read caching.
I thought that was what I said?
>Disks are so cheap nowadays...
Whilst it is preferable to have more disks they aren't that cheap, $299 each for 15K 36GB drives and he's already had to cough up $500 for the RAID controller. Probably get them for $220 if you look around.
I thought that was what I said?
>Disks are so cheap nowadays...
Whilst it is preferable to have more disks they aren't that cheap, $299 each for 15K 36GB drives and he's already had to cough up $500 for the RAID controller. Probably get them for $220 if you look around.
If this is an enterprise critical system, you either pay a little now, or tear your hear and siginificanly more later.
You need not go for the 15K 36GB. 10K 36GB will do just fine. Depending on the brand/model, there are times that certain drive models are made by the manufacturer for optimum use in a SAN like ST336607LC. Unfortunately I am only familiar with the Seagate drives in a SAN, But I definately recall that there were/are IBM, Fujistu, Maxtor, and other models which fit that criteria. One way to find them is to check the compatibility lists with SAN vendors.
You need not go for the 15K 36GB. 10K 36GB will do just fine. Depending on the brand/model, there are times that certain drive models are made by the manufacturer for optimum use in a SAN like ST336607LC. Unfortunately I am only familiar with the Seagate drives in a SAN, But I definately recall that there were/are IBM, Fujistu, Maxtor, and other models which fit that criteria. One way to find them is to check the compatibility lists with SAN vendors.
ASKER
Looks like this is what we're going to do... I'm creating a RAID array with three 72GB 15k RPM drives. I'm (hopefully) mirroring the OS drive. My boss doesn't want to mirror, so I don't know if I can get that approved or not.
FYI - These drives are a little over $500 a piece.
Thanks for all your help guys. I feel more comfortable with whatever we choose to do now. I think at this point the simplest thing to do is just put the mirror in and keep the other three drives for RAID 5 storage.
FYI - These drives are a little over $500 a piece.
Thanks for all your help guys. I feel more comfortable with whatever we choose to do now. I think at this point the simplest thing to do is just put the mirror in and keep the other three drives for RAID 5 storage.
>FYI - These drives are a little over $500 a piece.
Yes but if you wanted another pair for the OS & logs you'd only use 36GB for that and HP's buy on-line sells them at 299 USD, will be cheaper from a reseller of course.
Yes but if you wanted another pair for the OS & logs you'd only use 36GB for that and HP's buy on-line sells them at 299 USD, will be cheaper from a reseller of course.
ASKER
Ah, I see what you're saying. I was just saying that the 72 gig drives are a over $500.
1. Install the RAID card. Don't do anything with the disks yet.
2. Boot the OS and let it find the RAID card and install the drivers for it.
3. Take an image of the hard drive.
4. Put the disks on the RAID controller and create the RAID set
5. Restore the image to the RAID set
6. See if it will boot. If it does, great. If it doesn't, keep going...
7. Boot your Windows 2003 CD and go into Repair (Recovery Console).
8. From the command console, type FIXMBR C:
9. Boot up your system! If it doesn't boot, go back into the Recovery console and type FIXBOOT C:
If you didn't do this and the OS doesn't have the RAID driver already installed, you'd end up with a BSOD with "INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE"