Q. I have this problem of space with the HDD on the server. I have 3x36 GB right now (RAID 5), and I am planning to upgrade to 3x300 GB (RAID 5) and use it as a file server. I will be deploying a backup and archive server for the same but that's a different story.
What I am looking at some kind of solution that I can easily remove the old hard disks and plug in the new one all the data software and settings are on the new hard disks.
Guys your input will be a real help to me...
Sorry forgot to mention it was preloaded with Win2k3 standard server.
What I am looking at some kind of solution that I can easily remove the old hard disks and plug in the new one all the data software and settings are on the new hard disks.
Guys your input will be a real help to me...
Sorry forgot to mention it was preloaded with Win2k3 standard server.
A. If I were u, if would rather backup my data to an external USB drive first. Then replace all the old drives with the new drives, setup the RAID, then install a fresh copy of the Win2K3 and all the other softwares. Then configure the server as a file server and other purposes.
In short, a freshly baked piece of pizza, no overnight bacon on top of it.
It is really painstaking but it frees you from hidden problem from ur old drives, which could save you nights of OT.
I can see ur problem is in the OS, which was pre-installed. Aside from being pre-installed, do you have the OS installation disc with you? if not, u should at least have the recovery disc, if not either, then you should find a way to got the disc first.
Another one is how to setup the RAID-5 prior to the OS. You should dig further into this topic.
One advantage of my way of upgrading is that when you failed the installation, you still have a chance to put back all your old drives and restore the server to its original status. That could give you enough time to analyze the failure, play around with the new drives, and schedule another upgrade sometimes later, but not immediately.
In short, a freshly baked piece of pizza, no overnight bacon on top of it.
It is really painstaking but it frees you from hidden problem from ur old drives, which could save you nights of OT.
I can see ur problem is in the OS, which was pre-installed. Aside from being pre-installed, do you have the OS installation disc with you? if not, u should at least have the recovery disc, if not either, then you should find a way to got the disc first.
Another one is how to setup the RAID-5 prior to the OS. You should dig further into this topic.
One advantage of my way of upgrading is that when you failed the installation, you still have a chance to put back all your old drives and restore the server to its original status. That could give you enough time to analyze the failure, play around with the new drives, and schedule another upgrade sometimes later, but not immediately.
How do you configure 2 Hard drives for Raid 0?
Q. Building a computer was planning on doing Raid 0 not sure if i should please tell me if i shouldnt but if it is wise then just wondering how it will be done...
A. 1) I use RAID 0 and have never expeirneced a problem... when using raid 0 you have double the disk speed(read/write,etc).
2) if you are using raid 0 for gaming, etc use the highest stripe possible (64-128)... if using for a server use (16-32)
here is a little more info about raid 0:
RAID 0 advantages:
RAID 0 performance
While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
Another use is where the number of disks is limited by the operating system. In Microsoft Windows, the number of drives may be limited by the availability of drive letters. RAID 0 allows more disks to be used by combining them under a single letter. It is possible in Windows 2000 and newer to mount partitions under directories, thus eliminating the need for a partition to be assigned a drive letter.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[2][3]
RAID 0 disadvantages:
RAID 0 failure rate
Although RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.
Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set:
\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{group}} \approx \frac{\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{disk}}}{\mathrm{number}}
That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members â so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. In other words, the probability of a failure is roughly proportional to the number of members. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to Pr(at least one fails) = 1 - Pr(neither fails) = 1 - (1 - 0.05)^2 = 0.0975 = 9.75\,\%.
The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools (see data recovery), however, these data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and recovery of drive data is very costly and not guaranteed.
2) if you are using raid 0 for gaming, etc use the highest stripe possible (64-128)... if using for a server use (16-32)
here is a little more info about raid 0:
RAID 0 advantages:
RAID 0 performance
While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
Another use is where the number of disks is limited by the operating system. In Microsoft Windows, the number of drives may be limited by the availability of drive letters. RAID 0 allows more disks to be used by combining them under a single letter. It is possible in Windows 2000 and newer to mount partitions under directories, thus eliminating the need for a partition to be assigned a drive letter.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[2][3]
RAID 0 disadvantages:
RAID 0 failure rate
Although RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.
Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set:
\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{group}} \approx \frac{\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{disk}}}{\mathrm{number}}
That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members â so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. In other words, the probability of a failure is roughly proportional to the number of members. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to Pr(at least one fails) = 1 - Pr(neither fails) = 1 - (1 - 0.05)^2 = 0.0975 = 9.75\,\%.
The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools (see data recovery), however, these data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and recovery of drive data is very costly and not guaranteed.
123 Textiles Corporation is located in a high-crime area that also experiences occasional earthquakes. A new n?
Q. I have most of this essay written already. The part I am not understanding is the part where they ask " your recommendations must be based on the RAID system of data protection" I do not understand RAID at all and how it would connect? I have recommended data back up with an offsite location or master tapes.. any help?
A. RAID is "redundant array of inexpensive disks"
It won't help at all with earthquakes or crime. It just means that if a disk goes bad you can swap it out without having to reboot the computers. Everyone uses RAID now - 5 $300 disks instead of 2 $2000 disks, and it's faster (with striping) and less downtime.
If you want earthquake protection, you need a building that won't fall down, then you can put the servers on shock mounts with flexible cabling.
If you think the computers might be stolen, you want encrypted filesystems and redundant online backup, or just run the service from the cloud at Amazon or somewhere and just have generic PCs to access it.That way if you come in in the morning and find the office torched, you can run your business on laptops out of a coffee-shop and replace the desktops for a few $100 the same day.
google computer disaster recovery
It won't help at all with earthquakes or crime. It just means that if a disk goes bad you can swap it out without having to reboot the computers. Everyone uses RAID now - 5 $300 disks instead of 2 $2000 disks, and it's faster (with striping) and less downtime.
If you want earthquake protection, you need a building that won't fall down, then you can put the servers on shock mounts with flexible cabling.
If you think the computers might be stolen, you want encrypted filesystems and redundant online backup, or just run the service from the cloud at Amazon or somewhere and just have generic PCs to access it.That way if you come in in the morning and find the office torched, you can run your business on laptops out of a coffee-shop and replace the desktops for a few $100 the same day.
google computer disaster recovery
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
