RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies? - Storage

This is a discussion on RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies? - Storage ; > I'd feel much better about motherboard RAID1 solutions, if I > knew the controller firmware or software, was auditing how > identical the disks were, during idle moments. I'm not aware > of any of these solutions, auditing their ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66

Thread: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

  1. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    > I'd feel much better about motherboard RAID1 solutions, if I
    > knew the controller firmware or software, was auditing how
    > identical the disks were, during idle moments. I'm not aware
    > of any of these solutions, auditing their own performance.


    I prefer RAID 5 for this very reason - it's most unlikey to unRAID itself
    without you knowing anything about it. Also, there is less faffing around if a
    disk does dir - just plug in the replacement and rebuild. Of course that
    doesn't get round the different controller problem but there you go.

    --
    Boo

  2. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 01:07:21 +0100, Boo
    wrote:

    >> I'd feel much better about motherboard RAID1 solutions, if I
    >> knew the controller firmware or software, was auditing how
    >> identical the disks were, during idle moments. I'm not aware
    >> of any of these solutions, auditing their own performance.

    >
    >I prefer RAID 5 for this very reason - it's most unlikey to unRAID itself
    >without you knowing anything about it.


    ?? Any modern raid controller bios and the software
    management util should notify of this regardless of which
    raid level it were.


    >Also, there is less faffing around if a
    >disk does dir - just plug in the replacement and rebuild.


    .... same as RAID1, so you're essentially just trading more
    capacity for less compatibility, which is a fine, yet
    subjective choice if one has 3 or more drives to devote to
    that.


  3. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Tue, 27 May 2008 23:11:09 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:

    >Arno Wagner wrote in news:69pp1mF33lfgkU2@mid.individual.net
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony wrote:
    >> > On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:06:50 -0400, kony wrote:
    >> > > On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), clangers_snout@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > > I have a motherboard with a hardware RAID controller built in and I
    >> > > > intend to set up two identical drives in RAID 1 configuration. My
    >> > > > worry is how I would go about recovering the data from either drive if
    >> > > > my motherboard goes down. I assume that you can't just plug one of the
    >> > > > drives in to another motherboard and expect it to be read by a normal
    >> > > > SATA2 (in my case) connection. So how would I recover the data in this
    >> > > > worst case condition?
    >> > >
    >> > > Unlike other RAID levels, a RAID1 does not need metadata to work and
    >> > > in fact can be made on any normal controller by taking a drive that was
    >> > > not a member of any raid array, hooking it up to the controller, then tel-
    >> > > ling the controller to dupe that onto a second drive.

    >>
    >> > I should elaborate on what I wrote above. A RAID1 does need
    >> > the metadata to exist and be understood by the controller (which
    >> > must have the RAID1 funcitonality) in order to continue functioning
    >> > as a two drive mirror of a single logical volume but that is not
    >> > necessary to read the data off either member alone.

    >>
    >> True. There are RAID 1 controllers, however, that put the metadata
    >> at the beginning od the disk and translate everything after. I don't
    >> know how common that is today, but it used to be a problem. If you
    >> can take a disk out of a RAID1 and access it without any special
    >> measures (LVM translation, e.g.) on a non-RAID controller,

    >
    >> then the metadata is very likely at the end

    >
    >Or at the 'beginning'.
    >"Beginning" is a relatively imprecise description, Babblebot.
    >Where does it say that "beginning" has to be sector 0, eh?


    What it writes, can't be overwriting existing data (incl.
    partitioning, MBR) when we see it's still there after adding
    it as primary member upon which the mirrored volume is
    built. It's not a matter of it adding metadata, it's a
    matter of us not caring about metadata because the standard
    controller upon which the data salvage operation question
    was asked about, does not need metadata.

    >Or just because there is enough unused space near the start of the drive
    >that can be used for it's own purposes without interfering with standard
    >partitioning and/or formatting, Babblebot.


    Except there's the potential for contention with other
    utilities that might put code there, so long ago they
    learned to leave the beginning alone.

    I'm starting to get the impression you're arguing about
    something you have never tried, or at least not in several
    years.

  4. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    kony wrote in news:cqau345fk5juuo1p7vdht7nioesqo2cvrh@4ax.com
    > On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:19:43 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    >
    > > > the variable is not whether that worked, only whether the original
    > > > system uses a standard config which can take a drive with data
    > > > already on it and add that as a source member of a RAID1 array.

    > >
    > > > *If* it can do that, [then] there is no reason to believe it will make any
    > > > changes to the drive

    > >
    > > Why not.


    > Because as I wrote, the data was already on it and it worked
    > meaning the array does not depend on having relocated data from
    > areas necessary for a standard non-raid controller to access it.


    You didn't say anything about relocating data, you said "making changes".

    >
    > > There must still be information stored /somewhere/ that signals
    > > whether the drives are in sync or that the mirror needs to be rebuilt.
    > > Such information won't be on a standard non-raided drive.


    > Yes, information that the standard controller in the *new*
    > system will ignore


    Say you.

    > because the new system isn't trying to run these two drives as a raid array,


    > unless it happened to be a raid controller


    Exactly.

    > and the user then decided to define an array...


    Not necessarily.

    > but with either single drive all the data is accessible, except


    > as you mentioned


    That's not why I mentioned it.

    > there is the issue of one drive being damaged in some way or not logically
    > in sync with the other, so if there is a question of which is intact then
    > both need to be checked for data freshness.
    >
    > >
    > > > that would prevent use in any other system

    > >
    > > Well, that's up to the people who designed/wrote the particular RAID
    > > bios of that other system. I can't speak for them and neither can you.


    > It's not up to them,


    Yes it is, if they decide to not accept a drive that has the signs of
    having been in a different raid configuration that's not their own.

    > you keep missing the crucial piece of the puzzle


    So you keep saying.

    > which was the precondition


    What precondition.

    > that if the data was already written to a single drive


    A RAID1 drive member.

    > and the raid controller can incorporate it into a RAID1 array without
    > having to copy the data to it again, it is showing that it has left the
    > data intact regardless of metadata later written.


    And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    your own fault.


  5. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    kony wrote in news:fabu34lmpccrbpf730rbofmk1qbn3obe06@4ax.com
    > On Tue, 27 May 2008 23:11:09 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote in news:69pp1mF33lfgkU2@mid.individual.net
    > > > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony wrote:
    > > > > On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:06:50 -0400, kony wrote:
    > > > > > On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), clangers_snout@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > I have a motherboard with a hardware RAID controller built in and I
    > > > > > > intend to set up two identical drives in RAID 1 configuration. My
    > > > > > > worry is how I would go about recovering the data from either drive if
    > > > > > > my motherboard goes down. I assume that you can't just plug one of the
    > > > > > > drives in to another motherboard and expect it to be read by a normal
    > > > > > > SATA2 (in my case) connection. So how would I recover the data in this
    > > > > > > worst case condition?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Unlike other RAID levels, a RAID1 does not need metadata to work and
    > > > > > in fact can be made on any normal controller by taking a drive that was
    > > > > > not a member of any raid array, hooking it up to the controller, then tel-
    > > > > > ling the controller to dupe that onto a second drive.
    > > >
    > > > > I should elaborate on what I wrote above. A RAID1 does need
    > > > > the metadata to exist and be understood by the controller (which
    > > > > must have the RAID1 funcitonality) in order to continue functioning
    > > > > as a two drive mirror of a single logical volume but that is not
    > > > > necessary to read the data off either member alone.
    > > >
    > > > True. There are RAID 1 controllers, however, that put the metadata
    > > > at the beginning od the disk and translate everything after. I don't
    > > > know how common that is today, but it used to be a problem. If you
    > > > can take a disk out of a RAID1 and access it without any special
    > > > measures (LVM translation, e.g.) on a non-RAID controller,

    > >
    > > > then the metadata is very likely at the end

    > >
    > > Or at the 'beginning'.
    > > "Beginning" is a relatively imprecise description, Babblebot.
    > > Where does it say that "beginning" has to be sector 0, eh?


    > What it writes, can't be overwriting existing data (incl.
    > partitioning, MBR) when we see it's still there after adding
    > it as primary member upon which the mirrored volume is built.


    That wasn't the question.

    > It's not a matter of it adding metadata,


    The question is: will the existing metadata be a problem
    when the drive is introduced to a different computer.

    Btw, I was merely correcting the babblebot.
    Whatever more you read into that is of your own fault.

    [snip]

  6. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:30:53 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:


    >And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    >I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    >drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    >your own fault.


    You keep thinking the metadata matters when it does not, the
    reason I mentioned the user data was to enlighten you about
    the situation with the metadata, that in the end the
    metadata is only a means towards the userdata and when one
    independent volume can be added intact to a new array as the
    data source, it remains that way whether metadata is there,
    or not, whether metadata is compatible or not if it is
    there.

    Hooking the former RAID1 members up to a new non-raid
    controller, or a raid controller but not trying to set it up
    as an array - just get the data, there is no expectation
    that the drive would be rejected.

    Just try it already. There is one more significant reason
    why the data access would be a problem, that is if some of
    Intel's screwy Maxtrix schemes were used instead of a
    straight textbook RAID1. In that case a compatible Intel
    Matrix controller would have to be used for some if not all
    of the data. I have not nor am I likely to use these
    special Maxtrix modes (for exactly this reason) so I don't
    know how that would turn out.

  7. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?


    "kony" wrote in message
    news:68qu34dt9g2ivrmce0qbh285ctauedu7ma@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:30:53 +0100, "Squeeze"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    >>I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    >>drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    >>your own fault.

    >
    > You keep thinking the metadata matters when it does not, the
    > reason I mentioned the user data was to enlighten you about
    > the situation with the metadata, that in the end the
    > metadata is only a means towards the userdata and when one
    > independent volume can be added intact to a new array as the
    > data source, it remains that way whether metadata is there,
    > or not, whether metadata is compatible or not if it is
    > there.
    >
    > Hooking the former RAID1 members up to a new non-raid
    > controller, or a raid controller but not trying to set it up
    > as an array - just get the data, there is no expectation
    > that the drive would be rejected.
    >
    > Just try it already. There is one more significant reason
    > why the data access would be a problem, that is if some of
    > Intel's screwy Maxtrix schemes were used instead of a
    > straight textbook RAID1. In that case a compatible Intel
    > Matrix controller would have to be used for some if not all
    > of the data. I have not nor am I likely to use these
    > special Maxtrix modes (for exactly this reason) so I don't
    > know how that would turn out.


    I wouldn't waste too much of your time trying to explain things to this
    troll. He looks like he's another one of those "never wrong" people.



  8. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:31:59 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:


    >The question is: will the existing metadata be a problem
    >when the drive is introduced to a different computer.
    >


    The answer is: no, it is not a problem- Providing the
    condition I already stipulated, that the originating
    controller was compatible with a standard controller to the
    extent that one can take a drive volume created with the
    standard controller and implement that as a new array on the
    originating raid controller without losing the data that
    member already held.

    I'm sure you know a person could make a mistake at that
    point, could accidentally wipe out the data on the drive by
    choosing the wrong raid bios menu choice to make a new array
    treating it as an empty logical volume instead of starting
    out by mirroring the source to a second drive... same
    difference as adding a spare any other time a drive fails.

    Metadata allows array ID, it does not prevent intact single
    volumes from working when there was no need for metadata (on
    a standard non-raid controller or non-raid config on a raid
    controller (single drive span).

    However, this may all be beside the point that if the data
    is valueable enough to worry about it, the RAID1 should not
    be considered the primary backup method but instead a method
    of ensuring more immediate data availability.

  9. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    kony wrote in news:hqqu3459llmuf135bcb5jgvm52hlthugck@4ax.com
    > On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:31:59 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    >
    >
    > > The question is: will the existing metadata be a problem
    > > when the drive is introduced to a different computer.
    > >

    >
    > The answer is: no, it is not a problem-


    You really need to replace that broken record, boy.
    Go back and reread the thread about what I said about existing meta
    data and acceptance by new systems and RAID bios programmers.

  10. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    kony wrote in news:68qu34dt9g2ivrmce0qbh285ctauedu7ma@4ax.com
    > On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:30:53 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    >
    >
    > > And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    > > I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    > > drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    > > your own fault.

    >
    > You keep thinking ...


    Looking in the mirror boy?
    You really need to replace that broken record, boy.

  11. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:31:59 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:


    >> It's not a matter of it adding metadata,

    >
    >The question is: will the existing metadata be a problem
    >when the drive is introduced to a different computer.
    >



    No, that is not the question except to _you_.
    You keep failing to understand that there is no problem from
    metadata being there because the new system with standard
    non-raid controller doesn't use metadata. IF the new
    controller happened to be a raid controller as well (that
    uses metadata) but it did not understand or find the
    metadata it needs in order to resume operation of the two
    drives as a mirror, then it can either treat each drive as a
    single span, or it can write metadata it does understand to
    the drive (user's choice).



  12. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:34:57 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:

    >kony wrote in news:68qu34dt9g2ivrmce0qbh285ctauedu7ma@4ax.com
    >> On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:30:53 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> > And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    >> > I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    >> > drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    >> > your own fault.

    >>
    >> You keep thinking ...

    >
    >Looking in the mirror boy?
    >You really need to replace that broken record, boy.


    Thank you for your most valuable insight. I'd have time to
    do that if I weren't so busy handing you clues about how to
    do simple things like get data off a mirrored volume.

  13. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Shadow36 wrote
    > "kony" wrote in message
    > news:68qu34dt9g2ivrmce0qbh285ctauedu7ma@4ax.com...
    > > On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:30:53 +0100, "Squeeze"
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    > > > I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    > > > drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    > > > your own fault.

    > >
    > > You keep thinking the metadata matters when it does not, the
    > > reason I mentioned the user data was to enlighten you about
    > > the situation with the metadata, that in the end the
    > > metadata is only a means towards the userdata and when one
    > > independent volume can be added intact to a new array as the
    > > data source, it remains that way whether metadata is there,
    > > or not, whether metadata is compatible or not if it is there.
    > >
    > > Hooking the former RAID1 members up to a new non-raid
    > > controller, or a raid controller but not trying to set it up
    > > as an array - just get the data,


    > > there is no *expectation* that the drive would be rejected.


    > >
    > > Just try it already. There is one more significant reason
    > > why the data access would be a problem, that is if some of
    > > Intel's screwy Maxtrix schemes were used instead of a
    > > straight textbook RAID1. In that case a compatible Intel
    > > Matrix controller would have to be used for some if not all
    > > of the data. I have not nor am I likely to use these
    > > special Maxtrix modes (for exactly this reason) so I don't
    > > know how that would turn out.


    > I wouldn't waste too much of your time trying to explain things to this
    > troll. He looks like he's another one of those "never wrong" people.


    Like that Konehead, you mean?
    He's speculating just as much but his 'expeculations' are always 'better'.

  14. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    clangers_snout@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > I have a motherboard with a hardware RAID controller built in and I
    > intend to set up two identical drives in RAID 1 configuration. My
    > worry is how I would go about recovering the data from either drive if
    > my motherboard goes down. I assume that you can't just plug one of the
    > drives in to another motherboard and expect it to be read by a normal
    > SATA2 (in my case) connection. So how would I recover the data in this
    > worst case condition?


    RAID1 might not be a problem in some cases, as RAID1 is just otherwise
    known as mirroring. For the most part, mirroring maintains the original
    partitioning structure intact without the wierdness of RAID5. As others
    have pointed out the RAID schemes differ in how they maintain their
    metadata (the data that organizes the RAID structures). But usually it's
    no big deal, putting the drive into a new machine may just mean that the
    first machine's metadata is ignored and they recreate the metadata into
    the same location on the new machine.

    Now just to be nitpicky, motherboard RAID is not really "hardware RAID".
    It still uses the system processor to do the RAIDing. The software just
    exists inside the BIOS as opposed to inside a Windows device driver, but
    it's software nonetheless. In fact, in most cases it resides in both
    BIOS and a Windows device driver, where the drive loads via BIOS driver,
    and then the BIOS driver hands off the duties to the Windows driver once
    it loads. The BIOS & Windows drivers are supplied by the same
    manufacturer and therefore are compatible with each other.

    A true hardware RAID would not have such a problem, because neither the
    operating system nor the system BIOS would even know that they are
    running on a RAIDed disk. The disk would be RAIDed by either an external
    disk storage array with its own microprocessor, or at the very least by
    a plug-in RAID card, also with its own internal intelligence.

    Yousuf Khan

  15. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Frank wrote:
    > Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    > like starter clangers_....
    > Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    > moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    > ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    > experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    > whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    > variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?


    These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    Yousuf Khan

  16. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Frank wrote:
    >> Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    >> like starter clangers_....
    >> Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    >> moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    >> ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    >> experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    >> whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    >> variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?


    > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.


    It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    (RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    or two sectors.

    Arno

  17. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Yousuf Khan wrote in news:4843fc9a$1@news.bnb-lp.com
    > clangers_snout@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > > I have a motherboard with a hardware RAID controller built in and I
    > > intend to set up two identical drives in RAID 1 configuration. My
    > > worry is how I would go about recovering the data from either drive if
    > > my motherboard goes down. I assume that you can't just plug one of the
    > > drives in to another motherboard and expect it to be read by a normal
    > > SATA2 (in my case) connection. So how would I recover the data in this
    > > worst case condition?

    >
    > RAID1 might not be a problem in some cases, as RAID1 is just otherwise
    > known as mirroring. For the most part, mirroring maintains the original
    > partitioning structure intact without the wierdness of RAID5. As others
    > have pointed out the RAID schemes differ in how they maintain their
    > metadata (the data that organizes the RAID structures). But usually it's
    > no big deal, putting the drive into a new machine may just mean that the
    > first machine's metadata is ignored and they recreate the metadata into
    > the same location on the new machine.


    > Now just to be nitpicky,


    Says Yousuf Khan, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kOOk of the year Award nominee.

    > motherboard RAID is not really "hardware RAID".
    > It still uses the system processor to do the RAIDing.


    > The software just exists inside the BIOS


    Gee, maybe because that is what BIOS means?

    > as opposed to inside a Windows device driver,


    Like that doesn't use the system processor.

    > but it's software nonetheless.


    Yeah, the windows driver obviously isn't.

    > In fact,


    No? Really?

    > in most cases


    Is that a fact.

    > it resides in both BIOS and a Windows device driver,


    Or the driver just uses some of the 32-bit routines supplied by the bios
    and not know of any array structures, very similar to hardware assisted
    RAID.

    > where the drive loads via BIOS driver,


    ..

    > and then the BIOS driver hands off the duties to the Windows driver
    > once it loads.


    > The BIOS & Windows drivers are supplied by the same
    > manufacturer and therefore are compatible with each other.


    Like that is any different with any other hardware.

    > A true hardware RAID would not have such a problem,


    Problem, mister kOOk?

    > because neither the operating system


    No difference there, whether single drive, firmware RAID
    or Hardware assisted RAID.

    > nor the system BIOS


    Like that has got anything to do with it when the RAID card,
    or any card for that matter, comes with it's own bios.

    > would even know that they are running on a RAIDed disk.


    Same with any other type.

    > The disk would be RAIDed by either an external disk storage
    > array with its own microprocessor, or at the very least by
    > a plug-in RAID card, also with its own internal intelligence.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


  18. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    kony wrote in news:lfm0449k1d2e7et8hc07ip8ntr7dsi8a4m@4ax.com
    > On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:31:59 +0100, "Squeeze"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > > > It's not a matter of it adding metadata,

    > >
    > > The question is: will the existing metadata be a problem
    > > when the drive is introduced to a different computer.
    > >

    >
    >
    > No, that is not the question except to _you_.


    Fine, he can come to you then and ask you to fix his problem when against
    all odds his new system refuses to accept the disk because you guaranteed
    him that there would be no such problem, ever.

    > You keep failing to understand that there is no problem from
    > metadata being there because the new system with standard
    > non-raid controller doesn't use metadata.


    I never said anything like that.
    Perhaps you need to attend some reading apprehension courses?

    > IF the new controller happened to be a raid controller as well
    > (that uses metadata) but it did not understand or find the
    > metadata it needs in order to resume operation of the two
    > drives as a mirror, then it *can* either treat each drive as a
    > single span, or it *can* write metadata it does understand to
    > the drive (user's choice).


    What the OP is looking for is not 'can' as in 'maybe' but 'will'
    as in 'definetely'.

  19. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Yousuf Khan, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kOOK of the year Award nominee wrote in news:48440273$1@news.bnb-lp.com
    > Frank wrote:
    > > Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    > > like starter clangers_....
    > > Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    > > moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    > > ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    > > experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    > > whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    > > variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?

    >
    > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.


    ROTFLOL.

    >
    > Yousuf Khan


  20. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Arno Wagner wrote in news:6aij14F37m836U1@mid.individual.net
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > Frank wrote:
    > > > Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    > > > like starter clangers_....
    > > > Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    > > > moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    > > > ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    > > > experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    > > > whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    > > > variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?

    >
    > > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    > > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    > > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    > > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    > > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    > > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.


    > It is never written to partitions.


    How about software RAID, Babblebot.

    > There is no space for it.


    Bwahaha.

    > It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two (RAID5) or
    > three (RAID6) disks.


    > ALso cylinders have gone out of fashion a long time ago.


    Nonsense.
    Perhaps you want to explain the number of sectors per track in FAT
    boot records. Explain Start CHS and End CHS in partition records.
    Yes, you can set a Start LBA and Extend too but often they reflect
    the limits set by Start and End CHS.

    > Today you just shorten the disk by one or two sectors.


    (Or not at all).
    Yes, you can do that too, but that has nothing to do with
    "cylinders have gone out of fashion a long time ago".
    Some Partitoners anf Formatters still use full cylinders
    for setting borders.

    >
    > Arno


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast