If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
I have read this:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309044 And I still don't know if I want to convert my new 2TB to dynamic. Who has tried dynamic and didn't like it? (I don't use dual boot or Raid) If I read this correctly, this will allow assign more than 4 drive letters to a drive. My last drive was a 750G and I wanted more partitions. This drive is a 2TB and I want at least 4 for this one. I like to be able to label the volume labels to make stuff easier to find. Although I have formatted over 50 drives, I am still not exactly sure what primary partitions, extended partitions, and logical drives mean. This worries me, although I don't really know what it means: When you convert to a dynamic disk, the existing partitions or logical drives on the basic disk are converted to simple volumes on the dynamic disk. My SATA boot drive has 2 partitions. 40G for c: and 450G for d: And then there is a 750G SATA drive that is 170 170 170 185 Then I have 2 IDE drives with no partitions 80G and a 160G The safe bet says no. Anyone disagree? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
On 3/11/2011 1:24 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
I have read this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309044 And I still don't know if I want to convert my new 2TB to dynamic. Who has tried dynamic and didn't like it? (I don't use dual boot or Raid) If I read this correctly, this will allow assign more than 4 drive letters to a drive. My last drive was a 750G and I wanted more partitions. This drive is a 2TB and I want at least 4 for this one. I like to be able to label the volume labels to make stuff easier to find. Although I have formatted over 50 drives, I am still not exactly sure what primary partitions, extended partitions, and logical drives mean. This worries me, although I don't really know what it means: When you convert to a dynamic disk, the existing partitions or logical drives on the basic disk are converted to simple volumes on the dynamic disk. My SATA boot drive has 2 partitions. 40G for c: and 450G for d: And then there is a 750G SATA drive that is 170 170 170 185 Then I have 2 IDE drives with no partitions 80G and a 160G The safe bet says no. Anyone disagree? Dynamic disks are meant to allow multiple disks to be addressed as one volume, which is the reverse of what you say you want. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
Metspitzer wrote:
I have read this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309044 And I still don't know if I want to convert my new 2TB to dynamic. Who has tried dynamic and didn't like it? (I don't use dual boot or Raid) If I read this correctly, this will allow assign more than 4 drive letters to a drive. My last drive was a 750G and I wanted more partitions. This drive is a 2TB and I want at least 4 for this one. I like to be able to label the volume labels to make stuff easier to find. Although I have formatted over 50 drives, I am still not exactly sure what primary partitions, extended partitions, and logical drives mean. This worries me, although I don't really know what it means: When you convert to a dynamic disk, the existing partitions or logical drives on the basic disk are converted to simple volumes on the dynamic disk. My SATA boot drive has 2 partitions. 40G for c: and 450G for d: And then there is a 750G SATA drive that is 170 170 170 185 Then I have 2 IDE drives with no partitions 80G and a 160G The safe bet says no. Anyone disagree? Dynamic disk ? Just don't do it. It might be a whiz bang technology for server management, but on a desktop, it's just a nuisance. This falls under the "KISS" banner (Keep It Simple Stupid, a term we used to use at work a lot), where the simpler you keep your configuration, the easier it is to repair later. Some crappy disk utilities, may not deal with dynamic very well. You don't want to find out at the last minute, that the $39.95 program you bought, can't fix a dynamic disk. For the same reasons, I don't recommend RAID arrays for home users. If you spend the time, to learn how to do maintenance on one, like when a disk fails, and do that in advance of having lots of data on it, then fine, use it. But every once in a while, some person will post here "I have 3TB of movies on a RAID xxx array, and the disk management software says a drive is failed. What do I do ?". If you want to run RAID, you practice with a few megabytes of files on it, until you get the hang of doing maintenance. And if you set up a four drive array, you might even buy a fifth (identical) drive, which operates as your spare. Then you can practice the "what happens if a drive dies", and get used to the disk management interface. For example, if you're offered the option to "rebuild", then it would be fun to see if your small collection of files survives a "rebuild". Once you're comfortable with operating a RAID, and can handle simulated failures, then there will never be a day you have to run screaming to USENET, for someone to save you :-) Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
"Metspitzer" wrote in message ... I have read this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309044 And I still don't know if I want to convert my new 2TB to dynamic. You don't! eom |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:40:27 -0500, Paul wrote:
Metspitzer wrote: I have read this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309044 And I still don't know if I want to convert my new 2TB to dynamic. Who has tried dynamic and didn't like it? (I don't use dual boot or Raid) If I read this correctly, this will allow assign more than 4 drive letters to a drive. My last drive was a 750G and I wanted more partitions. This drive is a 2TB and I want at least 4 for this one. I like to be able to label the volume labels to make stuff easier to find. Although I have formatted over 50 drives, I am still not exactly sure what primary partitions, extended partitions, and logical drives mean. This worries me, although I don't really know what it means: When you convert to a dynamic disk, the existing partitions or logical drives on the basic disk are converted to simple volumes on the dynamic disk. My SATA boot drive has 2 partitions. 40G for c: and 450G for d: And then there is a 750G SATA drive that is 170 170 170 185 Then I have 2 IDE drives with no partitions 80G and a 160G The safe bet says no. Anyone disagree? Dynamic disk ? Just don't do it. It might be a whiz bang technology for server management, but on a desktop, it's just a nuisance. This falls under the "KISS" banner (Keep It Simple Stupid, a term we used to use at work a lot), where the simpler you keep your configuration, the easier it is to repair later. Some crappy disk utilities, may not deal with dynamic very well. You don't want to find out at the last minute, that the $39.95 program you bought, can't fix a dynamic disk. For the same reasons, I don't recommend RAID arrays for home users. If you spend the time, to learn how to do maintenance on one, like when a disk fails, and do that in advance of having lots of data on it, then fine, use it. But every once in a while, some person will post here "I have 3TB of movies on a RAID xxx array, and the disk management software says a drive is failed. What do I do ?". If you want to run RAID, you practice with a few megabytes of files on it, until you get the hang of doing maintenance. And if you set up a four drive array, you might even buy a fifth (identical) drive, which operates as your spare. Then you can practice the "what happens if a drive dies", and get used to the disk management interface. For example, if you're offered the option to "rebuild", then it would be fun to see if your small collection of files survives a "rebuild". Once you're comfortable with operating a RAID, and can handle simulated failures, then there will never be a day you have to run screaming to USENET, for someone to save you :-) Paul I agree, but it is good to know there are people like you there to help. Are you taking good care of yourself? What would do without you? Thanks |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
Paul writes:
For the same reasons, I don't recommend RAID arrays for home users. I've used RAID5 (for a few months), and RAID0 (for 3+ years) with a 4-disk configuration. Started with XP, and now W7. Works great, and my D: drive which is the RAID config is really fast, better than an SSD drive which is C: Of course I do backups, but then, everyone should. -- We write to taste life twice, in the moment and in retrospection. - Anais Nin |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
Bug Dout wrote:
Paul writes: For the same reasons, I don't recommend RAID arrays for home users. I've used RAID5 (for a few months), and RAID0 (for 3+ years) with a 4-disk configuration. Started with XP, and now W7. Works great, and my D: drive which is the RAID config is really fast, better than an SSD drive which is C: Of course I do backups, but then, everyone should. RAID has all sorts of pitfalls. In particular, some of the "easy" options. Like the Intel Matrix or RST drivers, that would "degrade" due to a driver problem. Some people try to fix that, by buying RE drives (which doesn't help, because it's a driver problem). It's great when RAID works out for you. On your RAID, do you know whether it is safe to "delete" the array, and then define it again, without data loss. On some arrays, it's possible to do that. Testing this kind of operation in advance, is what I'm arguing for. The manual seldom states, in plain English, what the side effects of each command are. And the control panels, with things that say "this will delete all data!" are seldom completely truthful. The only solution I see for that, is experimentation so you can build your own user manual. I've even seen a few people complain, on a forum frequented by server type builders, when it takes a week to rebuild or format some humongous array. Data is a curse - the more you have, the more life-sapping it becomes. It's like a ball and chain around your ankle :-) I also wish I had $0.05 for every time a person has enough money to build a huge array, but then has no money for devices to back it up. To cost out a project like that, double the price of whatever you're building, so you end up with decent reliability. And with a backup, comes a solution for all those array modes where some migration, expansion, or morphing feature is missing, and you need to restore to the new array setup. I've read a few whiny posts from people, who have all their data on the array, want to add another drive, the software doesn't support it, and they have *no* backup device to work with. And then they expect some magic piece of freeware to fix it. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
In article , Metspitzer wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:40:27 -0500, Paul wrote: Metspitzer wrote: I have read this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309044 And I still don't know if I want to convert my new 2TB to dynamic. Who has tried dynamic and didn't like it? (I don't use dual boot or Raid) If I read this correctly, this will allow assign more than 4 drive letters to a drive. My last drive was a 750G and I wanted more partitions. This drive is a 2TB and I want at least 4 for this one. I like to be able to label the volume labels to make stuff easier to find. Although I have formatted over 50 drives, I am still not exactly sure what primary partitions, extended partitions, and logical drives mean. This worries me, although I don't really know what it means: When you convert to a dynamic disk, the existing partitions or logical drives on the basic disk are converted to simple volumes on the dynamic disk. My SATA boot drive has 2 partitions. 40G for c: and 450G for d: And then there is a 750G SATA drive that is 170 170 170 185 Then I have 2 IDE drives with no partitions 80G and a 160G The safe bet says no. Anyone disagree? Dynamic disk ? Just don't do it. It might be a whiz bang technology for server management, but on a desktop, it's just a nuisance. This falls under the "KISS" banner (Keep It Simple Stupid, a term we used to use at work a lot), where the simpler you keep your configuration, the easier it is to repair later. Some crappy disk utilities, may not deal with dynamic very well. You don't want to find out at the last minute, that the $39.95 program you bought, can't fix a dynamic disk. For the same reasons, I don't recommend RAID arrays for home users. If you spend the time, to learn how to do maintenance on one, like when a disk fails, and do that in advance of having lots of data on it, then fine, use it. But every once in a while, some person will post here "I have 3TB of movies on a RAID xxx array, and the disk management software says a drive is failed. What do I do ?". If you want to run RAID, you practice with a few megabytes of files on it, until you get the hang of doing maintenance. And if you set up a four drive array, you might even buy a fifth (identical) drive, which operates as your spare. Then you can practice the "what happens if a drive dies", and get used to the disk management interface. For example, if you're offered the option to "rebuild", then it would be fun to see if your small collection of files survives a "rebuild". Once you're comfortable with operating a RAID, and can handle simulated failures, then there will never be a day you have to run screaming to USENET, for someone to save you :-) Paul I agree, but it is good to know there are people like you there to help. Are you taking good care of yourself? What would do without you? Google? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
Paul writes:
I've used RAID5 (for a few months), and RAID0 (for 3+ years) with a 4-disk configuration. Started with XP, and now W7. Works great, and my D: drive which is the RAID config is really fast, better than an SSD drive which is C: Of course I do backups, but then, everyone should. RAID has all sorts of pitfalls. Yes. So does just about everything. RAID0, using 2 or 3 disks, offers a simple way to get a significant performance boost at little extra cost. I've never had a disk drive fail in the several years I've had it, and it's on every day (24/7 the first year, after that, a few hours a day). If someone doesn't do backups of their important data, they will eventually lose that data, RAID or no. Adopting a knee-jerk response that RAID is bad is stupid. One can easily find fault with anything we've invented or discovered, including fire. Use it properly and get the benefits. -- Triangular sandwiches taste better than square ones. --Peter Kay |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Convert to dynamic disk
In article , Bug Dout wrote:
Paul writes: I've used RAID5 (for a few months), and RAID0 (for 3+ years) with a 4-disk configuration. Started with XP, and now W7. Works great, and my D: drive which is the RAID config is really fast, better than an SSD drive which is C: Of course I do backups, but then, everyone should. RAID has all sorts of pitfalls. Yes. So does just about everything. RAID0, using 2 or 3 disks, offers a simple way to get a significant performance boost at little extra cost. I've never had a disk drive fail in the several years I've had it, and it's on every day (24/7 the first year, after that, a few hours a day). If someone doesn't do backups of their important data, they will eventually lose that data, RAID or no. Adopting a knee-jerk response that RAID is bad is stupid. One can easily find fault with anything we've invented or discovered, including fire. Use it properly and get the benefits. Raid 0 without a backup plan is bad AND stupid! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Raid 5 / dynamic disk unable to import | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 5 | October 28th 05 12:18 PM |
Can't remove Dynamic Disk | Matt | Storage (alternative) | 1 | March 22nd 05 11:35 PM |
Oh joy, the dynamic disk issue... again | Scott Cory | Storage (alternative) | 7 | September 18th 04 04:22 PM |
dynamic disk structure | Eric Gisin | Storage (alternative) | 2 | August 4th 04 02:29 AM |
in 2000 disk issue (fixboot/Dynamic Disk) | Woody | Storage (alternative) | 2 | June 24th 03 11:47 AM |