Need to make a single 3TB partition

On 03/31/2010 04:04 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
Any good RAID setup is going to have removable devices. That's kind
of part of the point of the whole thing. So the fact that you can
disconnect a USB drive isn't a terribly distinctive thing here. It really
shouldn't matter.


Well, they don't want the drives to be *that* removable. There's a
difference between being swappable and portable. USB drives would be
considered portable.

Indeed! The SATA connector is rated for a life of just 50 insertions.
You will run into that pretty quickly if you're swapping backup drives
around.

--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:02:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
Was my suggestion (RAID controller versus USB controller) considered?


The problem with putting the drives through a RAID controller is that
I'd have to bring these drives into the computer case and and connect
them permanently. I am trying to keep them as backup drives, therefore
they need to remain in the external case.

With sufficiently long cables, you wouldn't have to bring the drives
into the computer case.

From 1999 until about 2003 I had a system that was maxed out with 4
IDE hard drives, so I installed 4 more drives in a second computer
case and powered them from the power supply in that PC case, but
connected their data cables to an IDE controller card installed in my
main PC, giving me a total of 8 (smallish) drives. Before that, I did
essentially the same thing with some SCSI drives, (the controller was
internal but the drives were external), so the concept of "external
drives that think they're internal" has been around for a long time,
including a long time before I stumbled upon it.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:02:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
The problem with putting the drives through a RAID controller is that
I'd have to bring these drives into the computer case and and connect
them permanently. I am trying to keep them as backup drives, therefore
they need to remain in the external case.

With sufficiently long cables, you wouldn't have to bring the drives
into the computer case.

The purpose of these drives is not for full-time storage needs, they are
only for backup and archival requirements. Think of them as fulfilling
the same purpose as tape drives. So connecting them to an internal
SATA/RAID controller is totally out of the question, the drives in
question may be powered down and put away in a closet after backups.

Yousuf Khan

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:02:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
The problem with putting the drives through a RAID controller is that
I'd have to bring these drives into the computer case and and connect
them permanently. I am trying to keep them as backup drives, therefore
they need to remain in the external case.

With sufficiently long cables, you wouldn't have to bring the drives
into the computer case.

The purpose of these drives is not for full-time storage needs, they are
only for backup and archival requirements. Think of them as fulfilling
the same purpose as tape drives. So connecting them to an internal
SATA/RAID controller is totally out of the question, the drives in
question may be powered down and put away in a closet after backups.

Yousuf Khan

Sounds like you need a less expensive version of this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822165200

Up to 4TB capacity, multiple USB ports, 2 10/100/1000 ports, etc.

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Bought a dual-disk USB enclosure and a couple of 1.5TB drives to put
into it. First of all, the enclosure has a built in concatenation
feature. When using that, Windows and Linux both see it as an 800 GB
drive, rather than a 3000 GB drive! So I put it back to regular mode,
and we see two separate 1.5 TB drives again.

Why do you need the two drives to be seen as one 3 TB drive and not
two 1.5 TB drive? Are you that low on drive letters?
--
I don't understand why they make gourmet cat foods. I have
known many cats in my life and none of them were gourmets.
They were all gourmands!

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
The purpose of these drives is not for full-time storage needs, they are
only for backup and archival requirements. Think of them as fulfilling
the same purpose as tape drives. So connecting them to an internal
SATA/RAID controller is totally out of the question, the drives in
question may be powered down and put away in a closet after backups.

Yousuf Khan

Sounds like you need a less expensive version of this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822165200

Up to 4TB capacity, multiple USB ports, 2 10/100/1000 ports, etc.

Yeah, *way* less expensive! Considering the price of the rackmount unit
you linked to ($1652), I'm not doing too badly with what I put together
at 3TB, and a cost of less than $250. I might also have trouble putting
that rackmount into a closet or cupboard later.

Yousuf Khan

Daniel Prince wrote:
Why do you need the two drives to be seen as one 3 TB drive and not
two 1.5 TB drive? Are you that low on drive letters?


Well, I already have 4.5 TB of online disk space on this system, spread
out over multiple drives. My requirement is to archive the multiple
sources into a single source. I can then clear off the old stuff.

Yousuf Khan

Are you using something like this, which has a self-contained RAID
interface?
MobileSTOR MS2UT+ - 2 Bay eSATA/USB RAID/SAFE33/50 (Silver)
http://store.sansdigital-shop.com/moms4.html

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:00:49 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Bought a dual-disk USB enclosure and a couple of 1.5TB drives to put
into it. First of all, the enclosure has a built in concatenation
feature. When using that, Windows and Linux both see it as an 800 GB
drive, rather than a 3000 GB drive! So I put it back to regular mode,
and we see two separate 1.5 TB drives again.

Next I tried concatenating through Windows Disk Management. BTW, this is
Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64. When I use the Spanned Volume wizard, it
gives the error message, "Operation is not supported by object". I then
tried converting each disk from MBR partitions to the new GPT
partitions, it accepted that. I then retried the Spanned Volume wizard,
and the same message appeared. Then I tried converting them to Dynamic
disks, but it showed the "Operation is not supported by object" message
again. I think whatever the problem is, it's from this stage where it
tries to convert to dynamic disks. So why isn't it accepting the
conversion to dynamic disks?

Yousuf Khan

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
The purpose of these drives is not for full-time storage needs, they are
only for backup and archival requirements. Think of them as fulfilling
the same purpose as tape drives. So connecting them to an internal
SATA/RAID controller is totally out of the question, the drives in
question may be powered down and put away in a closet after backups.

Yousuf Khan

Sounds like you need a less expensive version of this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822165200

Up to 4TB capacity, multiple USB ports, 2 10/100/1000 ports, etc.

Yeah, *way* less expensive! Considering the price of the rackmount unit
you linked to ($1652), I'm not doing too badly with what I put together
at 3TB, and a cost of less than $250. I might also have trouble putting
that rackmount into a closet or cupboard later.

Yousuf Khan

For cupboard I reccomend using 2.5" drives, far lower heat
generation. I have one running in my cupboard for several
years now, it is a factor.

Arno

--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

Arno wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan
wrote:
Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
The purpose of these drives is not for full-time storage needs,
they are only for backup and archival requirements. Think of them
as fulfilling the same purpose as tape drives. So connecting them
to an internal SATA/RAID controller is totally out of the
question, the drives in question may be powered down and put away
in a closet after backups.

Yousuf Khan

Sounds like you need a less expensive version of this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822165200

Up to 4TB capacity, multiple USB ports, 2 10/100/1000 ports, etc.

Yeah, *way* less expensive! Considering the price of the rackmount
unit you linked to ($1652), I'm not doing too badly with what I put
together at 3TB, and a cost of less than $250. I might also have
trouble putting that rackmount into a closet or cupboard later.

Yousuf Khan

For cupboard I reccomend using 2.5" drives, far lower heat
generation. I have one running in my cupboard for several
years now, it is a factor.

Arno

He's not talking about running it in his cupboard, he's talking about putting
it in his cupboard after its been written to, after its been disconnected.

And you can not get two 1.5TB drives in 2.5" format currently anyway.