Raid configuration to mirror partions on disimilar sized HD's

[tiggers]

My current computer has a 160GB installed SATA Seagate. It is quickly reaching it's capacity, and so I plan on buying a larger HD, probably a Seagate 750GB SATA. Unfortunately, budget dictates I can only buy one drive.

My current 160GB is the sole repository for a lot of family records, pictures, videos, etc.

What I would like to do is install the 750GB HD as my primary drive, and divide it into about 4 partitions (lets call them drives C, D, E, and F). One partition I would like to reserve as a data drive for my family files (lets call it drive F, formatted to 160GB).

My question is:

Can I make a RAID 1 configuration with the physical 160GB HD and the F partition drive?

My MB (DFI , LanParty UT nF4 Ultra-D) supports nVIDIA nVRAID.

Thanks for helping this newb with his first RAID setup.

 

[Nothinman]

I really doubt your motherboard will let you do that. Software RAID will, but client versions of Windows don't let you do any redundant RAID so you're screwed there as well.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Under LINUX you could do that in about 5 seconds. Windows home is your enemy when it comes to data reliability considering its lack of flexible RAID / redundancy and even synchronization options.

I'd put the 160GB drive into an external USB / firewire / eSATA / type enclosure with a fan built in. Run synchronization or backup software to synchronize the desired subset of files on your 750GB internal PC drive to the external unit for crucial backup purposes.

Turn the external unit off when it isn't actively backing up data. Possibly even remove it to a safe.

Plan to save up for an external 750GB drive ASAP for a better / bigger backup option.

You could certainly run something like cobian backup (free), Microsoft sync toy 2.0 (free), the free edition of SyncBack, et. al. to semi-easily and maybe even semi-automatically synchronize the internal drive partition to the external drive....

 

[taltamir]

intels matrix raid says it does that... but it is too risky, i wouldn't use an onboard controller for raid.
Just get a program like second copy and use it to back up to the second drive.

I would NOT put it in an external enclosure as their speeds are poor, their thermals are poor, and they tend to be always running.
Just leave it as a second drive, call it backup, and keep only backups on it (automatically backed up, using the software)

 

[RebateMonger]

If you can afford only a single hard drive, then don't bother with any kind of RAID array. You need backups, not RAID.

Clone the current 160 GB drive on to the new 750 GB drive. Remove the 160 GB drive and put it in an external USB housing.

After getting your new computer running, move the photos to the the new 750 GB drive. Now reformat the 160 GB drive and use it as a place to make ongoing backups of important files (including your pictures and photos). When the 160 GB drive gets too small, purchase a larger backup drive. Considering that 320 GB drives are currently fifty dollars and 640 GB drives are $80, save up to be ready for a larger backup drive when necessary.

 

[taltamir]

putting the backup drive outside of the computer is utterly pointless. It just makes it VASTLY slower, take more power, run 24/7 (unless you remember to turn it off), and run hotter (and thus fail faster).

The only reason id put a drive in an external enclosure is if:
1. I wanted to be able to move data around between computers (and not through ethernet, so, to different houses)
2. If i wanted to turn off the external drive except for a manual daily backup to prevent sabotage / virus that just deletes everything.

 

[XR250rdr]

Originally posted by: taltamir
intels matrix raid says it does that... but it is too risky, i wouldn't use an onboard controller for raid.
Just get a program like second copy and use it to back up to the second drive.

I would NOT put it in an external enclosure as their speeds are poor, their thermals are poor, and they tend to be always running.
Just leave it as a second drive, call it backup, and keep only backups on it (automatically backed up, using the software)

I second this route. Even Windows Backup would do the job just fine.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: taltamir
putting the backup drive outside of the computer is utterly pointless.

Reasons for putting the backup drive outside of the computer:

a) Lightning strikes, floods, fire, etc.
b) Virus strikes
c) Burglary (which happens a LOT and PCs are a very popular item for burglars)
d) Availability to use on other PCs (many follks can't quite get how to back up across a network)

If you only have a single backup drive, keep it away from the PC and make manual periodic backups. If you have two or more backup drives (recommended), keep one attached for automated backups and swap out that drive with another one periodically (weekly?). Keep the other drives someplace away from the PC. The further, the better.

 

[QuixoticOne]

That's a darn good reason in my book. What good is a backup if it gets wiped out in the SAME catastrophe (OS glitch, malware, flood, fire, ...) that destroys your primary drive!?

I've got USB backup drives and they all stay off when I'm not using them. They all (except one) have fans to stay cool. They all have convenient power switches on them to turn them off.

Also there's one more reason that I haven't seen anyone mention:
If a device is OFF it is not as likely to FAIL due to burn out / too many power on hours (MTBF) / crash if it is still spun up or not parked/locked (as many are left in a vulnerable state whenever powered on even if idle). Granted power cycling is stressful and can cause failures, but, still, turning something on for 12 hours a week for a weekly backup and then turning it off has got to be a lot less wearing on a drive than having it on / spinning / hot standby 24x7x365! That's less true if your system PROPERLY puts drives to full and total sleep when idle, but AFAICT that is RARE.

2. If i wanted to turn off the external drive except for a manual daily backup to prevent sabotage / virus that just deletes everything.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Here are a few more free backup tools FYI :

Free SyncBack version
http://www.2brightsparks.com/downloads.html

Free synctoy 2.0:
http://www.microsoft.com/proph...loads/synctoybeta.aspx

Cobian backup 9: (makes zip files and does other useful things)
http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm

 

[QuixoticOne]

Speaking of MTBF and Windows and drives -- what do you know of that can force a given INTERNAL SATA/PATA drive to *sleep* and even password protect/unprotect it at the DRIVE FIRMWARE LEVEL to *force* Windows to keep it OFFLINE spun down until you explicitly enable it.

Basically I'd like something virtually as reliable as a power switch to prevent malware or accidents from corrupting / accessing the drives that are reserved for backup purposes, and to keep them in the lowest level of suspend / spin down / power off possible consistent with being able to wake them up again via software command. AFAIK it doesn't exist commonly especially for Windows, and can often crash your OS if it doesn't deal gracefully with logically unmounting/mounting IDE/SATA drives dynamically, though atactl et. al. does work for this sort of thing in UNIX. Maybe someone has made something decent for Windows by now.. I'm surprised it is not a free Seagate / Maxtor / WD / ... tool!

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: taltamir
putting the backup drive outside of the computer is utterly pointless.

Reasons for putting the backup drive outside of the computer:

a) Lightning strikes, floods, fire, etc.
b) Virus strikes
c) Burglary (which happens a LOT and PCs are a very popular item for burglars)
d) Availability to use on other PCs (many follks can't quite get how to back up across a network)

If you only have a single backup drive, keep it away from the PC and make manual periodic backups. If you have two or more backup drives (recommended), keep one attached for automated backups and swap out that drive with another one periodically (weekly?). Keep the other drives someplace away from the PC. The further, the better.

a) a PSU will handle lightening BETTER then the dinky transformer on the external enclosure. so that is actually a point AGAINST the external enclosure.
b) viruses can access both equally.
C) burglers are MORE likely to snag the external drive as it is easier to transport, carry, unload, etc... heck, they will take BOTH. (you KNOW people who had their ipod stolen from their home... or their phone, maybe even a few who lost a laptop... when was the last time you saw a person who had their big ass computer stolen?)
D) transfering files across network is mindboggingly easy. Also:

Said by ME
The only reason id put a drive in an external enclosure is if:
1. I wanted to be able to move data around between computers (and not through ethernet, so, to different houses)

A and B are only a benefit for the external if you PHYSICALLY UNPLUG the external enclosure from the power and the PC, and then manually plug it to do a manual backup, and immidiately unplug it again (from power AND the PC). Which I did recommend on doing. (ill spare the quote).

To the op, read my data safety guide:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2228539&enterthread=y

 

[tiggers]

Thank you for all the suggestions. I was able to read thu my MB manual for raid configurations. And as pointed out above, it would not allow my desired configuration. I was hoping for a seamless, invisible setup, but it looks like I'll be giving some of the backup freeware a try.

I think to start I'll keep everything internal until I see a good sale at Frys or something for an external SATA enclosure. My case does allow for external hookup of SATA/power and firewire, so I don't think the speed is an issue for me. Just start the backup once every couple weeks and go watch a TV show till it's done.

 

[taltamir]

the speed issue is due to the controller in the external enclosure, not due to the connector used. USB, firewire, or eSATA, your speed will be limited by the controlled, usually to a fraction of what it would be in a direct connection (just because the controllers are crappy, there is nothing stopping someone, like intel, from making a quality controller, it just hasn't happened)