Convert to dynamic disk

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metspitzer
  • Start date Start date
M

Metspitzer

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
Dynamic disks are meant to allow multiple disks to be
addressed as one volume, which is the reverse of what you
say you want.
 
Metspitzer said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Paul said:
For the same reasons, I don't recommend RAID arrays for home
users.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bug said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Paul said:
RAID has all sorts of pitfalls.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Raid 0 without a backup plan is bad AND stupid!
 
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.
Click to expand...

I tend to believe both points (pitfalls and benefits), but have some
questions I hope you will respond to...

What type RAID do you have, hardware based or OS (software) based?

Assuming hardware, what are the approximate performance improvements
over a single disk of the same quality/rotating speed, and over
software-based RAID. I don't mean theoretical, I mean real
improvements taht you see in terms of transfer speeds?

TIA
 
Raid 0 without a backup plan is bad AND stupid!
Click to expand...

RAID-1 without a backup plan is bad AND stupid! So is a RAID-5, or
RAID-6, or a single drive, or a SAN, or a multi-country redundant set of
datacenter servers.

If Google occasionally restores from tape backup, you need a backup too.
After that, it's just a question of your tolerance for downtime.
 
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 :-)
Click to expand...

Unless it's RAID 0 what's the big deal? I've lost drives on 1 and 5,
pop in a new one and it rebuilds. Only once has it been any sort of
issue and that was a card with stupid software, the rebuild was only
possible from the BIOS, not the installed software.
 
Paul <nospam needed.com> wrote:

....
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.
Click to expand...

Yup yup yup. When you want to do something with your PC, when you
want to get things done, keeping it simple is the answer. If you
want to mess around, do whatever you like.
--
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Unless it's RAID 0 what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

Probably not that it's a big deal, but that it's not simple as an
SDD drive. And whether it is worth it or not depends on how many
other potential problems you have to deal with. I have always
enjoyed having a fast PC, RAID might be okay, but keeping it
simple is the exact reason I have never wanted to try RAID. The
only reason I desire having two of the same type units is for
troubleshooting hardware or software.

Of course your situation may inspire different needs.
--
 
Charlie Hoffpauir said:
What type RAID do you have, hardware based or OS (software) based?
Click to expand...

It's software based. Drivers have to be loaded for it but for mine those
are available in Windows XP and Win7.
Assuming hardware, what are the approximate performance improvements
over a single disk of the same quality/rotating speed, and over
software-based RAID. I don't mean theoretical, I mean real
improvements taht you see in terms of transfer speeds?
Click to expand...

Perhaps for industrial DB apps a HW RAID would be desirable, but for
home use SW RAID is fine. I used HD Tune to test a single disk vs RAID 0
disks, all disks identical (WD 160GB).

Transfer rate [MB/s]:
Param Single RAID0
===== ====== =====
Min 29.3 48.0
Max 62.4 154.0
Ave 51.5 117.3
 
Charlie Hoffpauir said:
What type RAID do you have, hardware based or OS (software) based?
Click to expand...

It's software based. Drivers have to be loaded for it but for mine those
are available in Windows XP and Win7.
Assuming hardware, what are the approximate performance improvements
over a single disk of the same quality/rotating speed, and over
software-based RAID. I don't mean theoretical, I mean real
improvements taht you see in terms of transfer speeds?
Click to expand...

Perhaps for industrial DB apps a HW RAID would be desirable, but for
home use SW RAID is fine. I used HD Tune to test a single disk vs RAID 0
disks, all disks identical (WD 160GB).

Transfer rate [MB/s]:
Param Single RAID0
===== ====== =====
Min 29.3 48.0
Max 62.4 154.0
Ave 51.5 117.3
Click to expand...

I'm impressed! I didn't realize that SW RAID could do that well.
My Hitachi (1 TB) drive used for all my data partitions does 65.6
(MIN) & 132.9 (MAX) with an avg of 107.7. I have a couple of used 500
GB Seagates that I can set up in RAID 0.... I think I'll so that and
see if I can get a similar improvement. It may be that you can't get
as much improvement with faster drives to start with.
 
Back
Top