RAID1 + Partition

Ello,

Before i start i know you shouldnt really partition a RAID'd drive.

I have 2*80Gb in RAID1 (mirroring). I want to use it in a 40gb/40gb partition... straight down the middle. One will have WinXP as i need somewhere to dl my stuff at the mo. The other will be Win2003 all set up the max... Basically can i expect any big probs? I will be formatting the Win2003 partition on a regular basis for other things.

Another option to throw at you... What about 3 partitions on the RAID1 setup... I want a 99% chance of the other partitions not going screwy.

Also am i going to have problems with two other drives (2*320Gb) depending what OS they are associated to... e.g. Win2003 is it going to put some permissions etc.. and write them to HD so XP cant access it if i boot from the XP partition? Or does 2003 put some of its own data at the start of the HD... e.g. i can still install the driver for the HDs but i will have trouble doing things with the extra HDs or when i log back in 2003 it would throw a fit?

I don`t know why you want to use Win2003, but using it with Raid1 is a little bit tricky I guess, according to this:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323432/EN-US/

About the two OS, XP and W2003, they are both MS and if they both use NTFS I don`t see a problem in accessing Data on both OS.

But I think both are writing their bootcode into the MBR of the boot device, so only one bootloader can survive.

I haven`t used Win2003 at all, so I don`t know how that would stop XP or Win2003 from booting, when both are installed, but the XP bootloader can boot more then one OS, if you make changes to the boot.ini.

After all, both are MS OS, so there shouldn`t be any big problems.

Well ive not used win2003 alot... but i did/want to learn everything properly.

You can assign drivers under administrator or something as with the $ symbol and then they cant be used over the network, although AD can use them, if i remember correctly..

Im going to use a hardware raid and not software raid.

edit: Ill install both at the weekend or monday (depends on scan :p) and see what happens.

raid1 protects against drive failure, and is no substitute for backups

But you can`t run both OS at the same time, so what is the point with the hidden drive shares ?

If you are using a hardware raid, then the setup might be ok.
Then it is only a matter on how well both OS will play together, when it comes to bootloader , etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metier9

Ello,

Before i start i know you shouldnt really partition a RAID'd drive.

---

I didn't know that - why is that the case?

Quote:

---

Also am i going to have problems with two other drives (2*320Gb) depending what OS they are associated to... e.g. Win2003 is it going to put some permissions etc.. and write them to HD so XP cant access it if i boot from the XP partition? Or does 2003 put some of its own data at the start of the HD... e.g. i can still install the driver for the HDs but i will have trouble doing things with the extra HDs or when i log back in 2003 it would throw a fit?

---

Both XP and win2003 will write to the bootloader of the hard drive, however whichever one is written last should spot that the other one exists, and incorperate that information in it's own writing, enabling you to dual boot. It's better to install the older OS first, then when you install the newer one to a different partition it should automatically let you dual boot.

As far as the data goes, you'll be able to access the data on both partitions from both OSes.

As far as drivers go, my impression is that the drivers will only affect each OS, so to be able to see RAID on XP you'll need the XP raid drivers on the XP OS, and to see RAID on win2003 you'll need win2003 to have it's own raid drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I didn't know that - why is that the case?

---

it's not. it's bollocks.

Why not use VMWare Server to create virtual images of Win2003 or other operating systems?

and its free!! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derchris

But you can`t run both OS at the same time, so what is the point with the hidden drive shares ?

---

Meh, 2003...

Anyway, once i start using it properly i can maybe explain that better lol

Quote:

---

raid1 protects against drive failure, and is no substitute for backups

---

no **** sherlock

Quote:

---

I didn't know that - why is that the case?

---

Read it somewhere about something.. yer im very descriptive :). Well whether its correct or not is another question :), but i think it was more to do with fragmentation if you are trying to gain speed by raid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metier9

Read it somewhere about something.. yer im very descriptive :). Well whether its correct or not is another question :), but i think it was more to do with fragmentation if you are trying to gain speed by raid.

---

Personally I find multiple partitions are easier to keep fragmentation free - windows still sticks new files in gaps left by deletions regardless of free space further along the disk. With multiple partitions you can defragement partitions that aren't in use without disrupting work etc. :)

Like sticking the page file and the temporary internet files on each of their own partitions?