|
Originally Posted by BigLar
(Post 20888896)
Remember the old days? There we were with our 20 or 30 MB HD's, running DOS or Win 3.1, and we'd get some sort of screwup, and we had to re-format the drive. Or, we bought a new one and it came raw, so we had to format it. No big deal - boot from a floppy, type "format c: /u /s" and away it would go. 5-10 minutes later, it was all done and we could re-load our apps/data.
debug -g = c800:5 (or c800:ccc) and set interleave to low-level format? Even more fun was had by having to type in the sector defect table from the label of the drive, but I digress. Even though it takes hours to perform a full format on a large HD I always bite the bullet & do it for a new drive to force it to access each sector. Checking the S.M.A.R.T. results afterwards can reveal if sectors were reallocated or uncorrectable which you won't see immediately with a quick format. Formatting a 2TB USB 2.0 drive is also a fun way to pass the time when calling the UA service desk. |
Originally Posted by gfunkdave
(Post 20897668)
In fact, I think this is how all RAID controllers work. :)
|
Originally Posted by BigLar
(Post 20889573)
If I'm looking at 220 minutes to format 120 GB, that's 4000 times the size of my old 30 MB drive. If the speeds then were the same as they are now, a format on that old drive should have taken no more than about 3-4 seconds. Clearly it did not, indicating hard drive mechanisms have gotten much faster.
Given the same data, a TB drive is about 8 times the size of my 120 GB drive, so in theory a TB drive should format in about 29 hours. If you can do it in 2 hrs, I'd really like to know what's going on that I'm not aware of. Fortunately there have been smart (or integrated) controllers for 2 decades so one doesn't have to enter the number of heads, cylinders/platters and ... tracks for each drive, as well as known errors. Do most of the 1.8" and 2.5" drives these days just have 1 or 2 platters with 3-4 heads? |
Originally Posted by BigLar
(Post 20889861)
Yes, we all know that.
The problem is, as far as I know, that when you change the partition size, the indices (or FAT table) no longer point to the right places. Not knowing much about NTFS internals, I'm on shaky ground here. But I've always based decisions on the idea that re-sizing a partition (especially moving the beginning) will require a new format. Because of the times involved, there may be tools so this can be avoided. But, it was getting late and I had a lot of other work to do, so I just took the slow-but-sure route. Still - the whole point of the post was not what stupid thing I may have been doing, but the fact that a full format on a sizeable drive can take a very long time. If you haven't done a full format in a long time (or ever), you might not be aware of just how time-consuming the process can be! Thank god manufacturers provide drives pre-formatted ... don't they? I think there is a bit of "using the right terms" issue in this thread, so I find it a bit confusing. In general, resizing a partition does NOT require formatting it (if you use any tool such as acronis, partition magic, etc). Now, if you delete the partion and recreated 2 new partiotions, all the data is lost, but you could still do quick format. |
Originally Posted by DJ Bitterbarn
(Post 20894792)
The last time I had to do a rebuild on the RAID it took a full two days to build.
This in itself wasn't so bad (read: I expected this from the last time), but I had to do it because the NAS was finding errors (Current Pending Sector) on the disks that it couldn't fix, but which turned out to be imaginary (i.e. a long format in windows not only cleared the CPS errors but didn't reallocate the sectors, so they all were fine). But if one of those disks died, the whole thing would go, so I needed to fix it. So of the five disks, three had these errors, requiring three long-formats in Windows of 1.5 TB disks (the NAS is old and even 1.5 is pushing it with size). By the end of the process I'd lost four days. Then another three days copying files back. from various backups. Fun fun. And since it's a RAID drive the preformatting doesn't help, so I just hope I don't need to do it again any time soon. That or fix current pending sector faults. Thankfully it works, because these were not the first, but they were the first I refused to RMA. Btw, you had 5 disks, I suppose you run RAID 5? Or two in RAID1, three in RAID 5? |
Originally Posted by ohliuw
(Post 20901004)
Two days to rebuild a RAID array? Whoaaaa! Looks like someone needs new NAS with better controller :D
Btw, you had 5 disks, I suppose you run RAID 5? Or two in RAID1, three in RAID 5? And yes, because it's RAID5 on an old NAS it takes forever to have to reformat all the drives and make them talk nice to each other. Not to mention the the final product isn't NTFS formatted either. It's something much stranger that I'm not fully convinced about yet. |
Originally Posted by DJ Bitterbarn
(Post 20901180)
You're right on both counts, and I could have been more clear at first yes. RAID 5 on an OLD NAS. Really old. Like... 600 MHz Celeron old. But for what I use it for it's just sufficient as long as I don't need to rebuild. The plan is to replace in a few years, hopefully before I need to rebuild again! Thankfully the NAS is built like a tank, so it keeps going and going.
And yes, because it's RAID5 on an old NAS it takes forever to have to reformat all the drives and make them talk nice to each other. Not to mention the the final product isn't NTFS formatted either. It's something much stranger that I'm not fully convinced about yet. |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 20902668)
The two NASes that I have are not extremely old -- perhaps a couple of years -- and they're still sold. They're Linux devices and use Samba to make the arrays accessible by Windows machines. I suspect that's true of most external RAID devices.
|
Originally Posted by gfunkdave
(Post 20897668)
In fact, I think this is how all RAID controllers work. :)
It's running on a 1.8 GHz machine w/XP pro and just sits on the cat 5 cable in the basement. The array is mapped so that each computer has its own pot to dump stuff into. If I remote (or physically) access the computer I can see all the folders, but in general each user has his/her own space to store things. At any rate, the drives had to be formatted, and the controller just arranged its' internal logic to do what I wanted. No additional formatting (of the drive) required. |
Originally Posted by BigLar
(Post 20903199)
My RAID 1 controller is a Promise something-something 2000. I installed two (formatted) HD's and booted up. The controller's bios detected the drives and asked a couple of questions regarding what I wanted to do (raid 0? raid 1? raid 10?) and then set it up. Only took a minute or so.
It's running on a 1.8 GHz machine w/XP pro and just sits on the cat 5 cable in the basement. The array is mapped so that each computer has its own pot to dump stuff into. If I remote (or physically) access the computer I can see all the folders, but in general each user has his/her own space to store things. At any rate, the drives had to be formatted, and the controller just arranged its' internal logic to do what I wanted. No additional formatting (of the drive) required. |
One of these days I'm going to finally disassemble the old RAID5 array in my desktop and check what the disks are formatted as. I suspect, though, that they're NTFS but I also recall a certain amount of build time (not formatting time). But that's because it's RAID5. If you're running a simple RAID1 then I could see how that wouldn't need much build time at all.
|
Originally Posted by BigLar
(Post 20903199)
My RAID 1 controller is a Promise something-something 2000. I installed two (formatted) HD's and booted up. The controller's bios detected the drives and asked a couple of questions regarding what I wanted to do (raid 0? raid 1? raid 10?) and then set it up. Only took a minute or so.
It's running on a 1.8 GHz machine w/XP pro and just sits on the cat 5 cable in the basement. The array is mapped so that each computer has its own pot to dump stuff into. If I remote (or physically) access the computer I can see all the folders, but in general each user has his/her own space to store things. At any rate, the drives had to be formatted, and the controller just arranged its' internal logic to do what I wanted. No additional formatting (of the drive) required. Thick Provision Lazy Zeroed Creates a virtual disk in a default thick format. Space required for the virtual disk is allocated when the virtual disk is created. Data remaining on the physical device is not erased during creation, but is zeroed out on demand at a later time on first write from the virtual machine. Thick Provision Eager Zeroed A type of thick virtual disk that supports clustering features such as Fault Tolerance. Space required for the virtual disk is allocated at creation time. In contrast to the flat format, the data remaining on the physical device is zeroed out when the virtual disk is created. It might take much longer to create disks in this format than to create other types of disks. |
That's all well and good, but I have no clue what "thick provisioning" means. :)
Look - my RAID isn't any sort of ultra-speed server or performance-enhancing device. It's just a continuation of the home-made system I had many years ago - a place to store data and a mirroring arrangement for a degree of safety. It only serves 3 or 4 people. The controller is basicly an IDE controller with logic in its bios to do the mirroring (or striping). End of story. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:37 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.