• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Need to make a single 3TB partition

R

Robert Nichols

Flightless Bird
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"
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:02:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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.
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Flightless Bird
Char Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:02:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan
> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

>Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:02:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan
>> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165200

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

Daniel Prince

Flightless Bird
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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!
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Flightless Bird
Char Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165200
>
> 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
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Flightless Bird
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
 
A

andy

Flightless Bird
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
<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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
 
A

Arno

Flightless Bird
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
>> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165200
>>
>> 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: arno@wagner.name
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
 
Z

zappo

Flightless Bird
Arno wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan
> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
>>> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165200
>>>
>>> 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.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:44:25 -0400, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

>Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:32:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan
>> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165200
>>
>> 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

I admit, I was trying to shock you a bit. :)
But seriously, I was going on the assumption that your current
hardware isn't doing what you need, at least so far. So my next
question was whether any hardware would do what you want, and I think
the answer is yes. So now it's just a matter of finding something
affordable, or finding a way to make your current hardware work.
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Flightless Bird
Char Jackson wrote:
> I admit, I was trying to shock you a bit. :)
> But seriously, I was going on the assumption that your current
> hardware isn't doing what you need, at least so far. So my next
> question was whether any hardware would do what you want, and I think
> the answer is yes. So now it's just a matter of finding something
> affordable, or finding a way to make your current hardware work.
>

Well, I had thought that the hardware that I got would do what I needed.
But the concatenation didn't work right.

Yousuf Khan
 
U

UI.Designer@home.org

Flightless Bird
Yousuf -

When I went to the Tsunami web site to look up the details on this
drive enclosure, I found that there's an internal jumper for switching
between JBOD (2 separated disks) and BIG (one bunched disk). Have you
set that jumper properly?

- Paul

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:56:18 -0400, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

>andy wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>No, this is what I have.
>
>Tsunami - Tsunami eData II 3500 3.5? JBOD Black - EDATAJBODBK
>http://pricecanada.com/p.php/Tsunami-eData-II-3500-35-JBOD-Black-EDATAJBODBK-649067/
>
> Yousuf Khan
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Flightless Bird
UI.Designer@home.org wrote:
> Yousuf -
>
> When I went to the Tsunami web site to look up the details on this
> drive enclosure, I found that there's an internal jumper for switching
> between JBOD (2 separated disks) and BIG (one bunched disk). Have you
> set that jumper properly?
>
> - Paul

Yes, and it's not an internal switch, it's quite visible on the outside.

Yousuf Khan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top