Drew Wutka
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Tue Mar 4 14:45:00 CST 2003
I was wondering why this was being balked at, because I have been running setups like this almost since Windows 2000 Server came out. (In fact, we have several 'servers' in this setup....all beefed up desktops. (Our 'real' servers have RAID controllers, so the mirrors are usually their own drives, same with the RAIDs.). (Of the top of my head...East (holds main buildings home folders), WebServer, Intranet, Domain Controller,BackupServer (runs Veratos Backup on our network),NameServer (DNS and WINS). Admittedly, with a minimum of 5 drives, (2 for mirrored OS and 3 for RAID5) you have a little more redundancy since you can loose 2 drives (one in the mirror, one in the RAID), and you're alright. However, you can't lose any two drives. (2 in either the mirror or RAID kills ya). So with 3 drives running both, you have 1 drive failure covered, but not 2 in any instance. Then again, the odds of losing 2 drives at the same time is pretty slim, unless you have an external catalyst...like a power surge (which should be 'protected'), or a fire/flood. Drew -----Original Message----- From: William Hindman [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:24 PM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: Re: [AccessD] Access XP and 97 hang on reattaching linked tables under WinXP ...had I not seen the screen you sent me off list, I'd not have believed it :) ...but now I have to go and do some experimenting to see if I can make this play in SBS2K as well ...thanks :) William Hindman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com> To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: RE: [AccessD] Access XP and 97 hang on reattaching linked tables under WinXP > Yes and No. The OS can't be on the RAID 5 itself. But it certainly can be > on the same physical disks as a RAID5. You are limited to only setting it > to a Mirror (You can't get it striped too, which would be a RAID 5). > > Does that make sense William? > > Drew > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Hindman [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 12:16 PM > To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Access XP and 97 hang on reattaching linked > tables under WinXP > > > ...so you've implemented a software RAID5 in Win2K using only three drives? > ...to the best of my knowledge the Win2K OS can't reside on any of the hard > drives configured as RAID5 by its software ...lord knows it would save some > nice change in controller costs :) > > William Hindman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com> > To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 12:57 PM > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Access XP and 97 hang on reattaching linked tables > under WinXP > > > > Easy, actually. My personal computer at work.... > > > > Two 20 gig IDE drives and 2 18 gig SCSI drives. Configured as such: > > > > C: (System Root) 6 gigs mirrored (both SCSI drives). > > D: (My Data Drive) 22 gigs (11 gigs on both SCSI drives and 11 gigs on one > > of my IDE drives (the permanent one...the other IDE is removable) > > P: (Program Files) 6 gigs on permanent IDE drive > > Z: (Backup Data) Entire 20 gig removable IDE drive. > > > > > > My 'server' at home: > > > > One 16 gig IDE, two 30Gig IDE and one 60 gig IDE. > > > > C: (system root) 6 gigs mirrored on one of the 30 gigs and the 16 gig. > > D: (Storage)98 gigs spanned on the other 30 gig, the 60 gig, and the > > remainder of the first 30 gig drive. > > E: (Data) 20 gigs striped between the first 30 gig and the 16 gig. > > > > All of the above is done using Windows 2000 Disk Management. I would like > > to have a RAID5 at home, but I needed the space...I'm practically full on > my > > storage drive. > > > > The problem with running a RAID 5 on IDE, is that typically you only have > 2 > > IDE controllers. So running three disks for the same drive can work, but > > it's not practical, since you are sacrificing speed. However, you can buy > a > > PCI IDE controller, so you can then have three IDE drives that are NOT on > > the same controllers. > > > > Drew > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Hindman [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:16 AM > > To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Access XP and 97 hang on reattaching linked > > tables under WinXP > > > > > > ...lol ...I'm still wondering how you "Get three hard drives. (SCSI...but > > that may be a bit expensive....), Mirror the OS, and RAID a data drive > (you > > can do all of that in Disk > > Management...with Windows 2000, no RAID controller necessary.)" ...this > must > > be a Drew style RAID configuration that would leave the people at MS > gasping > > in amazement! :)))) > > > > William Hindman > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com> > > To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:57 AM > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Access XP and 97 hang on reattaching linked tables > > under WinXP > > > > > > > Hmmmm, not a bad idea for a new 'cheap' brand name server .... "Drew > > style" > > > .... > > > > > > Drew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gustav Brock [mailto:gustav at cactus.dk] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:41 AM > > > To: Seth Galitzer > > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Access XP and 97 hang on reattaching linked > > > tables under WinXP > > > > > > > > > Hi Seth > > > > > > I can't believe you're still struggling with this. We have never > > > encountered a scenario that comes even close to what you describe. > > > > > > Which protocol(s) are you running? > > > Have you tried setting up an isolated test environment? > > > (You can use a "Drew style" server for this!) > > > > > > Don't you have a nearby Novell/database guru to work with on this? > > > > > > /gustav > > > > > > > > > > Relinking to a BE on Novell is panifully slow even on Win98 machines. > > > > I've tried optimizing it, but it still takes up to four seconds for > each > > > > table on Win98, and even longer on 2K or XP machines. Unfortunately, > > > > the problem doesn't appear to be the relinker itself. Using the > > > > built-in Linked Table Manager is still painfully slow. As a result I > am > > > > "this close" to moving everything to a real database server and using > > > > ODBC. Of course, ODBC is likely to introduce its own performance hit. > > > > > > > I would love to have a discussion on this topic. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > AccessD mailing list > > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > AccessD mailing list > > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AccessD mailing list > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > _______________________________________________ > > AccessD mailing list > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com