RAID controller that works RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Can I post a positive finding? Is that allowed?


    Anyway, I have a Promise FastTrak SX4000 internal RAID controller that is probably 5 years old by now.  Since I have 1 TB of storage hanging off it, I was concerned that I'd lose it if the drivers wouldn't work - they did.  Initial installation obviously did not recognize the card, but once I downloaded drivers from Promise dated 2004!, the cards and my storage are working just fine. 

    Tuesday, May 1, 2007 6:01 AM

All replies

  • I have 3 of those Smile

    good to know...did you set them up as JBOD or Raid-5/1?
    Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:37 AM
  • RAID5
    Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:15 PM
  • Actually, I just broke the  RAID5, redefined the array as JBOD, went back into the Console and added the drives 1 by 1 - no issues.
    Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:45 PM

    So why would you break the RAID5?


    I know that WHS wants to control it's own Storage Pool, but I have 4.5 TB in two containers I'd like to keep in my setup.


    I've currently posted a question to that extent - if I can add items to this 'Storage Pool', without WHS wanting to do it's own reduntancy.


    *crossing fingers* <- as I can't break my containers.  And I don't want WHS thinking it has to make my data redundant, since I have actual RAID solutions.




    Tuesday, May 8, 2007 4:11 AM
  • From what I have seen WHS do so far, it adds hard drives to the storage pool that is presented as one drive using dynamic disks.  When you copy the data to it, it stores it, then you can go and set redundancy manually for any top level folder, essentially creating RAID 1 where WHS copies the data to another hard drive in the pool.


    Two things about adding drives to the pool. 


    First, when adding hard drives to the pool, WHS formats them by default and I do not think there is a way to bypass that.  So if you already have your data on this raid, you will loose it.  If you choose not to use the WHS storage pool, I think it would defeat the purpose of having WHS in the first place, IMHO. 

    Second, I think the way WHS does redundancy is much more efficient then a hardware RAID solution, as you only mirror the data that is really important.  For me it is pictures, which I have about 20GB of.  If I loose the 600GB of videos - so be it, which is why I broke the RAID and added it as JBOD.


    Hope this helps and maybe someone else can chime in with other advise.


    Good luck

    Tuesday, May 8, 2007 12:24 PM

    Thanks Kniaz.  The information knowing that you can selectively pick certain folders to make redundant is nice.  And I see your reasons for breaking the raid.


    The reason I'm really look at WHS is to simplify my storage solution for my home, and devices.  And to have access to it remotely (via that "IP" address MS is said to give) is a major plus.


    All smoothly and everything co-exists togather.


    I guess I am going to have to do some brain storming.


    Tuesday, May 8, 2007 8:19 PM