Removing RAID from existing system--how?

[Evenkeel]

I think I know the process I should take, but I want to run it by you guys to make sure. Here's the situation:

I have a 3-year-old XP Pro SP2 system that is going to be replaced by a new Vista Ultimate system I am building, as my primary system. I want to do two things to the old XP Pro system: (1) keep XP on it, just in case, and (2) install the new Windows Home Server on it.

First of all, I don't even know if I can dual-boot between Home Server and XP, but I'll cross that bridge later (does anyone know if this can be done?). The primary use of the old system wold be to run Home Server, as I think its hardware has enough oomph to run Home Server (Intel 925XCV mobo, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, Pentium 4 "Prescott" 3.4GHz CPU, ATI Radeon X1950 Pro w/256 MB memory).

But I may also want or need to use XP at some point, as some of my programs do not yet have Vista 64 versions. To simplify matters, I want to remove the two-disk RAID 0 array the XP system currently has as its system drive. It consists of two, 200 GB drives, of which only 60 GB is in use. So the entire software setup will fit on one of the 200 GB disks easily. These are all SATA I drives, BTW.

Here's the steps I think I should take to remove RAID but keep the current software setup unchanged--please tell me if I am correct:

SCENARIO #1:
1) Do a disk cleanup, removing all Temp files, Temporary Internet Files, etc.
2) Create a good backup. Actually, I will create two backups: a disk image using Norton Ghost, and a second using good old Windows Backup. I have two other large hard drives in my system, so I can store the backups on one of them (which is what I do now anyway)
3) Uninstall the Windows/Intel RAID drivers, and go into the system BIOS to disable RAID.
4) Boot from the Ghost CD, and restore the system image I made in Step #2 to just a single disk. This is where it gets a little confusing for me: since I can't un-RAID the system before I make the backups, the backups will have the RAID drivers and RAID configured. Will those drivers being present in the resored backup image cause problems?

I also have an alternative scenario. This is going to seem a little goofy, but follow along to the end, so you can see where I'm going.

SCENARIO #2:
1) Do steps #1 and #2 above.
2) Using Ghost, instead of backing up the RAID array to create a drive image, I would use Ghost's ability to Copy the drive to another drive. I have two other drives in my system, both of them 300 GB SATA I drives, so I can use one as the "cloned" drive.
3) This is the goofy part: as I mentioned, the RAID drives are 200 GB each. The other two drives are 300 GB each. I want to keep the 300 GB drives free, to use for Windows Home Server backups, media storage and serving, etc. So I will want both of the 300 GB drives clean. That means I first set the "cloned" 300 GB drive as the boot drive, boot up (hopefully after all this, it will), then again use Ghost to clone the files on the 300 GB drive back to one of the 200 GB drives.

I know, it sounds goofy as hell. But I want to keep the bigger drives open for server stuff. Also, it makes more sense to me to keep the OS and applications on the smaller drives, as I will not be adding more apps to them. I will then use the second 200 GB drive to install Windows Home Server.

I know this got confusing, so let me recap. Here's how I want the system to look when I'm done:

Disk #1 (200 GB): Windows Home Server
Disk #2 (200 GB): Windows XP Pro (current installation)
Disk #3 (300 GB): Server storage and backup
Disk #4 (300 GB): Server storage and backup

So which scenario should I use? Scenario #1, w/the Ghost disk image; or Scenario #2, w/cloning the disks back and forth? My gut says #2, even tho it seems goofier, simply because so much can happen during a backup--disk image or Windows Backup.

But I want to get you guys's opinion on which way you think I should go?

 

[xylem]

Option 2 sounds good to me. In addition to removing temp files, i suggest moving data you have on the raid drive, which isn't tied to the system or programs, to the 300 gig drive that you won't be using during the drive cloning procedure, prior to cloning, then moving that data back to the single 200 gig drive when you've finished. Also, i suggest testing the 300 gig drive to make sure it boots up and runs properly before doing anything that will compromise the logical raid drive.

edit: In addition, after moving non-essential data from the raid drive, prior to cloning, doing a quick 'scandisk', then defragging the raid drive would probably be a good idea.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I would be wary of trying to dual-boot XP and WHS. WHS likes to format disks into its own special format.

 

[taltamir]

"3) Uninstall the Windows/Intel RAID drivers, and go into the system BIOS to disable RAID."
The correct way to do the above would be to NOT uninstall any drivers or change bios settings, instead, go into the raid setup (when you boot up it gives you that option) and delete the array, leaving you with two individual drives with no partitions... which can then be partitioned later...

I will not do either method 1 or 2 though.
The best way to do it would be to:
1. Copy all your files to the other hard drives (forget about windows settings)
2. Copy the "documents and settings" directory to the secondary drives. (it contains your favorites, emails, program settings, etc)
3. Go to raid managed at boot and delete the array.
4. Disable RAID in bios
5. Install windows XP and vista for the dual boot.
6. Copy back the data from the other drives...

 

[Evenkeel]

Originally posted by: taltamir
"3) Uninstall the Windows/Intel RAID drivers, and go into the system BIOS to disable RAID."
The correct way to do the above would be to NOT uninstall any drivers or change bios settings, instead, go into the raid setup (when you boot up it gives you that option) and delete the array, leaving you with two individual drives with no partitions... which can then be partitioned later...

I will not do either method 1 or 2 though.
The best way to do it would be to:
1. Copy all your files to the other hard drives (forget about windows settings)
2. Copy the "documents and settings" directory to the secondary drives. (it contains your favorites, emails, program settings, etc)
3. Go to raid managed at boot and delete the array.
4. Disable RAID in bios
5. Install windows XP and vista for the dual boot.
6. Copy back the data from the other drives...

So do it in this order: On boot, in the RAID setup screen, delete the array, then disable RAID in the BIOS, correct?

One of the things I was trying to avoid by coming up w/these scenarios, was reinstalling XP. I'd really like to avoid that if possible. Why do you not think the drive cloning approach would work? (BTW, in your #5, you said "Install Windows XP and Vista for the dual boot"--it is actually a dual-boot of XP and Windows Home Server that I'm trying to get to... Tho VirtualLarry warns against this--I was not aware that WHS used a special format. That will require more research. It may be that, once my new Vista system (not the system we're discussing here) has been up and running for awhile, I can retire XP altogether (assuming all my apps have Vista versions by then), and just run WHS.

 

[Evenkeel]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I would be wary of trying to dual-boot XP and WHS. WHS likes to format disks into its own special format.

I hadn't learned enough about WHS yet to know that--figures. :roll:

Do you think it would still be a problem if WHS was on its own drive, seperate from XP? I.e. put WHS on one of the 200 GB drives, and leave XP on the other 200 GB drive? Maybe there's a way to tell WHS to leave a certain drive alone. Then it could use its "special" format on the two remaining 300 GB drives.

This is giving me a reaction similar to the first time I read a review of the Drobo NAS device--I thought it sounded great, until I got to the part where the review said you couldn't just pull a drive out of the Drobo and put it in your computer--the drives that live in a Drobo, will only read/write in a Drobo.

 

[Evenkeel]

Originally posted by: xylem
Option 2 sounds good to me. In addition to removing temp files, i suggest moving data you have on the raid drive, which isn't tied to the system or programs, to the 300 gig drive that you won't be using during the drive cloning procedure, prior to cloning, then moving that data back to the single 200 gig drive when you've finished. Also, i suggest testing the 300 gig drive to make sure it boots up and runs properly before doing anything that will compromise the logical raid drive.

edit: In addition, after moving non-essential data from the raid drive, prior to cloning, doing a quick 'scandisk', then defragging the raid drive would probably be a good idea.

Some questions:

1) Why move the data seperately? Do you just mean for me to have greater redundancy for my important data?
2) I had been planning to test-boot the 300 GB cloned drive, but hadn't thought far enought ahead how to do this. If I can't fiddle w/the RAID setup until I'm sure the cloned drive boots, is the best way around this just to unplug the SATA cables on the two RAID drives from the motherboard? Or will the RAID setup screen throw a fit if it can't find the RAID array it expects to find? I'm starting to feel a chicken-and-egg situation here--maybe the best way to do this is both scenarios: do both a cloned drive, and a disk image backup. Then if fiddling w/the RAID array goes south, at least I'll have two hopefully good recovery options. But seriously, how do I boot from the 300 GB single drive, rather than the 2-drive RAID array? I know I can set boot order in the BIOS, but it's been a l-o-n-g time since I've been in there, and don't know if BIOS order can override RAID array settings. Phew!
3) Why "scandisk" and defrag the RAID array before cloning? Since they will essentially be wiped clean after I'm done, what is the reason? Or are you thinking that I should check the integrity of the drives w/scandisk, then consolidate the files w/defrag to make as clean a clone as possible?

Thanks to all for your help.

 

[xylem]

Removing the non-critical data from the raid drive prior to doing cloning is optional, but if you do wind up running checkdisk on, and defragging, the raid drive prior to cloning, every step thereafter will be faster if that data isn't part of the process. That data should also be written back to the final drive in a reasonably non-fragmented way if the critical data is already defragged and compacted.

Yes, to make sure the first cloning step is a success, i suggest unplugging both drives that are part of the array and only using the 300 gig drive. I haven't seen a raid controller that will damage a level 0 array when the drives aren't present, but i'm not going to say that such a thing doesn't exist, so if you're worried about it, imaging the raid drive might be a smart move... but you'd only need to do that after the non-critical data has been moved to the second 300 gig drive.

edit: The checkdisk/defrag steps are optional too, but running checkdisk will make sure things are in order, and defragging will make sure data is cleanly organized, before cloning. Defragging should also speed up the two cloning steps slightly.

Move non-critical data -> checkdisk -> defrag -> 1st clone step -> verify 1st cloned disk -> 2nd clone step -> verify 2nd cloned disk -> move non-critical data back.

That's probably how i would do it.

 

[taltamir]

well, you CAN go the cloning route. But reinstalling windows every now and then is a very good idea. And this is the perfect opportunity since you are already doing all that... plus if it turns out there ARE driver issues and the cloned XP directory is inaccessible you would be stuck without a way to reach the data. so its a must to copy it AS FILES first... since you ALREADY copy them as files, making clones and restoring them becomes redundant and it might be simpler and quicker to reinstall windows instead.

Also, if you clone a partition you keep existing defects in the file structure. I occasinally notice undeleteable, unmoveable, or unrenameable files / folders. Those just get stuck like a sore thumb and in an NTFS volume they CAN NOT (usually) be fixed with chkdisk... The only thing I can do is back up files, format, and move them back... I actually have such a folder right now that remained through a cloning process (its not on the original drive, in fact its now on a RAID1 array) and its still stuck the same way.

I have no idea if WHS plays nice with other operating systems... sorry. I am not USING windows home server... what exactly are you planning on using it for?

 

[Evenkeel]

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, you CAN go the cloning route. But reinstalling windows every now and then is a very good idea. And this is the perfect opportunity since you are already doing all that... plus if it turns out there ARE driver issues and the cloned XP directory is inaccessible you would be stuck without a way to reach the data. so its a must to copy it AS FILES first... since you ALREADY copy them as files, making clones and restoring them becomes redundant and it might be simpler and quicker to reinstall windows instead.

Also, if you clone a partition you keep existing defects in the file structure. I occasinally notice undeleteable, unmoveable, or unrenameable files / folders. Those just get stuck like a sore thumb and in an NTFS volume they CAN NOT (usually) be fixed with chkdisk... The only thing I can do is back up files, format, and move them back... I actually have such a folder right now that remained through a cloning process (its not on the original drive, in fact its now on a RAID1 array) and its still stuck the same way.

I have no idea if WHS plays nice with other operating systems... sorry. I am not USING windows home server... what exactly are you planning on using it for?

Got it.. much clearer now. Thanks.

Re: WHS: still learning about it. Heard it described by one pundit as "a glorified NAS and backup". That's pretty much what I'd like, since a nice Netgear NAS costs about a grand, and I already have the same disk capacity in an already-existing system--spending around $170 for the WHS OS then doesn't seem that bad. That pundit also lamented the fact that WHS did not do double duty as a Media Center PC; that's something I'd also like to see it do, a "poor man's TiVo". Maybe it will evolve into that--it certainly seems like a logical evolution for it.