Windows 2000 and a hard drive limited to 137gb

I recently had the task of installing Windows 2000 Server on a Dell Poweredge SC420 as my RAID server. I have two identical Western Digital 250gb hard drives, one of which I had installed Windows 2000 on. The full capacity was recognized and the install went fine.

Now was the time to install the 2nd identical hard drive and initiate the RAID (software RAID within Windows 2000) sequence of converting the drives to dynamic disks, and setting up the raid. Then Windows was supposed to go about re-syncing the date from the populated drive 0 over to the newly added drive 1.

Here comes the problem. Upon adding drive 1 the capacity only registers as 137gb. But they both drive 0 and drive 1 are identical makes, models, and size? Simple fix :

1. Run regedit.exe
2. Search for My Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters
3. Click "New" then "DWORD Value"
4. Call the new entry EnableBigLba
5. Give it a value of 1
6. Reboot the system

Strange that 1 of the drives was recognized for it's full capacity but not the second. Oh well, I guess Windows has its reason.

As for why I decided to create a Windows software RAID solution? I had a similar situation set up with a hardware controller card when one of the drives failed. I was out of luck accessing anything from it or even booting, so I decided to put it in an external USB enclosure to recover the data. No go. The Windows software RAID solution allowed me to do that without a question.

It's a file server, who cares about the extra 5% overhead involved? I'm more concerned with data redundancy.

Software RAID in Windows Server 2000, 2003

A strange thing has been happening to me over the last couple of days. I was reformatting my Dell Poweredge SC420 from a being a workstation back to being a server. Wiping out Windows XP and installing Windows Server 2008. I wanted to have a reliable file and print server - yes, I know a 3.4ghz P4 enterprise edition is overkill ... but my only PC with enough hard drive slots and space for cooling.

Well, Windows Server 2008 is useless to me since there are no drivers yet for the SC420. That was a pointless install.

Then came Windows Server 2003. It was my basic server setup - 2 identical drives to be configured with Windows and then setup as a RAID mirror set. Windows software RAID. All was dandy and working fine but i felt using a Server 2003 license for a simple file server was overkill. So I began to dismantle the setup. First thing was to remove one of the RAID drives and put it aside - my hope was to reattach it to my new Windows setup, add it as a 2nd drive and copy all the files over to the main drive. Then reformat this drive and set it up as the RAID mirror.

So Windows Server 2000 installed with adequate success - network drivers for the Broadcom gigabit NIC were not present, nor were capable video drivers for the E7221 integrated video card. After some fiddling with another system and a USB drive I managed to get the Broadcom drivers loaded. Then with some chance of fluke, my previous post on Windows XP video card drivers and the SC420 worked without a problem under Windows 2000 too!

Upon adding the second drive in the previous RAID array, everything started to look normal. I began copying files from the drive to the Windows 2000 C:\ drive. Mid-way through the operation some funky things happened. BSOD. Trying to reboot was pointless - could not find OS.

Second try this time with the old RAID mirror drive as an external USB drive. Mid-way though the C:\ drive became corrupt. What the?

Then it dawned upon me. What if Windows thinks that a RAID rebuild is necessary and that the new C:\ drive is trying to be sync'ed with the old RAID mirror? It sure seemed plausible.

Although I could find no documentation of this (how would you go about searching for it?), I managed to copy the files through an interim Windows XP installation.

Stranger things have happened to me before.

For those under a similar situation, chances are you've found this post after it has happened.

Live and learn.

Must have Windows applications

Here is my ever-growing list of must-have software applications for Windows (XP, 2000, 2003). It will continuously be updated over time :

1. 7zip - the free equivalent to Winzip.
2. Videolan - small footprint media player for all your movies, music and sound files.
3. Foxit Reader - a free, quicker loading equivalent to Adobe Acrobat Reader. Acrobat reader has grown to a overgrown pot-belly fat application. It makes me nauseous to wait for it to load all those libraries when all I need is to quick view a PDF file.
4. Cute PDF Writer - a free printer driver to create PDF files. No need for a printer, and no need for Adobe Acrobat. If you pay bills online always create a PDF printout for record keeping.
5. Mozilla Firefox - Do NOT install any new versions of Internet Explorer if you don't have to. Firefox is quicker and less of a headache down the road.

Unknown device error in Device Manager

I have a Dell Poweredge SC420 server and was installing a copy of Windows Server 2000 on it. Dell had labelled the machine a server and as such did not provide any drivers for Windows XP. Now I don't quite remember fully, but I think they provided Windows Server 2000 drivers at one point. Unfortunately they are no longer on the support site.

Like a similar post of mine with regards to installing Windows XP on this machine and getting the onboard Intel E7221 graphics to work, there are always ways around getting things to work. If you experience some "Unknown device" entries in device manager, they are almost always the lack of drivers with the Intel chipset. Specifically, I was getting some PCI and USB entries in the device manager. Grab this file from Intel and let it do it's thing :

INF Update Utility - Primarily for Intel 4, 3, 900 Series Chipsets

I have a similar suggestion for a similar problem involving USB drivers in the device manager for my Dell Dimension 2400.

Are hybrid cars really the answer?

With all the commotion currently going on about the high price of gasoline many consumers and advocates are pushing the move to hybrid cars. Sure it may be cleaner, but with the North American economy heading in the same direction as it is now, how can such an economy support such a massive surge on the nation's electrical grid?
click here
Many major metropolitan centres have experienced blackouts on several occasions. Even more are on the brink of being pushed beyond their production capabilities. Many of the nation's electricity distributors are pushing incentives to cut back on electrical demand. Rates during peak consumption hours are rising, and discounts are given to those who use the grid's power during off-peak hours. There are even programs that allow the electricity companies to cycle down your air conditioner remotely to conserve energy.

Electric cars are not the answer. They are simply a segment of the auto industry just as 4-cylinders, 6-cylinders, and 8-cylinders are. Just as a small percentage of North Americans choose to drive diesel powered cars, so will be the one for electric vehicles.

And neither are cars powered by water. With the municipalities surrounding the Great Lakes (Manitoba, Michigan, New York, Ontario and Pennsylvania) fighting over the world's largest source of fresh water for drinking, let alone for an alternative auto fuel.

Alternative fuels are not the consumer's answer to today's problems. The answer to the domestic problem of energy use is simply efficiency. Yes, that's right. Today's automobile engine is roughly 35% efficient.

The electricity industry has taken a step in the right direction by actively supporting the fluorescent light bulb. Regular incandescent light bulbs gave 10% of their energy in the form of visible light ... the rest in heat. That's practically reversed with the compact fluorescent bulbs.

Why Canada is the best haven from climate change

The Independent has an article about why Canada is the best haven for a climate change. An interesting read and opens your eyes to how easy it is to take a good thing for granted.

Google and YouTube - smart choice after all

Google is one of the key players of the Internet and for very good reason. They are one of the few companies actually making money off the Internet ... not with it, but because of it.

They saw an opportunity to excel in a field that was virtually untapped. Advertising has always been big business, although television and print were pretty much cornered by a huge list of advertising companies across the globe. They saw the huge potential to make money by completely dominating the Internet market for advertising. And that's why their stock is hovering the $500 mark.

Most analysts saw a plateau on Internet advertising that Google could not overcome. They've already cornered the market, how much more money could they make? Taking a pretty huge chunk out of the market for print-advertising where else could they go? Video.

Many of you are thinking that they tried that with their purchase of YouTube for the cool 1.6 million dollars. Many of you probably thought that the whole idea of YouTube being worth that much money was downright ridiculous. How could ads in YouTube videos pay off for Google especially to recoup the amount it paid for it?

Think outside the box. YouTube was an experiment. Acutally, Google Videos was an experiment that went wrong. So they purchased YouTube to understand it's inner workings and closely track its usage. What for you ask? The key is television. Yes, television. Television is the one advertising market that Google has yet to dominate. With newspaper and television advertising you pretty much have to have a newspaper or television. Too much effort to acquire every newspaper and television station around the world.

Google is using YouTube to envision a global network of television channels. Yes, television channels. Google is set to explode with their technology and expertise with content delivery over the Internet. We all know how well iTunes has succeeded with music, and their soon to be fame with videos and television.

Now picture Google serving ads in television shows. Not the same commercial everybody within a geographic region would see with an NBC or CBS station affiliate. Commercials garnered to your Internet and viewing habits.

Google has long been known for tracking searching and surfing habits of users. Just imagine Google's ability to target commercials directly related to your tastes during a tv show or even a live sporting event.

In the future Google will become a vast television agency serving up live and pre-programmed television channels with advertising that caters to every single user. Every television show served will be indexed and cross-referenced with your surfing habits and geographical location.

Viewing a station while at home in Denver in the winter? You'll get ads for the local ski resorts.
Viewing a station while in a hotel on the east coast? You'll get ads for local establishments within walking distance from the hotel. The degree of marketing accuracy is astonishing.

Throw into the mix Google's new Android phone and how they will target individuals with phone commercials. Commercials will come on your phone while driving past a gas station, or shopping mall.

Google has the technology to track what you like, where you are, and whenever they like.

That to me is an impressive stock buy. Especially at today's share price of $537 USD.