i need some help regarding downgrading a Sony Vaio VPCEB1J1E notebook to Win XP format
i have already downloaded the XP drivers to my USB thumbdrive. I have also downloaded the SATA driver since during my first attempt i encountered a BOSD.
and it was stated in your procedure that i have to save the SATA driver in a floppy disk, then prepare a USB floppy drive, which in my case im using
a IOMEGA FLOPPY plus 7-in-1 Card Reader. and im supposed to press F6 when XP will ask for a driver
i plug-in the USB floppy drive, then started the XP set-up.
but the problem is that during win XP setup when i press F6 nothing happens. it will not connect to drive a. even though im in the stage wherein XP set-up there is a display "PRESS F6 TO LOAD DRIVERS..RAID DRIVERS..ETC ETC" (Note: after this, set-up will proceed.. –display is "PRESS F2 to start Win Recovery or something")
XP set-up will still continue until i am prompted again that i have to install drivers for the disk drives and CD-ROM..etc…
the on-screen instruction states that i have to press S if i have drivers and ENTER if i dont.
1st attempt: press S…but then even though i have already plug-in the USB floppy
it will still not continue.
2nd attempt: press ENTER and set-up will continue installing until the screen displays "WINDOWS IS STARTING" —-after this BOSD.
can you help me solve this problem…
additional questions:
is there an option in the BIOS wherein i can change the HDD connectivity type or interface from (SATA-IDE or COMPATIBLE)
i have asked a few friends and others have tried on notebooks that you have to change the HDD settings to COMPATIBLE mode in order to be able to install XP.
but in the VAIO BIOS i cant find any of this settings.
pls help..thanks…
Tape
by Mark Brownstein
For a few years, the idea of tape in the Enterprise may have seemed like a quaint, outdated concept. It isn’t. while IT encounters the inherent weaknesses of disk only storage, tape’s future is beginning to find its well-earned position of prominence, as an indispensible component in any IT organization.
As a journalist, I’ve often looked at inflection points to cover. It was interesting when the cost per megabyte for storage on a hard drive became lower than the cost per megabyte for floppy disk storage. (And, for dinosaurs like me, this is an event you may remember – back in the days when a 10 megabyte drive cost thousands of dollars, and a floppy disc was less than $2, hitting a buck a megabyte for a hard drive was a big deal). It was interesting when the price for laser printers matched the price for comparable ink jet printers.
Of particular interest to me, during my first stint as Executive Editor at Computer Technology Review, when the cost per megabyte of hard disk storage went below the cost per megabyte for tape. I had visions, back around the turn of the millennium, of large installations of disk drives being used for archival storage, making tape obsolete. I had conceived of physical libraries of disk drives, with PATA or SCSI drives being switched in and out of power and data connections and used in much the same ways as tape libraries. Although this vision was flawed, and didn’t take into account such practical issues as the inherent unreliability of disk drives, developers with more resources to throw at R&D than I had essentially latched onto the idea that it cost less (at that time) for a bunch of disk drives than it did for a tape drive and tape cartridges.
The concept of MAID (Massive Array of Independent Disks) was implemented by at least one developer – this provided hundreds (thousands?) of drives connected to a backplane and available to retrieve data when needed. Keeping the drives spinning all the time was neither energy efficient nor particularly good for the drives, so they were powered up briefly according to a schedule, just so that they can be verified as ‘still alive’. Although interesting, in theory, the implementations weren’t earthshaking and didn’t have much impact on IT.
Other approaches – building massive arrays of disk drives that can be used for active storage, and also used for data backup have, conceivably, made tape less important. the use of Virtual Tape – disk drive arrays that are addressable and function much like tape – is also one that has been frequently used to ‘replace’ tape. Certainly, functional virtual tape libraries can take advantage of the random data access available on disk drives, and these libraries can, in theory, return required data quite rapidly.
Deduplication has the potential for reducing the amount of data actually stored onto the disks in storage arrays or in VTLs. in such a system, a hash is made of each file before writing it to disk. if the hash already exists in a hash table, this indicates that there’s already one copy of the FULL file somewhere else on the system – and a token referring to the original file is created. This is a great idea, and can significantly reduce the amount of data being stored, backed up, or archived.
BUT WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?
Hard drives fail. There’s no getting around this fact. Hard disks fail. I’ve got a big box full of dead hard drives, and I’m sure that an active IT department probably has an even larger collection.
But, you might say, your drives are all protected because they’re in a RAID array. yes. if only one drive fails, you’ll probably be able to rebuild the files onto a new drive. How long will it take to rebuild the array? How long will it take to build a new drive? Minutes? Hours? Days? Can your business afford to be unable to store or retrieve data while the array rebuilds itself? if a second drive should fail during the rebuild operation, what happens to your data then? if your deduplication has a token referring to an original file that was on the failed drive, where’d your data go?
With hundreds of terabytes conceivably being included in a single, large array, the likelihood of drive failure increases as you add more drives. A massive array can take days to rebuild if a drive fails.
POWER HUNGRY ARRAYS
Even when they’re running optimally, hard disk drives require a lot of power to keep them running. (Okay, microamps per drive add up – although a single drive may be seen as not a tremendous power hog, with lots of drives, the power required to keep them running adds up quickly). in addition to just keeping the drives spinning, it can be a challenge to keep drives cool. Environmental controls required just to keep the drives comfortable are a technical and a financial challenge that must be acknowledged.
LONG TERM STORAGE?
For people with a ‘tape is dead’ mindset, the idea of archival storage probably includes large arrays of hard disk drives. the drives are probably running 24/7; requiring large amounts of power for running and cooling. But the big issue is that hard drives really aren’t made to be run for 7 or more years. the failure of drives used for archiving data should be expected – simultaneous failure of multiple drives in an archive probably can’t be ruled out – recovery of the archived data may be difficult, slow, and potentially impossible if archival disk storage is used.
TAPE
I’ve pointed out many of the risks IT takes when using disk only storage. while IT moved away from tape for long term storage, tape was significantly improving. LTO (Linear Tape Open) just observed the tenth anniversary of the format. Aside from doubling storage capacities with every new version (they’re now at LTO 5), important enhancements continue to be added. A roadmap, leading up to LTO 8, has been published, with increased capacity and improving performance (and backward read capability) planned.
The current iteration of LTO – LTO 5 – includes native encryption and WORM (write once, read many) capabilities that can meet regulations for data management and security. Probably the most important advancement, however, is the Linear Tape File System (LTFS), a capability that makes it easy to locate files on tape. I plan to write more about LTFS in future articles.
LTO 5 offers a native capacity of 1.5 terabytes. Native transfer rates of up to 140 MB/sec are supported. With compression, depending on the type of data being stored, capacities of 3 TB or more can be achieved.
SECURITY, RECOVERABILITY, AND DID I MENTION GREEN?
When compared to the current disk and VTL approaches taken by many organizations, it’s becoming clear that LTO tape is a more logical choice for many types of storage. Because data can be natively encrypted onto the LTO media, the data on these cartridges is secure. Being able to create a cartridge with WORM capabilities can enable an organization to meet certain data retention requirements.
Computer Technology Review has published many articles about storage tiering. Tiered storage can enable IT organizations to intelligently manage their storage based on many factors.
LTFS implemented into LTO 5 makes finding and recovering data almost as easy as finding data on a hard disk drive. Multiple vendors offer systems that take full advantage of LTFS, making is easy to locate and read archived data.
Perhaps the greatest benefit, when compared to disk, is the high degree of energy efficiency and cost savings that can be achieved when switching less time critical storage from disk to tape. Tape cartridges don’t generate heat. They don’t have to be running constantly in order to be useful. to write or read a tape, the tape must be inserted into an LTO drive – that’s it. the overhead associated with maintaining a disk farm can be avoided using tape.
And, although I’ve said it once – if a hard disk should fail (and they DO fail), recovery from such a disaster can take hours or days. With tape, data can be located and read – often in minutes.
WARNING: This is the first of many articles I plan to write for Computer Technology Review. Future planned articles will further explore LTO – now and for the future. I’m planning to write about RDX, to further explore technologies that we cover, and to look at a variety of relevant products. I look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Mark Brownstein is Executive Editor at WWPI (publishers of Computer Technology Review) wwpi.com ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. you need JavaScript enabled to view it )
