Jump to content











Photo

The boot process: a step by step approach to booting.


  • Please log in to reply
259 replies to this topic

#126 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 February 2011 - 05:47 PM

If something in a sequentially addressed space starts after the beginning and ends before the end of the space it is inside.
If something in a sequentially addressed space starts exactly at the beginning and ends exactly at the end of the space is it still inside it? :thumbsup:

Like:
In the range of integers 0<x<99 any x less-than-three digit number is inside the range with the ONLY exceptions of 0 and 99.
In the range of integers 0<=x<=99 any x less-than-three digit number is inside the range WITHOUT exceptions.
Is the range 0÷99 inside the "less than 100" club?
Is it inside the "less than or equal to 99" club?
Is 0 an integer? :)

It's the same with positive integers 1 to 99 to remove the 0-caused confusion.

What is the container and what is the content? :cheers:

Out of three cases in basic disks, in two (any volume inside Extended partition, first or non-first) the Volume is inside the partition.
In the third case (Primary partitions) the actual space occupied by the partition is THE SAME as that occupied by the volume.
If the partition type is NTFS the Volume is inside the partition in all three cases.

Dynamic disks are different.

:rolleyes:
Wonko

#127 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 20 February 2011 - 06:21 PM

OK, got that.
Now help me with the reason for volumes. What are they used for? Why do we need volumes at all?

#128 sambul61

sambul61

    Gold Member

  • Advanced user
  • 1568 posts
  •  
    American Samoa

Posted 20 February 2011 - 08:19 PM

What is the container and what is the content? :confused1:

Out of three cases in basic disks, in two (any volume inside Extended partition, first or non-first) the Volume is inside the partition.
In the third case (Primary partitions) the actual space occupied by the partition is THE SAME as that occupied by the volume.
If the partition type is NTFS the Volume is inside the partition in all three cases.

Dynamic disks are different.

I don't think, its correct to say "the volume is inside a partition" just because its smaller than that partition. The definitions given in that post clearly distinguish Volumes as entities in logical (File System & data structure holder) domain from Partitions as entities in physical (data carrier) domain.

Being physical medium, Partitions are always deemed a data carrier ("container" is not a suitable term), but the means how such storage service is structured and delivered to a user is via Logical Volumes. This provides clear differentiation btw partitions and volumes regardless of storage organization type (basic, dynamic, etc.) and a number of Partitions backing up with data a single Volume. Hence, a Logical Volume aims to provide access to data, and is usually backed up by one or more physical Partitions and Extents carrying data and service marks used to ID Volumes and boot the system.

Now, the term Physical Volume is rather historical and derivative in nature, keeping in mind how many ppl were trying to interpret and synonymize the above definitions, drawing parallels. It has complementary meaning - same as Physical Drive or Partition, but far less popular and important on the Terms Scale compare to Logical Volume referring to a formatted & mounted drive, accessible to read and write data.

Keeping in mind, this basic stuff is in heavy practical use for decades, there is really a little new that can be discovered here by observers. Of course, new File System developers may introduce new variations to established terms as they go, but it won't change fundamental nature of Partitions being "physical", and Volumes "logical". And that was precise reason, why the term Volume was originally introduced. I wonder, how much time is needed to clarify these simple things? :smiling9:

#129 TheK

TheK

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Germany (BW)
  •  
    Germany

Posted 21 February 2011 - 03:35 AM

Microsoft's definition of volumes:

The highest level of organization in the file system is the volume. A file system resides on a volume. A volume contains at least one partition, which is a logical division of a physical disk (for more information, see Disk Devices and Partitions). A volume that contains data that exists on one partition is called a simple volume, and a volume that contains data that exists on more than one partition is called a multipartition volume.


:confused1:

#130 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 21 February 2011 - 09:07 AM

This is interesting!
I was just giving it some thought and decided to go over the whole thing because some of it just did not compute. I was willing to be the one in the wrong because I am willing to improve and grow until I die. There are human errors and we can all fall victims. A theory can be well formulated and documented, the maths can be right and duplicated, the logic perfect (bringing you to the conclusion), and you would still be wrong. History has taught us that so many times. A good example is the way mankind looked at planets over generations. Some theories were perfect, but wrong from what we know today.


The above Microsoft definition is what I have always known volumes to be. I did not however know that it was part of the file system. I thought it was a different service once we passed the DOS age.

A file system is a part of the operating system on a volume and it determines how files are named, stored, and organized on basic or dynamic disks. A file system manages files and folders as well as the information required to locate and access these items by local and remote users.


TheK, thank you for the link.

"A volume contains at least one partition"

is that not because it is designed to be the container?

Now we have the documentation. It states:

and about their relationship in regards to basic disks:

Basic disks and basic volumes are the storage types most often used with Microsoft Windows operating systems. The term basic disk refers to a disk that contains basic volumes, such as primary partitions and logical drives. The term basic volume refers to a partition on a basic disk. Basic disks, which are found in both x86-based and Itanium-based computers, provide a simple storage solution that can accommodate changing storage requirements. Basic disks support clustered disks, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1394 disks, and universal serial bus (USB) removable drives.

In x86-based computers running Windows Server 2003, basic disks use the same Master Boot Record (MBR) partition style as the disks used by the Microsoft MS-DOS operating system and all previous versions of Microsoft Windows.

Itanium-based computers also support basic disks, but you can choose from two partition styles (MBR or GPT) for each basic disk. You can create up to 128 volumes on an MBR or GPT disk. The partition style determines the operating systems that can access the disk.


  • The term basic disk refers to a disk that contains basic volumes, such as primary partitions and logical drives.
  • The term basic volume refers to a partition on a basic disk.
  • In x86-based computers running Windows Server 2003, basic disks use the same Master Boot Record (MBR) partition style as the disks used by Microsoft MS-DOS, and all previous versions of Microsoft Windows.
  • Itanium-based computers also support basic disks, but you can choose from two partition styles (MBR or GPT) for each basic disk. You can create up to 128 volumes on an MBR or GPT disk. The partition style determines the operating systems that can access the disk.
  • Before you can create simple volumes, spanned volumes, or volumes that use redundant array of independent disks (RAID) technology (striped volumes, mirrored volumes, and RAID-5 volumes) you must convert a basic disk to a dynamic disk.
  • Dynamic disks were first introduced with Windows 2000 and provide features that basic disks do not, such as the ability to create volumes that span multiple disks (spanned and striped volumes), and the ability to create fault tolerant volumes (mirrored and RAID-5 volumes). Dynamic disks offer greater flexibility for volume management because they use a database to track information about dynamic volumes on the disk and about other dynamic disks in the computer. Because each dynamic disk in a computer stores a replica of the dynamic disk database, Windows Server 2003can repair a corrupted database on one dynamic disk by using the database on another dynamic disk.
  • A dynamic volume is a volume that is created on a dynamic disk. All volumes on dynamic disks are known as dynamic volumes. Dynamic volume types include simple, spanned, and striped volumes.
  • Simple volumes are the dynamic-disk equivalent of the primary partitions and logical drives found on basic disks... You can increase the size of a simple volume to include unallocated space on the same disk or on a different disk... If the simple volume is the system volume or the boot volume, you cannot extend it.
  • Spanned volumes combine areas of unallocated space from multiple disks into one logical volume. The areas of unallocated space can be different sizes. Spanned volumes require two disks, and you can use up to 32 disks.
  • Striped volumes improve disk input/output (I/O) performance by distributing I/O requests across disks. Striped volumes are composed of stripes of data of equal size written across each disk in the volume. They are created from equally sized, unallocated areas on two or more disks... Striped volumes cannot be extended or mirrored and do not offer fault tolerance.
  • A mirrored volume is a fault-tolerant volume that provides a copy of a volume on another disk. Mirrored volumes provide data redundancy by duplicating the information contained on the volume. The two disks that make up a mirrored volume are known as mirrors. Each mirror is always located on a different disk. If one of the disks fails, the data on the failed disk becomes unavailable, but the system continues to operate by using the unaffected disk.
  • All online dynamic disks in a computer must be members of the same disk group, which is a collection of dynamic disks. A computer can have only one dynamic disk group, also called the primary disk group. Each disk in a disk group stores a replica of the same dynamic disk database. A disk group uses a name consisting of the computer name plus a suffix of Dg0. The disk group name is stored in the registry.
  • Regardless of the partition style used (MBR or GPT), you can create up to 1000 dynamic volumes per disk group, although boot time increases as the number of volumes increases. The recommended number of dynamic volumes is 32 or fewer per disk group.

Windows Server 2003 supports the following types of basic volumes:

* Primary partitions (master boot record (MBR) and GUID partition table (GPT) disks)

* Logical drives within extended partitions (MBR disks only)


The number of basic volumes you can create on a basic disk depends on the partition style of the disk:


* On MBR disks, you can create up to four primary partitions, or you can create up to three primary partitions and one extended partition. Within the extended partition, you can create up to 128 logical drives.

* On GPT disks, you can create up to 128 partitions. Because GPT disks do not limit you to four partitions, extended partitions and logical drives are not available on GPT disks.

* If you want to add more space to existing primary partitions and logical drives, you can extend the volume using the extend command in DiskPart.




Here is the architecture on win2k3:
Posted Image

Regardless of the type of volume, Microsoft *does* have a definition for volume:

All file systems supported by Windows have the following storage components:

* Volumes. A volume is a collection of directories and files.
* Directories. A directory is a hierarchical collection of directories and files.
* Files. A file is a logical grouping of related data.



#131 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 21 February 2011 - 09:27 AM

Regardless of the type of volume, Microsoft *does* have a definition for volume:
All file systems supported by Windows have the following storage components:
* Volumes. A volume is a collection of directories and files.
* Directories. A directory is a hierarchical collection of directories and files.
* Files. A file is a logical grouping of related data.

My view is compatible with the definition above.

What is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe and everything?

http://tinyurl.com/ydx6h3c
:smiling9:

What is the Partition Type for Dynamic disks?

I like coincidences. :confused1:

:lol:
Wonko

#132 sambul61

sambul61

    Gold Member

  • Advanced user
  • 1568 posts
  •  
    American Samoa

Posted 21 February 2011 - 01:45 PM

My view is compatible with the definition above.

It always IS no matter what it is you say. That's what I admire the most: you're NEVER on the wrong side of history my dear. :dubbio:

Interesting to note, MS writers went to an unusual detail describing inner workings of their File Systems. Possibly, the time they wrote it was glorified by one of these law suites MS run against infringers or partners they overtook technology from and toppled. :cheers: Yet there're some contradictions in how they define Volume in various places, probably because it was written by different doc writers at different times.

Just a reminder - Windows is not the only OS around, and not the first one known to humankind. Most of the above terms are generic in nature, not constrained by any OS or its writers, while some of them are specific to a particular File System (and probably were patented with it).

#133 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 21 February 2011 - 03:39 PM

It always is no matter what it is you say.

Yep :cheers:.
That's the idea of my signature (warning #1), really you don't need to remark this at each of my posts (unless you find that it is needed to confirm the validity of it's warning #2).

Yet there're some contradictions in how they define Volume in various places, probably because it was written by different writers at different times.

Or maybe because "Volume" has a different meaning in different contexts .... :dubbio:
....and because it's use has been changed, namely there were NO Dynamic disks before Win2K....
http://support.micro...kb/175761/en-us

On a basic disk, a partition is a portion of the disk that functions as a physically separate unit.
On a dynamic disk, storage is divided into volumes instead of partitions.


:cheers:
Wonko

#134 TheK

TheK

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Germany (BW)
  •  
    Germany

Posted 21 February 2011 - 05:01 PM

but then on the other hand...

http://technet.micro...035(WS.10).aspx

The following example shows a partial printout of an MBR on a dynamic disk that contains four simple volumes: the system volume, the boot volume, and two data volumes. Note, however, that the partition table contains entries for only three partitions. The first entry is the system volume, which is marked as active. The second entry is the boot volume, and the third entry is the container partition for the two data volumes on the disk. All entries are type 0x42, which specifies dynamic volumes.


...just to complete the confusion :happy_dance:

#135 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 21 February 2011 - 05:16 PM

O.K., well, how do we resolve this?
There has to be a way out of the confusion.

#136 karyonix

karyonix

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 451 posts
  •  
    Thailand

Posted 21 February 2011 - 05:36 PM

I have 2 hard disks installed in my computer.
2 hard disks make 1 array.
There are 2 volumes in the array.
One is RAID0 volume. Another is RAID1 volume.
They are volumes in Intel RST application.
But in Disk Management they are disks.
They behave like disks. Each has MBR and partitions.

#137 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 21 February 2011 - 05:39 PM

TheK,
I can see how that statement can lead to confusion.
However, some background information need to be kept in mind when reading:

A simple volume is a dynamic volume that is made up of disk space from a single dynamic disk. A simple volume can consist of a single region on a disk or multiple regions of the same disk that are linked together. You can create simple volumes only on dynamic disks.


and

  • A dynamic volume is a volume that is created on a dynamic disk. Dynamic volume types include simple, spanned, and striped volumes.
  • You can increase the size of a simple volume to include unallocated space on the same disk or on a different disk.


therefore, a simple volume can not be the container:
if simple volume = multiple regions of the same disk that are linked together (notice, the groups of sectors are not contiguous)
and if you can increase the size of a simple volume to include unallocated space on a different disk:
simple volume = multiple regions of the same disk + space on a different disk

How can you contain that in a partition?

#138 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 21 February 2011 - 05:48 PM

Question :unsure::
http://support.micro...kb/175761/en-us

WHY would the good MS guys have titled the second part of the above:

Dynamic Storage Terms:

and not simply:

Storage Terms:

or:

Universal Storage Terms:

or:

One-size-fits-all Storage Terms:


:happy_dance:

http://technet.micro...035(WS.10).aspx

Having three addresses for four items may hint that one of the addresses represents *something* that contains two items. :cheers:

The following example shows a partial printout of an MBR on a dynamic disk that contains four simple volumes: the system volume, the boot volume, and two data volumes. Note, however, that the partition table contains entries for only three partitions.

000001B0:                                             80 01   .....,Dc!.!.....

000001C0: 01 00 42 FE 7F 04 3F 00 - 00 00 86 FA 3F 00 00 00   ..B..?.....?...

000001D0: 41 05 42 FE FF 02 C5 FA - 3F 00 7E 04 7D 00 00 00   A.B.....?.~.}...

000001E0: C1 03 42 FE FF FF 43 FF - BC 00 58 53 54 00 00 00   ..B...C...XST...

000001F0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 - 00 00 00 00 00 00 55 AA   ..............U.
You know like in:

The first entry is the system volume, which is marked as active.


1 address=1 item
000001B0:                                             80 01   .....,Dc!.!.....

000001C0: 01 00 42 FE 7F 04 3F 00 - 00 00 86 FA 3F 00         ..B..?.....?.

The second entry is the boot volume,

1 address=1 item
000001C0:                                             00 00                 ..

000001D0: 41 05 42 FE FF 02 C5 FA - 3F 00 7E 04 7D 00         A.B.....?.~.}.

, and the third entry is the container partition for the two data volumes on the disk.

1 address=2 items :(
000001D0:                                             00 00                 ..

000001E0: C1 03 42 FE FF FF 43 FF - BC 00 58 53 54 00        ..B...C...XST.

All entries are type 0x42, which specifies dynamic volumes.


:w00t:
Wonko

#139 sambul61

sambul61

    Gold Member

  • Advanced user
  • 1568 posts
  •  
    American Samoa

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:15 PM

simple volume = multiple regions of the same disk + space on a different disk

Hoe can you contain that in a partition?

1) That's what Extents are for... Yet Extents and Partitions (or disk sections) remain physical, and Volumes logical entities.

2) MS has many tech writers. Among other things their task is to translate coder & program manager's language into 3 subversions: a) for patent lawyers; c) for developers with "generic" English command; d) for customers. Now try to homogenize this, when new terms are coming daily, and writers move btw assignments. Yes, they have "homogenizer" & "homologation" writers as well, but the task to "comply & simplify" isn't easy, given magnitude of what MS does.

I don't think, there is a need to go to great detail on Volume Management and associated terms in your Map, its too complex for the Map purpose, and would be unfair to other OS & FS vendors if weighted heavily towards MS. On the other hand, you are failing so far to include branches that are of great interest to most members of this forum based on stats (some listed here and here), despite reflecting reader needs is one of major tasks of such Map. You are also failing to engage main developers of this and the sister forum in contributing to this Map in their respective fields, because:
a) you don't have a co-op environment setup - you act as a show stopper instead of homogenizer; :unsure:
c) don't have a suitable expended skeleton;
d) didn't study their strength and neither invited them to joint in engaging manner. :happy_dance:

Yet you're ahead of schedule and out of your way flaming others, locking your project despite misleading "Lets compile" slogan, and looking for "forum enemies". :cheers:

#140 sambul61

sambul61

    Gold Member

  • Advanced user
  • 1568 posts
  •  
    American Samoa

Posted 22 February 2011 - 12:04 AM

Or maybe because "Volume" has a different meaning in different contexts .... :happy_dance:

If only MS writers delivered that meaning... :( Btw, I looked at your sig - it feels genuine, you can probably take it to the bank. :cheers:

Speaking of MS: "Simple (dynamic) volumes are the dynamic-disk equivalent of the primary partitions and logical drives found on basic disks."

This sounds like a misnomer to me, given the fact that Partitions on basic disks are not equivalent to Logical Drives (Volumes). Possibly they meant to say "represent combination" instead of "are equivalent", meaning that with introduction of dynamic disks they simplified terms by including underlying physical data carrier into a definition of Logical Volume. Yet they couldn't overcome "masking" contradiction: partitions are still listed in DD structure, hence DVs didn't eliminate them. :unsure:

Why simplify? Because they introduced a complex choice of volume options addressing enterprise needs (the main paying customers for weak MS server offering at that time), thus expecting resistance to transition to dynamic disks given competition. Maneuvering with terms was probably part of marketing strategy to make this seemingly more suitable for enterprise data structure more attractive compare to Novell and other competitor offers at that time. Adding unpartitioned disk space sections to dynamic volumes, keeping synced File System DBs simplifies Volume Management by allowing to lessen ops and repair data structure "on the fly".

#141 TheK

TheK

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Germany (BW)
  •  
    Germany

Posted 22 February 2011 - 04:06 AM

O.K., well, how do we resolve this?
There has to be a way out of the confusion.

I think we need to stop talking about containers and focus on the volume's function as an abstraction layer between physical and logical storage.

My linkhttp://learning.infocollections.com/ebook%202/Computer/Networking/Storage%20and%20Remote%20Access/Inside_Windows_Storage/ch06lev1sec1.htm

Have a look at figure 6.1.

#142 sambul61

sambul61

    Gold Member

  • Advanced user
  • 1568 posts
  •  
    American Samoa

Posted 22 February 2011 - 04:39 AM

Is this your book? What's the title? I looked at some chapters briefly and found material interesting: logical, concise and clear.

Is it possible to add a Table of Content page, and a button on each page, leading to that Table? :confused1:

#143 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 22 February 2011 - 08:25 AM

Note [2] is interesting:

This terminology is confusing for more than one reason. The first issue is that file systems exist on volumes; hence the correct terminology should be boot volume and not boot partition. The second thing to remember is that the boot code is on the "system" and the operating system files are on the boot volume. The terms appear to be opposite of what one would expect. The justification is that the names should be used in the "to"sense and not "from"—that is, boot to this volume and not boot from this volume.

That is a possible answer to another otherwise still open question (why the good MS guys name things the other way round :confused1: ):
http://www.multiboot....uk/system.html
With the new joke of the Windows 7 100 Mb "reserved" partition, things are even more confusing, IMHO.

:cheers:
Wonko

#144 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 22 February 2011 - 09:30 AM

I think we need to stop talking about containers and focus on the volume's function as an abstraction layer between physical and logical storage.

I tried many times to get the discussion to go in that direction to no avail. Please read a few posts up (start at #95).
The article you proposed is *exactly* what I said, with an emphasis on helping "new comers" understand (I try as much as possible to make it simple and accessible, so I choose the language accordingly - which some people take it to mean that after 26 years in the field I am a "rookie" :cheers: - which is cool).
You will find that I've asked several questions for the sake of clarification. That helped me understand the other side of the debate, even though I knew what I was saying. The result of that behavior brought us to the point where several people got involved and we received input from different angles, and I learned a couple of things (which never hurts). I really tried to understand where they were coming from instead of acting like some people that think that they are smarter than everybody that does not see it "their" way. Constructive debate that relies on REASON and sustainable PROOFS is a healthy thing for all. We can all fall victim of tunnel vision due to our culture, way of doing things, work environment, experiences... No one is exempt (even those who think they are higher than others because they have followed instructions chewed out by others). While some tend to want to impose their tunnel vision and poor thinking skills, other "reasonable" people should engage in healthy discussions and debates with the attitude that they too, like any other human being, can fall victim to bias, culture, and habit.

The discussion about volumes started when I argued against the use of the term "MBR partition", and summarized my argument at the end of the post as a logical conclusion.
In the same post, I proposed that in order to avoid the confusion that is already out, we distinguish between partitions and volumes because calling partitions volumes when they can be called partitions might create some confusion when we want to talk specifically about volumes as a logical entity, or partitions as group of sectors (not the logical structure volume).
Please reread the post, because quoting only a portion of it would loose the context and make it sound like what I did not say. Reading the history from that post to here might be helpful.

I have to say however, that I see where the other side is coming from: the genie is out of the bottle and the terminology has been used a certain way for a decade if not more (wonko don't laugh - and don't think that it means I agree with you - you're not off the hook yet! - I'm not done with you). That is probably due to the MS's "documentation" process.
What the counter argument to your proposed solution has failed to do so far (i.e. the other side of the debate), is to give a coherent and comprehensive approach to "volumes" when we need one.
A partition can be called a partition, but a volume can be called by no other name. Why not reserve the term for volumes and call a partition a partition?
In order to avoid the confusion in future writings, we need to agree on terms, especially since some of us write documentation for our applications, and others, write tutorials. This one is about the boot process. We are dealing with these items and we will need to define them properly. I have proposed several definitions so they can be torn up. I like wonko, and have to give him credit for not just tearing up, but sustaining his stance with evidence. I feel if he can complain, someone else can, and it must be rewritten. Once he can't complain, we have a starting point. It may not be perfect, but it's a good start. Wonko, thank you for a good discussion so far (that does not mean you are right). Oh! I forgot that was about wonko. I need an emoticon: :confused1:.

We need to come up with something coherent about volumes.
Yes, TheK, we can "focus on the volume's function as an abstraction layer", but then help me with this: how do we *make sure there is no confusion* about what we are referring to when people might have in their mind that a volume is a partition?
At the same time, wonko (I told you you were not off the hook!), part-ition is a word used to divide things and volume is a mass, a large quantity, or an amount of space, the word use to add things together (yeah I know, you will start about the MS people thing again, but let's forget about that for a minute, and, reason). The volume as the logical thing is the logical thing. What sayest thou?

#145 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 22 February 2011 - 09:33 AM

I have 2 hard disks installed in my computer.
2 hard disks make 1 array.
There are 2 volumes in the array.
One is RAID0 volume. Another is RAID1 volume.
They are volumes in Intel RST application.
But in Disk Management they are disks.
They behave like disks. Each has MBR and partitions.


You are stating some facts here, but I don't get it. Please tell me in plain english what you are saying.

#146 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 22 February 2011 - 10:00 AM

@LeMOGO
Look, that on this particular topic it's not that "I am right" (which I am :cheers: as long as we talk of basic disks ONLY), point is that "no matter which one is right or wrong" :), your current approach of trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" definition of Volume may lead to greater confusion, unless you find a way to separate neatly basick disks from dynamic ones.

Another point that makes me wonder is that since (say) 99.99% (approximated and obviously faked up percentage) of people use basic disks only and know nothing about dynamic ones (if not the fact that when you initialize a disk you MUST NOT tell disk management to convert to dynamic disk :cheers:), and 0.01% that actually use dynamic disks are either:
  • very experienced professional IT that need not "The map"
  • complete morons that think to be experienced IT professionals, or really l33t kids playing with matches, both of which won't have the will or capabilities to read and understand "The map"
does it really make sense to confuse the ideas of 99.99% of the people (actually 100.00% of those that will read "The map") for the sake of a "correct" definition?

Or would it be more productive - at least temporarily - to leave dynamic disks as a region beyond the "Nec plus ultra" pillars?
http://en.wikipedia....us_ultra_(motto)
:confused1:

:cheers:
Wonko

#147 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 22 February 2011 - 10:17 AM

We're not talking "dynamic disks", we're talking "volumes", which also exist on basic disks both logically and physically, hence the confusion. We just need to clarify things a bit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would be surprised how many wholes so called technicians have after they fly through classes that are just a couple of months long and lack a lot of basics. I've seen so many in different countries. You might be surprised!

#148 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 22 February 2011 - 10:34 AM

We're not talking "dynamic disks", we're talking "volumes", which also exist on basic disks both logically and physically, hence the confusion. We just need to clarify things a bit.

Here is - again - where I lose you. :cheers:
On basic disks I see no volumes "logically" spanning over partitions, but only volumes "physically" inside partitions (or sub-partitions) or coinciding with primary partitions.
I must be missing something. :confused1:

You would be surprised how many wholes so called technicians have after they fly through classes that are just a couple of months long and lack a lot of basics. I've seen so many in different countries. You might be surprised!

Naaaah, I am not surprised easily :cheers::
Posted Image
and I do have similar experiences, also in other fields, in no way connected to IT.

:)
Wonko

#149 LeMOGO

LeMOGO

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 240 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 22 February 2011 - 11:08 AM

TheK will answer you soon I'm sure.
But for the time being, let's clarify that the volume you are referring to on the basic disk is also accessed through a volume (as in file system feature). On basic disks, you use a volume to access a volume. That's the issue. So, how do you know which?
I agree with you when you say that we need to distinguish (you did not seem to see that). The very reason why, is that there are two one on top of the other (in the case of basic disks). The same goes in virtualizations.
A problem arises when we ignore the logical layer because the good old MS guys, with their "good intentions" at one point in time, decided to call partitions volumes. People that are coming from other OSes *will* be confused because it makes no sense, and people new to the subject on Microsoft end need to beware because they will be confused when looking at other OSes. Our UFDs do boot to both linux and windows! G4D is getting very popular and is used to boot both!
A distinction and clarification is needed.
We simply need to avoid the error by adding qualifiers going forward.
We just need to define them, that does not mean there has to be a one size fits all "volume". In our context, it is not possible, but we do need to mark territories. I wanted to hear points of view on the matter. I am still awaiting proposals.
I get that there are "volumes=partitions", but how about the volume that is used to access it, the one that gets the label called "drive letter c:"?
What's the best way to proceed?

#150 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 22 February 2011 - 12:16 PM

On basic disks, you use a volume to access a volume. That's the issue. So, how do you know which?

Yes, this is the issue that you highlight and that I cannot see. :confused1:

Another attempt to try and express my personal "mental map". :cheers:
1.Basic disks
1.1.Primary partition ONLY:
  • a "partition" (actually it's boundaries/borders/location) is defined in the MBR partition table with a start and an end address (CHS notation) or with a start and size (LBA notation), both adresses identify uniquely WHERE the "partition" is on the physical disk.
  • Nothing (placeholder to keep numbers the same)
  • Nothing (placeholder to keep numbers the same)
  • a "volume" starts on the very first sector of the partition and ends on the very last sector of the partition
  • an "extent" starts on the very first sector of the partition and ends on the very last sector of the partition
  • a "drive" (in the sense of "whatever you can assign a letter or a mountpoint to") starts on the very first sector of the partition and ends on the very last sector of the partition
  • a "filesystem" (in the sense of "whatever allows you to store in and retrieve from directories and files") starts on the very first sector of the partition and ends on the very last sector of the partition
Items #1,#4,#5,#6 and #7 occupy exactly the same physical space.

1.Basic disks
1.2.Extended partition ONLY
1.2.1.First "logical volume inside Extended partition" ONLY
  • a "partition" (actually it's boundaries/borders/location) is defined in the MBR partition table with a start and an end address (CHS notation) or with a start and size (LBA notation), both adresses identify uniquely WHERE the partition is. This is an Extended partition.It's first sector, similarly to the MBR, contains a "partition table" - this sector is usually called EPBR or EMBR (Extended partition boot record or Extended Master Boot Record).The first entry in this nested partition table defines a start and end address for "something", which Wonko likes to call "logical volume".
    The second entry in this partition table points (in the case of more than one "logical volume" inside the extended partition, to a newly defined "sub-partition".
  • Nothing (placeholder to keep numbers the same)
  • a "logical volume" (actually it's boundaries/borders/location) is defined in the EMBR/EPBR partition table with a start and an end address (CHS notation) or with a start and size (LBA notation), both adresses identify uniquely WHERE the "logical volume" is on the physical disk.
  • a "volume" starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
  • an "extent" starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
  • a "drive" (in the sense of "whatever you can assign a letter or a mountpoint to") starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
  • a "filesystem" (in the sense of "whatever allows you to store in and retrieve from directories and files") starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
Items #3,#4,#5,#6 and #7 occupy exactly the same physical space.

1.Basic disks
1.2.Extended partition ONLY
1.2.2.Any non-first "logical volume inside Extended partition" ONLY
  • a "partition" (actually it's boundaries/borders/location) is defined in the MBR partition table with a start and an end address (CHS notation) or with a start and size (LBA notation), both adresses identify uniquely WHERE the partition is. This is an Extended partition.It's first sector, similarly to the MBR, contains a "partition table" - this sector is usually called EPBR or EMBR (Extended partition boot record or Extended Master Boot Record).The first entry in this nested partition table defines a start and end address for "something", which Wonko likes to call "logical volume".
    The second entry in this partition table points (in the case of more than one "logical volume" inside the extended partition, to a newly defined "sub-partition".
  • a "sub-partition" (actually it's boundaries/borders/location) is defined in the preceding EMBR/EPBR partition table with a start and an end address (CHS notation) or with a start and size (LBA notation), both adresses identify uniquely WHERE the "sub-partition" is. This is a "sub-partition" inside Extended partition.It's first sector, similarly to what the MBR contains a "partition table" - this sector is usually called EPBR or EMBR (Extended partition boot record or Extended Master Boot Record), we could call it more properly EMBR of the nth level.The first entry in this nested partition table defines a start and end address for "something", which Wonko likes to call "logical volume".
    The second entry in this partition table points (in the case of more than n "logical volume"s inside the extended partition, to the next "sub-partition".
  • a "logical volume" (actually it's boundaries/borders/location) is defined in the EMBR/EPBR of nth level partition table with a start and an end address (CHS notation) or with a start and size (LBA notation), both adresses identify uniquely WHERE the "logical volume" is on the physical disk.
  • a "volume" starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
  • an "extent" starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
  • a "drive" (in the sense of "whatever you can assign a letter or a mountpoint to") starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
  • a "filesystem" (in the sense of "whatever allows you to store in and retrieve from directories and files") starts on the very first sector of the "logical volume" and ends on the very last sector of the "logical volume"
Items #3,#4,#5,#6 and #7 occupy exactly the same physical space.

Due to the time order in which these "items" are created during the common operations of partitioning a basic disk and formatting (where formatting is assumed to mean "apply a filesystem on a given, delimited interval of sectors mapped in a partition table), and using a <= kind of operator (meaning that one item that has the SAME start and end may be considered "inside" another item that has a "higher place" in the timeline).

The timeline:
  • create a Primary partition (and at the same time create the volume, the extent and the drive)
  • format the "partition" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive" by applying a filesystem to it
or
  • create an Extended partition
  • create first "logical volume" in it (and at the same time create the volume, the extent and the drive)
  • format the "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive" by applying a filesystem to it
then (and only if items #2 and #3 above were performed AND the "logical volume" created in them does NOT end at the end of the previously created Extended partition)
  • create a sub-partition and create a "logical volume" in it (and at the same time create the volume, the extent and the drive)
  • format the "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive" by applying a filesystem to it

We can say with a righteous degree of approximation that:
  • a disk contains partitions (up to 4 primary or up to 3 primary+1 Extended, which can contain 1 "logical volume" and up to 127 "sub-partitions", each containing a "logical volume")
  • a primary partition contains a "volume" OR "extent" OR "drive"
  • an extended partition normally contains a "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive" (first one)
  • an extended partition MAY contain one or more sub-partitions
  • a sub-partition contains a "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive"
  • a filesystem is generally applied to any of "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive", we can say that a "logical volume" or "volume" or "extent" or "drive" contains a filesystem
  • a filesystem contains directories, files and sub-directories
  • the terms "logical volume", "volume", "extent", "drive" ALWAYS identify a same physical range of sectors of the disk as defined in a partition table, and thus can be (and are) often used as synonyms. In the case of Primary partitions, also the term partition can be used as a synonym of "volume", "extent", "drive".
  • since a "partition" or "logical volume" or "volume", "extent", "drive" is pretty much useless without a filesystem applied to it, often the term "filesystem" is used - somewhat IMproperly - as a synonym to "partition" (primary only) or "logical volume" or "volume", "extent", "drive".
  • Dynamic disks are NOT Basic disks and they are DIFFERENT

:cheers:
Wonko




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users