Yes, as per the original topic, you've changed one of the drives in a RAID 1 (Mirrored) array, and the RAID controller has to rebuild the array, which will then look exactly like the drives previously set up in the system.
You don't have a separate C: drive and D: drive. The two drives simply contain an exact duplicate of each other's contents, so if one fails, it can be replaced and the good drive's contents are automatically copied onto the new drive (rebuilding the array). The C: and D: volumes are two partitions
on the 160GB doubled-up "drive" created by the RAID array. That's why you only have the total capacity of one drive (160GB) even though there are two 160GB drives.
You will have to replace both drives together, and allow the RAID controller to build a 1TB array, so you will appear to have a new 1TB drive. If you add the second 1TB drive as it is now, you should end up with an exact replica of the original system installation on a 1TB drive, which won't be very helpful, as you'll still have a 108GB C: drive and a 38GB D: drive, and an empty 1TB RAID drive. However, it is possible that once this is set up, you may be able to expand the D: drive out to fill the new array. This isn't as simple in XP as in Vista, and will gain you no space on the C: partition, but might be the simplest way around it. Or even simpler, if you don't mind having a third drive letter designation for the extra storage, you can create a third partition using Disk Management in Windows. Then you'd have, for example, an enormous F: drive for storage.
Alternatively, both drives should have been fitted clean to the RAID controller and a new empty array created. Then you could have seen if the install disks would set up a clean installation that would allow you to choose the amount of space for the drives. But if you had to slipstream SATA drivers to achieve that, doing it by rebuilding the RAID array twice may actually be simpler...
Edited by Platypus, 28 December 2008 - 07:55 AM.