RAID 0 Guide: Set-up, OS installation, and Optimization - Page 5

Bonedoc · 15th July 2002, 7:20 AM

Hi DS,
To be honest, I'm gonna try and find a board
that either 'makes' it VERY easy to disable
the onboard (integrated) RAID controller and
add in a 4 channel IDE RAID card from High
Point... or doesn't have an integrated RAID.

I want to be able to 'use' it if I upgrade...
HP has the ATA 133 rated RAID card (although
the new ATA Serial spec is coming out as well!?)..

But ya cannot wait for 'something around the
corner' forever.

I like ASUS and GB (although Gb certainly seems
to be going thru terrible times with some of
thier 845 cards.)...

I do about 6 full weeks of review on EVERYTHING
I plan to put into my systems... and then make
my purchase decisions based on reliability,
performance (including stability) and cost...

I'm going to go Intel 850E (been using VIA for
some time and just think I'll try the 850E)...

Good luck.

deadsquirel · 15th July 2002, 7:11 PM

Ok, I have decided to use my existing adaptec 1200a for now, but im haveing an embarresing newbi problem.

I am trying to install XP using the 3 disk solution. I already have XP installed on the 3rd disk and have set up the two WD in a RAID0 array in HPT bios.

then, i boot into xp and create a partition using Computer Managment -> disk managment and tell it to format it using 16 and NTFS.

then i insert the XP cd and press F6, point it at the drivers and when it asks me where i want to install XP i point it at the new partition i created. Unfortunatly, at this point is says that it has to format it before i can intall on it.... what am i doing wrong?

thanks again,
Dead.

chainbolt · 15th July 2002, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deadsquirel

then i insert the XP cd and press F6, point it at the drivers and when it asks me where i want to install XP i point it at the new partition i created. Unfortunatly, at this point is says that it has to format it before i can intall on it.... what am i doing wrong?

thanks again,
Dead.

Hi: this is strange. There are 2 possibilities

(a) you did NOT create AND format a partition on the RAID 0 array correclty and consequently XP does not find anything. Did you check that an appropriate partition with the minimum size is actually existing on the array?

(b) you handle the XP installation wrong. At this part of the installation process you are refering to you have several options.
You can select the installation on an existing and formated partition or you can choose to install XP on a newly formatted partition in the free space.

GOD · 16th July 2002, 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chainbolt

Hi: this is strange. There are 2 possibilities

(a) you did NOT create AND format a partition on the RAID 0 array correclty and consequently XP does not find anything. Did you check that an appropriate partition with the minimum size is actually existing on the array?

(b) you handle the XP installation wrong. At this part of the installation process you are refering to you have several options.
You can select the installation on an existing and formated partition or you can choose to install XP on a newly formatted partition in the free space.

also if u have more HDD`s then your raid 0 array..
then get rid of the non raid drives while installing the windows....
it will tell u that u don`t have a windows partion or something after it reboots....
took me bloody 12X format to find this out....

deadsquirel · 16th July 2002, 5:13 AM

ok sorted

I have now managed to get XP installed on NTFS.

Unfortunatly, the benchmarks are really low compared with some of the other RAID and even non RAID setups...

could somone suggest what might be wrong? could it just be because im using HPT 370a chipset?

these are the winbench 99 results:

High end disk winmark 99: 33900
disk trnsfr rate: 69000/58500
access time 14
disk cpu utilisation 85.2% (could this be right

)

overall: 33900
AVS: 23700
frontpage98: 190000
microstation se: 46700
photoshop 4: 16700
premiere: 27500
sound forge4: 71200
C++: 36200

any advice greatly appriciated

Dead

chainbolt · 16th July 2002, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by deadsquirel
ok sorted

I have now managed to get XP installed on NTFS.

Unfortunatly, the benchmarks are really low compared with some of the other RAID and even non RAID setups...

could somone suggest what might be wrong? could it just be because im using HPT 370a chipset?

these are the winbench 99 results:

High end disk winmark 99: 33900
disk trnsfr rate: 69000/58500
access time 14
disk cpu utilisation 85.2% (could this be right )

overall: 33900
AVS: 23700
frontpage98: 190000
microstation se: 46700
photoshop 4: 16700
premiere: 27500
sound forge4: 71200
C++: 36200

any advice greatly appriciated

Dead

(a) the HPT 370 is definitely slower than the HPT 372
(b) FAT 32 will give you pronto 5 to 10% better scores
(c) did you try the explained optimization tweaks?

deadsquirel · 16th July 2002, 8:53 PM

Quote:

the HPT 370 is definitely slower than the HPT 372

but could it account for such a massive diff?

Quote:

FAT 32 will give you pronto 5 to 10% better scores

I can live with that for the advantages i get from NTFS

Quote:

did you try the explained optimization tweaks?

both patches are for VIA chipsets. My northbridge is AMD761 so i dont think i can use them...

oh well.... will have a tinker when i get home from work.

thanks again guys

Dead

chainbolt · 17th July 2002, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by deadsquirel

but could it account for such a massive diff?

not alone, but as usual it could be the combination of several negative factors. The patches are indeed for VIA chipsets, that is right, but the optimization includes also the various caches, dsiabling fast detect and such things, also defragging is VERY important before benching HDDs and RAID 0 arrays

brocke8 · 20th July 2002, 8:23 AM

Chainbolt the way you explain how to set up raid 0 only on two drives in the intitial post dosen't work.

After numerous reinstalls, formats and wizadry i can't get 16k clusters on the primary partition of my raid 0 array no matter how hard i try

Is there another way around this problem without going to buy norton ghost or another harddrive just to format the primary partition?

Fustrated!!!!!!

chainbolt · 20th July 2002, 8:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brocke8
Chainbolt the way you explain how to set up raid 0 only on two drives in the intitial post dosen't work.

After numerous reinstalls, formats and wizadry i can't get 16k clusters on the primary partition of my raid 0 array no matter how hard i try

Is there another way around this problem without going to buy norton ghost or another harddrive just to format the primary partition?

Fustrated!!!!!!

Broke, I am sorry for you, but this way has been tried by me and many ppl until now with success. We had already months ago a long thread about this amdmb.com and quite a few ppl tried it this way with success.

are you using W2k or XP?

brocke8 · 21st July 2002, 7:33 PM

windows xp its just doesn't work, i'm about to pull out my son's harddisk reformat it and use it to set my primary partition up

I did partition my second partition with 16k clusters and got an increase of alomost 10000kbs i couldn't belive it now with my seagates i'm getting 44300 kbs transfer rates thats with sisoft sandra

anyway thanks for your help

And who says seagate barracuda IV aren't any good for raid 0 and no i don't have special barras for raid setups they are both around a year old

So guys don't threat if you have barracudas just keep playing and see what works for you

these new 4 in 1 done it for me big jump in transfer rates

vbhard · 22nd July 2002, 5:14 PM

I just got my wd jb 80GB hdd's. I ran sisoft sandra on single drive gave me an increase of about 3500POINTS as compared to 40G 60GXP ibm hdd.

I know that the sisoft is not the good benchmark ...will ran content creation and business winstone once i set up the raid 0 on my jb's

Well yes the way chainy described to set up the RAID has worked for me all the time..

capt0 · 25th July 2002, 12:12 AM

I have a problem with my raid that has been bugging me for weeks now. I run 4x60gig ibm 75gxp's. When i run the ATTO benchmark program over them i get abotu 100 meg read but no higher than 46meg write.

Does anybody know how to increase the write speed? I hasve tried 32k/32k cluster size, 16k/16k cluster size, 128k/64k cluster and they all return about the same value.

Is there anythign special i haveto do to make my drives write faster?

BTW a single drive of mine benchmarks at 37meg read 37 meg write.

joshmryan · 25th July 2002, 9:04 AM

get either some barras or the 8mb wd's

Bonedoc · 27th July 2002, 9:59 AM

Okay, about to buy a 2.26 Northwoods/533 and probably an
850E based MOBO.. (not fully decided yet as I see some nic
e845 G boards)... Mushkin Rambus, and HDs...

Here's the question in this thread:

I am thinking of using a WD 8 MB caching HD for the boot
volume/drive... on a HP 'IDE raid' I/O (pretty sure I'll buy a
card, vs. integrated, but still looking - be the later Highpoint)

I am planning on placing the OS on a single volume/drive,
using a RAID-0 array (16/16 or 16/32) for all DATA, files, downloads and so forth...
and either a ATA133 HD or another
8MB caching (WD is the only one so far, would LOVE to see
an ATA133 w/8MB cache/buffer) for a 'backup' Hard drive...

OS will be XP...

Contemplating the IBM GXP120's for the raid-0 array, 3 drives.

The boot volume/drive most likely either an ATA133 or WD
with 8 mB buffering.

40 GB for C: drive, three 40 GB IBMs for RAID (data volume,
array) and an 80 GB ATA133 or 8MB buffering HD...

All of a HIGH POINT...

How should the array be setup ... two drives off one channel
and one on the other... plus the single drives off of (??hmm,
what?)... think HP allows for eight drives or am I drunk?

Ideas on configuration, comments on this idea... will
spread out the pagefile onto the last 'backup' drive with an
isolated volume (perhaps..)

Heard that PAGEFILEs do NOT LIKE IDE RAID?? Is this true to
anyone else's memory?

Thanks very much.

Take care.

15th July 2002, 7:20 AM	#61
Bonedoc Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 9	HighPoint Hi DS, To be honest, I'm gonna try and find a board that either 'makes' it VERY easy to disable the onboard (integrated) RAID controller and add in a 4 channel IDE RAID card from High Point... or doesn't have an integrated RAID. I want to be able to 'use' it if I upgrade... HP has the ATA 133 rated RAID card (although the new ATA Serial spec is coming out as well!?).. But ya cannot wait for 'something around the corner' forever. I like ASUS and GB (although Gb certainly seems to be going thru terrible times with some of thier 845 cards.)... I do about 6 full weeks of review on EVERYTHING I plan to put into my systems... and then make my purchase decisions based on reliability, performance (including stability) and cost... I'm going to go Intel 850E (been using VIA for some time and just think I'll try the 850E)... Good luck.

25th July 2002, 9:04 AM	#74
joshmryan Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Brisbane. Posts: 686	get either some barras or the 8mb wd's __________________ http://mybitchinkitchen.com.au \| http://jmrit.com.au

27th July 2002, 9:59 AM	#75
Bonedoc Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 9	Upcoming HD config, XP, and "say Chainbolt" Okay, about to buy a 2.26 Northwoods/533 and probably an 850E based MOBO.. (not fully decided yet as I see some nic e845 G boards)... Mushkin Rambus, and HDs... Here's the question in this thread: I am thinking of using a WD 8 MB caching HD for the boot volume/drive... on a HP 'IDE raid' I/O (pretty sure I'll buy a card, vs. integrated, but still looking - be the later Highpoint) I am planning on placing the OS on a single volume/drive, using a RAID-0 array (16/16 or 16/32) for all DATA, files, downloads and so forth... and either a ATA133 HD or another 8MB caching (WD is the only one so far, would LOVE to see an ATA133 w/8MB cache/buffer) for a 'backup' Hard drive... OS will be XP... Contemplating the IBM GXP120's for the raid-0 array, 3 drives. The boot volume/drive most likely either an ATA133 or WD with 8 mB buffering. 40 GB for C: drive, three 40 GB IBMs for RAID (data volume, array) and an 80 GB ATA133 or 8MB buffering HD... All of a HIGH POINT... How should the array be setup ... two drives off one channel and one on the other... plus the single drives off of (??hmm, what?)... think HP allows for eight drives or am I drunk? Ideas on configuration, comments on this idea... will spread out the pagefile onto the last 'backup' drive with an isolated volume (perhaps..) Heard that PAGEFILEs do NOT LIKE IDE RAID?? Is this true to anyone else's memory? Thanks very much. Take care.

15th July 2002, 7:11 PM	#62
deadsquirel Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 6	Ok, I have decided to use my existing adaptec 1200a for now, but im haveing an embarresing newbi problem. I am trying to install XP using the 3 disk solution. I already have XP installed on the 3rd disk and have set up the two WD in a RAID0 array in HPT bios. then, i boot into xp and create a partition using Computer Managment -> disk managment and tell it to format it using 16 and NTFS. then i insert the XP cd and press F6, point it at the drivers and when it asks me where i want to install XP i point it at the new partition i created. Unfortunatly, at this point is says that it has to format it before i can intall on it.... what am i doing wrong? thanks again, Dead.

16th July 2002, 5:13 AM	#65
deadsquirel Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 6	ok sorted I have now managed to get XP installed on NTFS. Unfortunatly, the benchmarks are really low compared with some of the other RAID and even non RAID setups... could somone suggest what might be wrong? could it just be because im using HPT 370a chipset? these are the winbench 99 results: High end disk winmark 99: 33900 disk trnsfr rate: 69000/58500 access time 14 disk cpu utilisation 85.2% (could this be right ) overall: 33900 AVS: 23700 frontpage98: 190000 microstation se: 46700 photoshop 4: 16700 premiere: 27500 sound forge4: 71200 C++: 36200 any advice greatly appriciated Dead

20th July 2002, 8:23 AM	#69
brocke8 Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Dundas, Sydney Posts: 1,282	Chainbolt the way you explain how to set up raid 0 only on two drives in the intitial post dosen't work. After numerous reinstalls, formats and wizadry i can't get 16k clusters on the primary partition of my raid 0 array no matter how hard i try Is there another way around this problem without going to buy norton ghost or another harddrive just to format the primary partition? Fustrated!!!!!!

21st July 2002, 7:33 PM	#71
brocke8 Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Dundas, Sydney Posts: 1,282	windows xp its just doesn't work, i'm about to pull out my son's harddisk reformat it and use it to set my primary partition up I did partition my second partition with 16k clusters and got an increase of alomost 10000kbs i couldn't belive it now with my seagates i'm getting 44300 kbs transfer rates thats with sisoft sandra anyway thanks for your help And who says seagate barracuda IV aren't any good for raid 0 and no i don't have special barras for raid setups they are both around a year old So guys don't threat if you have barracudas just keep playing and see what works for you these new 4 in 1 done it for me big jump in transfer rates

22nd July 2002, 5:14 PM	#72
vbhard Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 2,536	I just got my wd jb 80GB hdd's. I ran sisoft sandra on single drive gave me an increase of about 3500POINTS as compared to 40G 60GXP ibm hdd. I know that the sisoft is not the good benchmark ...will ran content creation and business winstone once i set up the raid 0 on my jb's Well yes the way chainy described to set up the RAID has worked for me all the time..

25th July 2002, 12:12 AM	#73
capt0 Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brisbane Posts: 176	I have a problem with my raid that has been bugging me for weeks now. I run 4x60gig ibm 75gxp's. When i run the ATTO benchmark program over them i get abotu 100 meg read but no higher than 46meg write. Does anybody know how to increase the write speed? I hasve tried 32k/32k cluster size, 16k/16k cluster size, 128k/64k cluster and they all return about the same value. Is there anythign special i haveto do to make my drives write faster? BTW a single drive of mine benchmarks at 37meg read 37 meg write.