Cannot set up RAID!?! Help-usss?

monkeypants

monkeypants

monkeypants

Soldato
Joined
12 Jun 2005
Posts
2,816
Location
A lake!
I cannot for the life of me set up RAID0. I've tried all the SATA ports, and all the options I think. Can someone point me in the direction of a guide on how to do it?

I'm trying to set up a RAID0 array, and then install windows on it. I can do the RAID setup, but after that, the windows installation doesn't find any HDDs. Why? :confused:
 
Ok. When installing Windows (just as it begins on the Blue screen bit) you will see a prompt at the bottom saying press F6 if you wish to install RAID drivers.

Press F6 and a littl e later it will ask you to load those drivers by floppy.

Windows will then be able to see your RAID array.

M
 
noxidjkram@hotm said:
LOL

Been there many times! I can always fault find other peoples problems, but make endless mistakes when sorting my own... :p

M
Click to expand...
Always the way. Which stripe size did you use btw? 16K is for optimum windows speed IIRC.

/OT Hey M, how do you find your ZX's - I got a set coming tomorrow, any good. I chose those over the HZ because of the tight timings (and we all kow what they say on A64!)
 
smids said:
/OT Hey M, how do you find your ZX's - I got a set coming tomorrow, any good. I chose those over the HZ because of the tight timings (and we all kow what they say on A64!)
Click to expand...

Very sexy mate.

I run them at stock speeds & timings (3200, 2,2,3,5 1T).

Just a bit of an edge over my old Corsair XMS3200LL Platinum (2,2,3,6 1T) - 70 points on 3dMark05.

I've looked around, and have seen lots of excellent results when they are pushed - still tight timings, even when clocked high.

[EDIT] Im in exam periods at the mo, so haven't had a chance to play with it - once i'm passed, i'll be pushing them a bit to see what happens - wish me luck [/EDIT]

M
 
Last edited:
noxidjkram@hotm said:
Very sexy mate.

I run them at stock speeds & timings (3200, 2,2,3,5 1T).

Just a bit of an edge over my old Corsair XMS3200LL Platinum (2,2,3,6 1T) - 70 points on 3dMark05.

I've looked around, and have seen lots of excellent results when they are pushed - still tight timings, even when clocked high.

[EDIT] Im in exam periods at the mo, so haven't had a chance to play with it - once i'm passed, i'll be pushing them a bit to see what happens - wish me luck [/EDIT]

M
Click to expand...
Well GL with the exams...got my uni finals in may/june :(. I'm gonna have a fiddle tomorrow night and I'll get back to you. Run 2-2-2-5 1T, go on, push em a bit! :p
 
smids said:
Well GL with the exams...got my uni finals in may/june :(. I'm gonna have a fiddle tomorrow night and I'll get back to you. Run 2-2-2-5 1T, go on, push em a bit! :p
Click to expand...

Ok - you tempted me.

I'll have a go once i get in tonight.

If i have time (and assuming it works) i'll bench on something to see if theres much difference between the 2,2,3,5 and 2,2,2,5.

[EDIT] Bugger - doesn't boot. Won't even go into BIOS at those timings - *sighs* - Ah well

Uni finals huh? Is that your batchelors degree? I'm doing a 1 year Masters ATM - keeps me busy...

[/EDIT]

M
 
Last edited:
OK back on topic: Stripe Size was 128KB, as it was the one it said to use.

EDIT 2: Should I start again with stripe size 16KB?

Also: My non-RAID disk isn't recognised anymore by windows. That's with the drivers installed and trying it in both Sata controllers.

Is there some rule that says you can't have a non-RAID disk with a RAID array?

EDIT: Fixed, it hadn't been initialised in Disk Management
 
Last edited:
monkeypants said:
OK back on topic: Stripe Size was 128KB, as it was the one it said to use.

EDIT 2: Should I start again with stripe size 16KB?

Also: My non-RAID disk isn't recognised anymore by windows. That's with the drivers installed and trying it in both Sata controllers.

Is there some rule that says you can't have a non-RAID disk with a RAID array?

EDIT: Fixed, it hadn't been initialised in Disk Management
Click to expand...
It depends on your use. Windows likes a small stripe as most OS files are tiny. (Remember in a RAID0, anything smaller than the stripe size is only placed on one disk, removing RAID0 performance from that file). The OS would be very snappy and benchmarks would be very high.

If you play games or deal with lots of large files, then a larger stripe is better as each file is broken down into less pieces (less CPU and much less seeking). So OS only with programs: 16K, Gaming: 64K +.
 
This thread is pretty hijacked already so why stop now?

Just used this fantastic tool to check the distribution of file sizes. Turns out that 47.2% of files in C:\WINDOWS are less than 16KB. Does this mean that 50% of files (in the win directory) will see no advantage at all with a stripe of 16k?
 
joeyjojo said:
This thread is pretty hijacked already so why stop now?

Just used this fantastic tool to check the distribution of file sizes. Turns out that 47.2% of files in C:\WINDOWS are less than 16KB. Does this mean that 50% of files (in the win directory) will see no advantage at all with a stripe of 16k?
Click to expand...


Yep.

Though its fairly meaningless data anyway without some contextual information about when those windows files are used.

i.e.

During bootup (as an example):

1) If all the files used are larger than 16k (and i'm not saying they are) then you would get a full performance gain on bootup from RAID0.

2) If there is an even distribution of files larger/smaller then you will get a speed boost on those over the stripe size (i.e. 50%).

3) If all the files are smaller than 16k used on bootup you would see no performance gain.

I'd guess the second option is more likely...

M
 
I re-did it to 16Kb Stripe. Played Far Cry and saw no real loading time decrease (I don't think it was any faster, maybe even a little slower).

Now, I am prepared to start all over again with a 32Kb or 64Kb stripe length if I will see a MARKED improvement in loading times.

Which one is reccommended by you?
 
See smids reply about 3 or 4 up.

Games have larger files - they benefit from a larger stripe (reduced CPU/Seek time).

I cant comment on how big a performance increase you will see, although i doubt it will be significant - being me i could not be chewed on for the odd second here and there, I wouldn't bother.

Smids - you know a hell of a lot more than I do here, whats your experience??

M
 
noxidjkram@hotm said:
See smids reply about 3 or 4 up.
Click to expand...
Yars, I've seen it, I just want to know whether I'll see a decent speed boost or not. Windows loading super fast is rather cool, if there's no gain I'll leave it as it is.
 
monkeypants said:
Yars, I've seen it, I just want to know whether I'll see a decent speed boost or not. Windows loading super fast is rather cool, if there's no gain I'll leave it as it is.
Click to expand...
Well my first RAID0 was 64K and that was very snappy at loading games. I was ALWAYS first on servers etc. When I redid 16K for windows, I was always about 1st-3rd on server (these are HL2 maps, so a new game). I was a bit faster on the larger stripe, I must admit. Boot times were fast all round really. TBH, I went for OS 16K because game loading is less important to me (once every map, that's it) than running windows quickly as well as normal programs. I hope that helps.

@MJ: I guess I picked it up from these forums and reading a bit when someone asks a question. :)
 
I'll keep the 16Kb for a while then and see how other games load.

Specifically looking for offline single player loading times. How were they in HL2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom