«

I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0 array.
This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the x64 edition
OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want it in x64!) I have
attempted the F6 function repeateadly and installed the correct RAID drivers
during the install of XP Pro, this does not fave any effect. My problem had
nothing to do with the boot sequence as I have it set to boot from C.D.
primary and the install begins from the XP Pro C.D. just fine. PLEASE HELP!

Your RAID is currently set up with an x64 driver, you need to supply a
floppy with the proper driver (32bit) during the initial moments of the
installation - you are asked to press [F6] if you want to configure any SCSI
HD. Do that and have that floppy ready, you will be instructed to insert it
later.

This stuff needs a driver that conforms to the system you are installing.

Tony. . .


"Trask needs HELP!" <Trask needs HELP!@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:0E0DD29E-F429-49EC-9486-...
>I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
> array.
> This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the x64
> edition
> OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want it in x64!) I
> have
> attempted the F6 function repeateadly and installed the correct RAID
> drivers
> during the install of XP Pro, this does not fave any effect. My problem
> had
> nothing to do with the boot sequence as I have it set to boot from C.D.
> primary and the install begins from the XP Pro C.D. just fine. PLEASE
> HELP!

You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
absolutely _need_ a driver.

I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system before
going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard drive, but
get your system backed up before you start messing around with RAID0.

Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same partition that
currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc

Trask needs HELP! wrote:
> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want it
> in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and installed the
> correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this does not fave any
> effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot sequence as I have it
> set to boot from C.D. primary and the install begins from the XP Pro C.D.
> just fine. PLEASE HELP!

Charlie, do you know much about RAID0? Is it stable and secure? I'm
running SCSI, and my Adaptec card supports it. I was thinking about picking
up another 15k HD and doing .RAID0, but I've heard it's not as reliable as a
single disk.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
> absolutely _need_ a driver.
>
> I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system before
> going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard drive,
> but get your system backed up before you start messing around with RAID0.
>
> Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same partition that
> currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc
>
> Trask needs HELP! wrote:
>> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
>> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
>> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
>> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
>> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want it
>> in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and installed the
>> correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this does not fave any
>> effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot sequence as I have it
>> set to boot from C.D. primary and the install begins from the XP Pro C.D.
>> just fine. PLEASE HELP!
>
>

The predominant view of most professionals seems to be that the magnitude of
the risks involved automatically disqualify a RAID 0 - my own view is that
it entirely depends on your needs. If your back-up necessities can be easily
served by backing up your personal data partition, or whatever your setup -
I think you might be quite happy, can't vouch for the SCSI situation,
though.

I had personally invested in a SATA1 HD when I installed x64, it sat next to
an older IDE drive with Win2K in a dual-boot system. But I was quite
dismayed that the IDE drive was actually faster than the SATA - less than
marginal difference, but the SATA was not faster as I had expected. I then
bought a twin drive for the SATA and set up a RAID 0 and the throughput
almost doubled while having full use of the doubled volume space as well.
This is good economy for my investment, I think.

Now for the if's and but's:

The danger of actually having an error can be disputed, i'm sure. The more
disks you employ, the bigger the risk of having one of them go bad, but I do
not believe that your risk of loosing data is bigger with a RAID 0 than it
would be on a system with two separate non-RAID'ed drives, but there is no
question that if you have an error on a RAID 0 you stand to loose
everything, not just the bad disk! It is also difficult (often impossible)
to transfer to a new or rebuilt system.

So, it is a question of where you want to put your redundancy - to reep for
speed and volume? or to reep for safety, because with the RAID formats of an
order for which it was originally intended, you can simply toss a bad
drive/drives and replace it with a new one, and you will have lost nothing -
this naturally is extremely good economy if you run a business where you
gamble with your customer data-base for example.

If you do any kind of professional computing, and seeing that you already
have a SCSI setup, my recommendation would be to invest in a third drive and
set up a higher order RAID where you can have it both ways, not as big a
speed bonus as RAID 0 and you waste some space but you retain complete
safety. I think especially in your situation with the initial investment
already taken care of that a third drive would be a relatively small
investment for a big bonus return.

---------

"An author needs at least one reader - two would be better, because then
they can disagree!"

---------


Tony. . .



"Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
news:6LudnYzc-...
> Charlie, do you know much about RAID0? Is it stable and secure? I'm
> running SCSI, and my Adaptec card supports it. I was thinking about
> picking up another 15k HD and doing .RAID0, but I've heard it's not as
> reliable as a single disk.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
>> absolutely _need_ a driver.
>>
>> I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system before
>> going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard drive,
>> but get your system backed up before you start messing around with RAID0.
>>
>> Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same partition that
>> currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc
>>
>> Trask needs HELP! wrote:
>>> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
>>> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
>>> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
>>> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
>>> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want it
>>> in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and installed the
>>> correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this does not fave
>>> any
>>> effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot sequence as I have
>>> it
>>> set to boot from C.D. primary and the install begins from the XP Pro
>>> C.D.
>>> just fine. PLEASE HELP!
>>
>>
>
>

Yes, I know a good deal about RAID 0. and NO IT IS NOT STABLE AND SECURE.

RAID 0 is NOT REDUNDANT. It actually INCREASES your risk of catastrophic
failure and data loss. It is fast - yes. But it is very inappropriate on any
drive you don't want to loae data on. If any disk in a RAID0 array fails,
the entire array is toast and you get to start over from bare metal.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc

Larry Hodges wrote:
> Charlie, do you know much about RAID0? Is it stable and secure? I'm
> running SCSI, and my Adaptec card supports it. I was thinking about
> picking up another 15k HD and doing .RAID0, but I've heard it's not as
> reliable as a single disk.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
>> absolutely _need_ a driver.
>>
>> I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system before
>> going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard drive,
>> but get your system backed up before you start messing around with RAID0.
>>
>> Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same partition that
>> currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc
>>
>> Trask needs HELP! wrote:
>>> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
>>> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
>>> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
>>> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
>>> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want it
>>> in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and installed the
>>> correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this does not fave
>>> any effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot sequence as I
>>> have it set to boot from C.D. primary and the install begins from the
>>> XP Pro C.D. just fine. PLEASE HELP!

RAID 0 with 2 disks doubles your risk of total data loss. With 4 disks, it
quadruples it. Etc. Calling this RAID is a total misnomer. It is NOT
redundant, rather the opposite.

All that being said - it IS faster. And it's true, if you had the same
number of disks in the machine, running independently, your risk of failure
is the same. But in the case of independent disks, your exposure to data
loss is only the one disk, not everything. You lose one disk in a RAID 0,
you lose everything on the RAID 0.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc

Tony Sperling wrote:
> The predominant view of most professionals seems to be that the magnitude
> of the risks involved automatically disqualify a RAID 0 - my own view is
> that it entirely depends on your needs. If your back-up necessities can
> be easily served by backing up your personal data partition, or whatever
> your setup - I think you might be quite happy, can't vouch for the SCSI
> situation, though.
>
> I had personally invested in a SATA1 HD when I installed x64, it sat next
> to an older IDE drive with Win2K in a dual-boot system. But I was quite
> dismayed that the IDE drive was actually faster than the SATA - less than
> marginal difference, but the SATA was not faster as I had expected. I then
> bought a twin drive for the SATA and set up a RAID 0 and the throughput
> almost doubled while having full use of the doubled volume space as well.
> This is good economy for my investment, I think.
>
> Now for the if's and but's:
>
> The danger of actually having an error can be disputed, i'm sure. The more
> disks you employ, the bigger the risk of having one of them go bad, but I
> do not believe that your risk of loosing data is bigger with a RAID 0
> than it would be on a system with two separate non-RAID'ed drives, but
> there is no question that if you have an error on a RAID 0 you stand to
> loose everything, not just the bad disk! It is also difficult (often
> impossible) to transfer to a new or rebuilt system.
>
> So, it is a question of where you want to put your redundancy - to reep
> for speed and volume? or to reep for safety, because with the RAID
> formats of an order for which it was originally intended, you can simply
> toss a bad drive/drives and replace it with a new one, and you will have
> lost nothing - this naturally is extremely good economy if you run a
> business where you gamble with your customer data-base for example.
>
> If you do any kind of professional computing, and seeing that you already
> have a SCSI setup, my recommendation would be to invest in a third drive
> and set up a higher order RAID where you can have it both ways, not as
> big a speed bonus as RAID 0 and you waste some space but you retain
> complete safety. I think especially in your situation with the initial
> investment already taken care of that a third drive would be a relatively
> small investment for a big bonus return.
>
> ---------
>
> "An author needs at least one reader - two would be better, because then
> they can disagree!"
>
> ---------
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
> news:6LudnYzc-...
>> Charlie, do you know much about RAID0? Is it stable and secure? I'm
>> running SCSI, and my Adaptec card supports it. I was thinking about
>> picking up another 15k HD and doing .RAID0, but I've heard it's not as
>> reliable as a single disk.
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
>>> absolutely _need_ a driver.
>>>
>>> I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system
>>> before going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard
>>> drive, but get your system backed up before you start messing around
>>> with RAID0. Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same
>>> partition that
>>> currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc
>>>
>>> Trask needs HELP! wrote:
>>>> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
>>>> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
>>>> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
>>>> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
>>>> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want
>>>> it in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and
>>>> installed the correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this
>>>> does not fave any
>>>> effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot sequence as I have
>>>> it
>>>> set to boot from C.D. primary and the install begins from the XP Pro
>>>> C.D.
>>>> just fine. PLEASE HELP!

Hmmm. I think I feel rather strongly about that, don't I? Sorry for the
shouting. But I've had to explain to too many people that their entire
computer is lost and they can either pay a large fee for someone to try data
recovery on it, or start over. And no, there is no way to recover their
photos of Mom.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> Yes, I know a good deal about RAID 0. and NO IT IS NOT STABLE AND SECURE.
>
> RAID 0 is NOT REDUNDANT. It actually INCREASES your risk of catastrophic
> failure and data loss. It is fast - yes. But it is very inappropriate on
> any drive you don't want to loae data on. If any disk in a RAID0 array
> fails, the entire array is toast and you get to start over from bare
> metal.
>
>
> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> Charlie, do you know much about RAID0? Is it stable and secure? I'm
>> running SCSI, and my Adaptec card supports it. I was thinking about
>> picking up another 15k HD and doing .RAID0, but I've heard it's not as
>> reliable as a single disk.
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
>>> absolutely _need_ a driver.
>>>
>>> I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system
>>> before going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard
>>> drive, but get your system backed up before you start messing around
>>> with RAID0. Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same
>>> partition that
>>> currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc
>>>
>>> Trask needs HELP! wrote:
>>>> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
>>>> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
>>>> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
>>>> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
>>>> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want
>>>> it in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and
>>>> installed the correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this
>>>> does not fave any effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot
>>>> sequence as I have it set to boot from C.D. primary and the install
>>>> begins from the XP Pro C.D. just fine. PLEASE HELP!

It's something that's bound to pop up more often now that we have SATA
drives and motherboards with integrated RAID. Used to be, in the old
days (not so long ago), that setting up a disk array was a bit
complicated and certainly costly! It wasn't something you did just by
"accident" or just because it "seemed" like a good idea. Now it's all
too easy to do and those without experience or with only superficial
understanding of RAID are setting up 2 disk arrays in their home
computers. Without debating the pro's and con's of doing RAID, you can
bet your bottom dollar that more posts are going to pop up with pleas
for help to recover lost data because of failed RAID0 arrays.

John

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> Hmmm. I think I feel rather strongly about that, don't I? Sorry for the
> shouting. But I've had to explain to too many people that their entire
> computer is lost and they can either pay a large fee for someone to try data
> recovery on it, or start over. And no, there is no way to recover their
> photos of Mom.
>

I realize RAID0 acts like a single drive. I realize that they are NOT
mirrored, creating redundancy.

I have a dual channel Adaptec 39320 controller. Here is the card if you
need to read about it:

http://adaptec.com/worldwide/product...+HBAs+%26+RAID

I have other SCSI drives in my system, which I use for data backup, music,
etc. I've not set the raid up, but I'm assuming these can coexist with the
RAID on the same controller?

But let me get this straight. Are you saying that if one of the two drives
in the RAID configuration fails, it will fry all the drives on the card?
What if the drives are on another SCSI card in the same system? (I do have a
29160 I could toss back in for my other drives if need be.) And if one of
the drives in the RAID fails (I understand the data is lost on both drives),
couldn't I replace the bad drive, reformat the drives and be back up?

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:eWv9N%...
> Yes, I know a good deal about RAID 0. and NO IT IS NOT STABLE AND SECURE.
>
> RAID 0 is NOT REDUNDANT. It actually INCREASES your risk of catastrophic
> failure and data loss. It is fast - yes. But it is very inappropriate on
> any drive you don't want to loae data on. If any disk in a RAID0 array
> fails, the entire array is toast and you get to start over from bare
> metal.
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc
>
> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> Charlie, do you know much about RAID0? Is it stable and secure? I'm
>> running SCSI, and my Adaptec card supports it. I was thinking about
>> picking up another 15k HD and doing .RAID0, but I've heard it's not as
>> reliable as a single disk.
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
>>> absolutely _need_ a driver.
>>>
>>> I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system
>>> before
>>> going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard drive,
>>> but get your system backed up before you start messing around with
>>> RAID0.
>>>
>>> Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same partition that
>>> currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght_for_Me.doc
>>>
>>> Trask needs HELP! wrote:
>>>> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
>>>> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
>>>> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
>>>> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
>>>> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want
>>>> it
>>>> in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and installed
>>>> the
>>>> correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this does not fave
>>>> any effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot sequence as I
>>>> have it set to boot from C.D. primary and the install begins from the
>>>> XP Pro C.D. just fine. PLEASE HELP!
>
>