Raid array issue when reverting x64 to XP Pro?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?VHJhc2sgbmVlZHMgSEVMUCE=?=, May 24, 2006.

  1. 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!
     
    =?Utf-8?B?VHJhc2sgbmVlZHMgSEVMUCE=?=, May 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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:...
    >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!
     
    Tony Sperling, May 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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 Russel - MVP, May 24, 2006
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhc2sgbmVlZHMgSEVMUCE=?=

    Larry Hodges Guest

    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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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!

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, May 24, 2006
    #4
  5. 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:...
    > 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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!

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, May 24, 2006
    #5
  6. 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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 Russel - MVP, May 24, 2006
    #6
  7. 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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:...
    >> 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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 Russel - MVP, May 24, 2006
    #7
  8. 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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 Russel - MVP, May 24, 2006
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhc2sgbmVlZHMgSEVMUCE=?=

    John John Guest

    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.
    >
     
    John John, May 24, 2006
    #9
  10. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhc2sgbmVlZHMgSEVMUCE=?=

    Larry Hodges Guest

    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/produc...chnology/SCSI/Ultra320 SCSI PCI-X HBAs & 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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!

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, May 24, 2006
    #10
  11. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhc2sgbmVlZHMgSEVMUCE=?=

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    It won't fry all of the drives, but you won't be able to recover any data
    from the drives that didn't fail.

    - Aaron

    "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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/produc...chnology/SCSI/Ultra320 SCSI PCI-X HBAs & 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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!

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Aaron Kelley, May 24, 2006
    #11
  12. No, it won't fry disks or damage additional disks on the controller. Those
    are subject to their ordinary behaviour and risks. What it will do is
    invalidate the array, which is not rebuildable. You'll have to delete the
    array, and remove the failed disk. Then any remaining disk(s) that were in
    the array will be available for new arrays.

    Using RAID0 for non-critical data and to improve speed is a valid scenario.
    I would never use it on an OS partition, or a partition where I stored user
    data or files. But for file serving of relatively static files that are well
    backed up? Sure.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc

    Larry Hodges wrote:
    > 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/produc...chnology/SCSI/Ultra320 SCSI PCI-X HBAs & 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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_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 Russel - MVP, May 24, 2006
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhc2sgbmVlZHMgSEVMUCE=?=

    Rob Perkins Guest

    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.
    >


    Those are the ones who always want you to fix it for free.

    Rob
     
    Rob Perkins, May 26, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    818
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    390
  3. =?Utf-8?B?Um9tZW9K?=

    x64 install on RAID array

    =?Utf-8?B?Um9tZW9K?=, Dec 8, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    393
    Tony Sperling
    Dec 8, 2006
  4. amrutha0303
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    990
    amrutha0303
    Aug 3, 2010
  5. amrutha0303
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,143
    amrutha0303
    Aug 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page