Knowledgeable RAID diagnosis requested

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going well for
about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70 mb/s
range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be described as
"hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to about 1 mb/sec
and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak to peak
cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.

I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB problem. Here
is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I could
look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and B and the drives
d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately (i.e. first
connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my results where
OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in the drive:

Tests with both drives connected:
T to d1 OK
B to d2 Not OK

T to d2 OK
B to d1 Not OK

B to d1 Ok
T to d2 Not OK
(note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)


Tests with only one drive connected:
T to d1 OK

B to d1 OK

T to d2 OK

B to d2 OK

My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem that only
shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows this stuff
better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on this and
whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some rule of
connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.

If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get to the
bottom of the problem?

Thanks.

ColBlip.
E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
26 answers Last reply
More about knowledgeable raid diagnosis requested
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Onboard RAID or add-on RAID card?
    What model motherboard?

    MC


    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    >I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going well for
    >about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70 mb/s
    >range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be described as
    >"hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to about 1 mb/sec
    >and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak to peak
    >cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    >
    > I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB problem.
    > Here is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I
    > could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and B and
    > the drives d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    > (i.e. first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my
    > results where OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is
    > cycle in the drive:
    >
    > Tests with both drives connected:
    > T to d1 OK
    > B to d2 Not OK
    >
    > T to d2 OK
    > B to d1 Not OK
    >
    > B to d1 Ok
    > T to d2 Not OK
    > (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    >
    >
    > Tests with only one drive connected:
    > T to d1 OK
    >
    > B to d1 OK
    >
    > T to d2 OK
    >
    > B to d2 OK
    >
    > My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem that
    > only shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows this
    > stuff better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on this
    > and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some rule of
    > connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    >
    > If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get to the
    > bottom of the problem?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =----
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, Marc!
    You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:20:40 -0400:

    I am using an Asus A7V8X with onboard RAID.

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    MS> Onboard RAID or add-on RAID card?
    MS> What model motherboard?

    MS> MC

    MS> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    MS> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    ??>> well for about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in
    ??>> the 70 mb/s range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    ??>> described as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down
    ??>> to about 1 mb/sec and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down
    ??>> again. The peak to peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>
    ??>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>> problem. Here is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two
    ??>> RAID 0+1 so I could look at them independently. I call the m/b
    ??>> connectors T and B and the drives d1 and d2. I checked each of the
    ??>> drives/connections separately (i.e. first connecting T to d1 and
    ??>> testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my results where OK is normal
    ??>> consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in the drive:
    ??>>
    ??>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>> T to d1 OK
    ??>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>
    ??>> T to d2 OK
    ??>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>
    ??>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>
    ??>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem that
    ??>> only shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    ??>> this stuff better than me (which is probably most people here) comment
    ??>> on this and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    ??>> rule of connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>
    ??>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get to
    ??>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    ??>> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    ??>> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    ??>> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    How did you "check the array"?

    > ??>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>> T to d2 Not OK

    Isn't above a bit contradicting. Can you explain?

    > Hello, Marc!
    > You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:20:40 -0400:
    >
    > I am using an Asus A7V8X with onboard RAID.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    > MS> Onboard RAID or add-on RAID card?
    > MS> What model motherboard?
    >
    > MS> MC
    >
    > MS> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > MS> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    > ??>> well for about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in
    > ??>> the 70 mb/s range. Then I began to have problems with what can best
    be
    > ??>> described as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going
    down
    > ??>> to about 1 mb/sec and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down
    > ??>> again. The peak to peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    > ??>> problem. Here is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two
    > ??>> RAID 0+1 so I could look at them independently. I call the m/b
    > ??>> connectors T and B and the drives d1 and d2. I checked each of the
    > ??>> drives/connections separately (i.e. first connecting T to d1 and
    > ??>> testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my results where OK is normal
    > ??>> consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in the drive:
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Tests with both drives connected:
    > ??>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>> B to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>> T to d2 Not OK
    > ??>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    > ??>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> B to d1 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> B to d2 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem
    that
    > ??>> only shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who
    knows
    > ??>> this stuff better than me (which is probably most people here)
    comment
    > ??>> on this and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break
    some
    > ??>> rule of connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get
    to
    > ??>> the bottom of the problem?
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Thanks.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ColBlip.
    > ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > ??>> News==----
    > ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > 120,000+
    > ??>> Newsgroups
    > ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    Encryption
    > ??>> =----
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    =----
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on the hd's?

    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going well
    for
    > about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70 mb/s
    > range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be described as
    > "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to about 1
    mb/sec
    > and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak to peak
    > cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    >
    > I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB problem.
    Here
    > is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I could
    > look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and B and the
    drives
    > d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately (i.e. first
    > connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my results
    where
    > OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in the
    drive:
    >
    > Tests with both drives connected:
    > T to d1 OK
    > B to d2 Not OK
    >
    > T to d2 OK
    > B to d1 Not OK
    >
    > B to d1 Ok
    > T to d2 Not OK
    > (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    >
    >
    > Tests with only one drive connected:
    > T to d1 OK
    >
    > B to d1 OK
    >
    > T to d2 OK
    >
    > B to d2 OK
    >
    > My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem that
    only
    > shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows this
    stuff
    > better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on this and
    > whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some rule of
    > connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    >
    > If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get to the
    > bottom of the problem?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    =----
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, MrGrumpy!
    You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:

    Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    M> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on the
    M> hd's?

    M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    ??>> well
    M> for
    ??>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70 mb/s
    ??>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be described
    ??>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to about
    ??>> 1
    M> mb/sec
    ??>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak to
    ??>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>
    ??>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>> problem.
    M> Here
    ??>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I
    ??>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and B
    ??>> and the
    M> drives
    ??>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately (i.e.
    ??>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my
    ??>> results
    M> where
    ??>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in the
    M> drive:
    ??>>
    ??>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>> T to d1 OK
    ??>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>
    ??>> T to d2 OK
    ??>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>
    ??>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>
    ??>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>
    ??>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem that
    M> only
    ??>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows this
    M> stuff
    ??>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on this
    ??>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some rule of
    ??>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>
    ??>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get to
    ??>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    M> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    M> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, Peter!
    You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:19:21 -0400:

    P> How did you "check the array"?

    ??>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>> T to d2 Not OK

    P> Isn't above a bit contradicting. Can you explain?

    The only way I could do it was to delete the RAID0 array and recreate two
    RAID0+1 disks 'arrays', one each on each of the hd's. Then I could see each
    of the disks independently. I had no way to check the disks in the array
    independently when set as RAID0 since all one sees is a single volume.


    [Sorry, skipped]


    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They are
    freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for diagnosing hd
    problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd to enable
    data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case, since you have
    chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault tollerance.
    http://www.acnc.com/raid.html

    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    >
    > Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    > M> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on the
    > M> hd's?
    >
    > M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    > ??>> well
    > M> for
    > ??>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70
    mb/s
    > ??>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be described
    > ??>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    about
    > ??>> 1
    > M> mb/sec
    > ??>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak to
    > ??>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    > ??>> problem.
    > M> Here
    > ??>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I
    > ??>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and B
    > ??>> and the
    > M> drives
    > ??>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately (i.e.
    > ??>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my
    > ??>> results
    > M> where
    > ??>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in
    the
    > M> drive:
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Tests with both drives connected:
    > ??>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>> B to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>> T to d2 Not OK
    > ??>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    > ??>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> B to d1 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> B to d2 OK
    > ??>>
    > ??>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem
    that
    > M> only
    > ??>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    this
    > M> stuff
    > ??>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on this
    > ??>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some rule
    of
    > ??>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get
    to
    > ??>> the bottom of the problem?
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Thanks.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ColBlip.
    > ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > M> News==----
    > ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > 120,000+
    > M> Newsgroups
    > ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    Encryption
    > M> =----
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    =----
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, MrGrumpy!
    You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:

    I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA array on my
    m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off of the two m/b
    connectors.

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    M> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They are
    M> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for diagnosing
    M> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd to
    M> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case, since
    M> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault tollerance.
    M> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html

    M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    ??>>
    ??>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    M>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on the
    M>>> hd's?
    ??>>
    M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    ??>>>> well
    M>>> for
    ??>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70
    M> mb/s
    ??>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be described
    ??>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    M> about
    ??>>>> 1
    M>>> mb/sec
    ??>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak to
    ??>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>>>> problem.
    M>>> Here
    ??>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I
    ??>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and B
    ??>>>> and the
    M>>> drives
    ??>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately (i.e.
    ??>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are my
    ??>>>> results
    M>>> where
    ??>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in
    M> the
    M>>> drive:
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem
    M> that
    M>>> only
    ??>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    M> this
    M>>> stuff
    ??>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on this
    ??>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some rule
    M> of
    ??>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to get
    M> to
    ??>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M>>> News==----
    ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>> 120,000+
    M>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M> Encryption
    M>>> =----
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    M> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    M> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA, if the
    tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my Serial
    drives, and finding one failing.
    Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier bios - I know
    this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems with raid
    controllers.

    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    >
    > I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    > deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA array on my
    > m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off of the two m/b
    > connectors.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    > M> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They are
    > M> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    diagnosing
    > M> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd to
    > M> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    since
    > M> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    tollerance.
    > M> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    >
    > M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Thanks.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ColBlip.
    > ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>
    > M>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on
    the
    > M>>> hd's?
    > ??>>
    > M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    > ??>>>> well
    > M>>> for
    > ??>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70
    > M> mb/s
    > ??>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    described
    > ??>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    > M> about
    > ??>>>> 1
    > M>>> mb/sec
    > ??>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak
    to
    > ??>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    > ??>>>> problem.
    > M>>> Here
    > ??>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I
    > ??>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and
    B
    > ??>>>> and the
    > M>>> drives
    > ??>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    (i.e.
    > ??>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are
    my
    > ??>>>> results
    > M>>> where
    > ??>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in
    > M> the
    > M>>> drive:
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    > ??>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    > ??>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> B to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> B to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem
    > M> that
    > M>>> only
    > ??>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    > M> this
    > M>>> stuff
    > ??>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    this
    > ??>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    rule
    > M> of
    > ??>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    get
    > M> to
    > ??>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    Usenet
    > M>>> News==----
    > ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>> 120,000+
    > M>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M> Encryption
    > M>>> =----
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > M> News==----
    > ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > 120,000+
    > M> Newsgroups
    > ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    Encryption
    > M> =----
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    =----
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, MrGrumpy!
    You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:

    Thanks. Missed the point about SATA when I got the DFT tool. Seems to add
    fuel to my fire that the m/b is the source of the problem and not the
    drives.


    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    M> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA, if
    M> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    M> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my Serial
    M> drives, and finding one failing.
    M> Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier bios - I
    M> know this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems with
    M> raid controllers.

    M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    ??>>
    ??>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    ??>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA array
    ??>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off of
    ??>> the two m/b connectors.
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    M>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They are
    M>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    M> diagnosing
    M>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd to
    M>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    M> since
    M>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    M> tollerance.
    M>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    ??>>
    M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on
    M> the
    M>>>>> hd's?
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    ??>>>>>> well
    M>>>>> for
    ??>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70
    M>>> mb/s
    ??>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    M> described
    ??>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    M>>> about
    ??>>>>>> 1
    M>>>>> mb/sec
    ??>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak
    M> to
    ??>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>>>>>> problem.
    M>>>>> Here
    ??>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I
    ??>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and
    M> B
    ??>>>>>> and the
    M>>>>> drives
    ??>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    M> (i.e.
    ??>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are
    M> my
    ??>>>>>> results
    M>>>>> where
    ??>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in
    M>>> the
    M>>>>> drive:
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem
    M>>> that
    M>>>>> only
    ??>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    M>>> this
    M>>>>> stuff
    ??>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    M> this
    ??>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    M> rule
    M>>> of
    ??>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    M> get
    M>>> to
    ??>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M> Usenet
    M>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>> Encryption
    M>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M>>> News==----
    ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>> 120,000+
    M>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M> Encryption
    M>>> =----
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    M> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    M> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, MrGrumpy!
    You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:

    Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0 array and
    recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the drives.

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    M> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA, if
    M> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    M> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my Serial
    M> drives, and finding one failing.
    M> Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier bios - I
    M> know this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems with
    M> raid controllers.

    M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    ??>>
    ??>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    ??>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA array
    ??>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off of
    ??>> the two m/b connectors.
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    M>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They are
    M>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    M> diagnosing
    M>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd to
    M>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    M> since
    M>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    M> tollerance.
    M>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    ??>>
    M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on
    M> the
    M>>>>> hd's?
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was going
    ??>>>>>> well
    M>>>>> for
    ??>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70
    M>>> mb/s
    ??>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    M> described
    ??>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    M>>> about
    ??>>>>>> 1
    M>>>>> mb/sec
    ??>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak
    M> to
    ??>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>>>>>> problem.
    M>>>>> Here
    ??>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so I
    ??>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and
    M> B
    ??>>>>>> and the
    M>>>>> drives
    ??>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    M> (i.e.
    ??>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are
    M> my
    ??>>>>>> results
    M>>>>> where
    ??>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in
    M>>> the
    M>>>>> drive:
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem
    M>>> that
    M>>>>> only
    ??>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    M>>> this
    M>>>>> stuff
    ??>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    M> this
    ??>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    M> rule
    M>>> of
    ??>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    M> get
    M>>> to
    ??>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M> Usenet
    M>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>> Encryption
    M>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M>>> News==----
    ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>> 120,000+
    M>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M> Encryption
    M>>> =----
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    M> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    M> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal an add-on
    Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.

    MS
    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    >
    > Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0 array and
    > recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the drives.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    > M> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA, if
    > M> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    > M> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my Serial
    > M> drives, and finding one failing.
    > M> Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier bios - I
    > M> know this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems with
    > M> raid controllers.
    >
    > M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    > ??>>
    > ??>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    > ??>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA array
    > ??>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off of
    > ??>> the two m/b connectors.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Thanks.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ColBlip.
    > ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>
    > M>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They
    > are
    > M>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    > M> diagnosing
    > M>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd
    > to
    > M>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    > M> since
    > M>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    > M> tollerance.
    > M>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    > ??>>
    > M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>
    > M>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on
    > M> the
    > M>>>>> hd's?
    > ??>>>>
    > M>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    > going
    > ??>>>>>> well
    > M>>>>> for
    > ??>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the 70
    > M>>> mb/s
    > ??>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    > M> described
    > ??>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    > M>>> about
    > ??>>>>>> 1
    > M>>>>> mb/sec
    > ??>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The peak
    > M> to
    > ??>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    > ??>>>>>> problem.
    > M>>>>> Here
    > ??>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so
    > I
    > ??>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T and
    > M> B
    > ??>>>>>> and the
    > M>>>>> drives
    > ??>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    > M> (i.e.
    > ??>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are
    > M> my
    > ??>>>>>> results
    > M>>>>> where
    > ??>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle in
    > M>>> the
    > M>>>>> drive:
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    > ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    > ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID problem
    > M>>> that
    > M>>>>> only
    > ??>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    > M>>> this
    > M>>>>> stuff
    > ??>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    > M> this
    > ??>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    > M> rule
    > M>>> of
    > ??>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    > M> get
    > M>>> to
    > ??>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > M> Usenet
    > M>>>>> News==----
    > ??>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>>>> 120,000+
    > M>>>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M>>> Encryption
    > M>>>>> =----
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > Usenet
    > M>>> News==----
    > ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>> 120,000+
    > M>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M> Encryption
    > M>>> =----
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > M> News==----
    > ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > 120,000+
    > M> Newsgroups
    > ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > M> =----
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =----
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, Marc!
    You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:20:08 -0400:

    I've got a promise controller that I think can do raid but not sata. I'm out
    of luck on laying my hands on a raid sata card. I'm the expert among my
    friends so that should scare you. <g>

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    MS> Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal an
    MS> add-on Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    MS> Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.

    MS> MS
    MS> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    MS> news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    ??>>
    ??>> Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0 array
    ??>> and recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the
    ??>> drives.
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    M>>> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA, if
    M>>> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    M>>> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my
    M>>> Serial drives, and finding one failing. Asus have acknowledged
    M>>> problems with Sil controller on earlier bios - I know this is not
    M>>> relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems with raid
    M>>> controllers.
    ??>>
    M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    ??>>>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA array
    ??>>>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off of
    ??>>>> the two m/b connectors.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They
    ??>> are
    M>>>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    M>>> diagnosing
    M>>>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd
    ??>> to
    M>>>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    M>>> since
    M>>>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    M>>> tollerance.
    M>>>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility on
    M>>> the
    M>>>>>>> hd's?
    ??>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    ??>> going
    ??>>>>>>>> well
    M>>>>>>> for
    ??>>>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the
    ??>>>>>>>> 70
    M>>>>> mb/s
    ??>>>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    M>>> described
    ??>>>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    M>>>>> about
    ??>>>>>>>> 1
    M>>>>>>> mb/sec
    ??>>>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The
    ??>>>>>>>> peak
    M>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>>>>>>>> problem.
    M>>>>>>> Here
    ??>>>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1 so

    ??>> I
    ??>>>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T
    ??>>>>>>>> and
    M>>> B
    ??>>>>>>>> and the
    M>>>>>>> drives
    ??>>>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    M>>> (i.e.
    ??>>>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here are
    M>>> my
    ??>>>>>>>> results
    M>>>>>>> where
    ??>>>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle
    ??>>>>>>>> in
    M>>>>> the
    M>>>>>>> drive:
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID
    ??>>>>>>>> problem
    M>>>>> that
    M>>>>>>> only
    ??>>>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who knows
    M>>>>> this
    M>>>>>>> stuff
    ??>>>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    M>>> this
    ??>>>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    M>>> rule
    M>>>>> of
    ??>>>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    M>>> get
    M>>>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    ??>> Usenet
    M>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>> Encryption
    M>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M>>> News==----
    ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>> 120,000+
    M>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    ??>>>> Encryption
    M>>> =----
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    ??>> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    ??>> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    ??>> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    MMmmm...too bad
    Adaptec makes the Serial ATA RAID 1210SA - which is approx. $50US. It
    will probably out-perform the one on your mobo.
    SIIG, Startech and Promise also makes them for slightly less.

    I'd buy the Adaptec - then you can use it with your drives in any (older)
    system.

    MS


    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:42616448$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > Hello, Marc!
    > You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:20:08 -0400:
    >
    > I've got a promise controller that I think can do raid but not sata. I'm
    > out of luck on laying my hands on a raid sata card. I'm the expert among
    > my friends so that should scare you. <g>
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    > MS> Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal an
    > MS> add-on Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    > MS> Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.
    >
    > MS> MS
    > MS> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > MS> news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0
    > array
    > ??>> and recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the
    > ??>> drives.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> Thanks.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ColBlip.
    > ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>
    > M>>> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA,
    > if
    > M>>> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    > M>>> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my
    > M>>> Serial drives, and finding one failing. Asus have acknowledged
    > M>>> problems with Sil controller on earlier bios - I know this is not
    > M>>> relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems with raid
    > M>>> controllers.
    > ??>>
    > M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    > ??>>>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA
    > array
    > ??>>>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off
    > of
    > ??>>>> the two m/b connectors.
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>
    > M>>>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They
    > ??>> are
    > M>>>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    > M>>> diagnosing
    > M>>>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd
    > ??>> to
    > M>>>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    > M>>> since
    > M>>>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    > M>>> tollerance.
    > M>>>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    > ??>>>>
    > M>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>>>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>>>
    > M>>>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility
    > on
    > M>>> the
    > M>>>>>>> hd's?
    > ??>>>>>>
    > M>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    > ??>> going
    > ??>>>>>>>> well
    > M>>>>>>> for
    > ??>>>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the
    > ??>>>>>>>> 70
    > M>>>>> mb/s
    > ??>>>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    > M>>> described
    > ??>>>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    > M>>>>> about
    > ??>>>>>>>> 1
    > M>>>>>>> mb/sec
    > ??>>>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The
    > ??>>>>>>>> peak
    > M>>> to
    > ??>>>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    > ??>>>>>>>> problem.
    > M>>>>>>> Here
    > ??>>>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1
    > so
    >
    > ??>> I
    > ??>>>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T
    > ??>>>>>>>> and
    > M>>> B
    > ??>>>>>>>> and the
    > M>>>>>>> drives
    > ??>>>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    > M>>> (i.e.
    > ??>>>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here
    > are
    > M>>> my
    > ??>>>>>>>> results
    > M>>>>>>> where
    > ??>>>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle
    > ??>>>>>>>> in
    > M>>>>> the
    > M>>>>>>> drive:
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    > ??>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>>>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    > ??>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID
    > ??>>>>>>>> problem
    > M>>>>> that
    > M>>>>>>> only
    > ??>>>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who
    > knows
    > M>>>>> this
    > M>>>>>>> stuff
    > ??>>>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    > M>>> this
    > ??>>>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    > M>>> rule
    > M>>>>> of
    > ??>>>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    > M>>> get
    > M>>>>> to
    > ??>>>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > M>>> Usenet
    > M>>>>>>> News==----
    > ??>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>>>>>> 120,000+
    > M>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M>>>>> Encryption
    > M>>>>>>> =----
    > ??>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > ??>> Usenet
    > M>>>>> News==----
    > ??>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>>>> 120,000+
    > M>>>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M>>> Encryption
    > M>>>>> =----
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > Usenet
    > M>>> News==----
    > ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>> 120,000+
    > M>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > ??>>>> Encryption
    > M>>> =----
    > ??>>
    > ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > ??>> News==----
    > ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > 120,000+
    > ??>> Newsgroups
    > ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > ??>> =----
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =----
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Excepting if the raid has been built a different raid controller may not see
    the raid, and if it does it may corrupt the raid. - Info from Adaptec,
    further they state if changing raid controller, sys must be rebuilt as
    otherwise they cannot guarantee the raid -

    "Marc Stanton" <mks@mksengineering.com> wrote in message
    news:1Pb8e.6980$MZ2.1045929@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal an
    add-on
    > Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    > Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.
    >
    > MS
    > "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > > Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > > You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    > >
    > > Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0 array
    and
    > > recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the drives.
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > > ColBlip.
    > > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > >
    > > M> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA,
    if
    > > M> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    > > M> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my
    Serial
    > > M> drives, and finding one failing.
    > > M> Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier bios -
    I
    > > M> know this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems
    with
    > > M> raid controllers.
    > >
    > > M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > M> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > > ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > > ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    > > ??>>
    > > ??>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    > > ??>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA
    array
    > > ??>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off
    of
    > > ??>> the two m/b connectors.
    > > ??>>
    > > ??>> Thanks.
    > > ??>>
    > > ??>> ColBlip.
    > > ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > > ??>>
    > > M>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They
    > > are
    > > M>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    > > M> diagnosing
    > > M>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd
    > > to
    > > M>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    > > M> since
    > > M>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    > > M> tollerance.
    > > M>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    > > ??>>
    > > M>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > M>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > > ??>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > > ??>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    > > ??>>>>
    > > ??>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    > > ??>>>>
    > > ??>>>> Thanks.
    > > ??>>>>
    > > ??>>>> ColBlip.
    > > ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > > ??>>>>
    > > M>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility
    on
    > > M> the
    > > M>>>>> hd's?
    > > ??>>>>
    > > M>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > M>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > > ??>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    > > going
    > > ??>>>>>> well
    > > M>>>>> for
    > > ??>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the
    70
    > > M>>> mb/s
    > > ??>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    > > M> described
    > > ??>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    > > M>>> about
    > > ??>>>>>> 1
    > > M>>>>> mb/sec
    > > ??>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The
    peak
    > > M> to
    > > ??>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    > > ??>>>>>> problem.
    > > M>>>>> Here
    > > ??>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1
    so
    > > I
    > > ??>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T
    and
    > > M> B
    > > ??>>>>>> and the
    > > M>>>>> drives
    > > ??>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    > > M> (i.e.
    > > ??>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here
    are
    > > M> my
    > > ??>>>>>> results
    > > M>>>>> where
    > > ??>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle
    in
    > > M>>> the
    > > M>>>>> drive:
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    > > ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > > ??>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > > ??>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    > > ??>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    > > ??>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    > > ??>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID
    problem
    > > M>>> that
    > > M>>>>> only
    > > ??>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who
    knows
    > > M>>> this
    > > M>>>>> stuff
    > > ??>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    > > M> this
    > > ??>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    > > M> rule
    > > M>>> of
    > > ??>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    > > M> get
    > > M>>> to
    > > ??>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> Thanks.
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> ColBlip.
    > > ??>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > > ??>>>>>>
    > > ??>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > > M> Usenet
    > > M>>>>> News==----
    > > ??>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > > ??>>>> 120,000+
    > > M>>>>> Newsgroups
    > > ??>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > > M>>> Encryption
    > > M>>>>> =----
    > > ??>>>>
    > > ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > > Usenet
    > > M>>> News==----
    > > ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > > ??>> 120,000+
    > > M>>> Newsgroups
    > > ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > > M> Encryption
    > > M>>> =----
    > > ??>>
    > > ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    Usenet
    > > M> News==----
    > > ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > > 120,000+
    > > M> Newsgroups
    > > ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    Encryption
    > > M> =----
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > > News==----
    > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > > Newsgroups
    > > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > > =----
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, MrGrumpy!
    You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:08:19 GMT:

    Fortunately, or unfortunately, I'm not concerned about the old array. Let me
    rephrase that - based on my limited knowledge I don't THINK I concerned.
    I've got the whole Array backed up to an image file so I can restore it. I
    think I've already destroyed the raid0 array since I created the 2 raid0+1
    disks. Having said that it may be that if I were to create the 2 disk array
    via a different controller my backup restore would be worthless?

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    M> Excepting if the raid has been built a different raid controller may not
    M> see the raid, and if it does it may corrupt the raid. - Info from
    M> Adaptec, further they state if changing raid controller, sys must be
    M> rebuilt as otherwise they cannot guarantee the raid -

    M> "Marc Stanton" <mks@mksengineering.com> wrote in message
    M> news:1Pb8e.6980$MZ2.1045929@news20.bellglobal.com...
    ??>> Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal an
    M> add-on
    ??>> Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    ??>> Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.
    ??>>
    ??>> MS
    ??>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    ??>> news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    ??>>>
    ??>>> Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0
    ??>>> array
    M> and
    ??>>> recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the drives.
    ??>>>
    ??>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>
    ??>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>
    M>>>> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA,
    M> if
    M>>>> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    M>>>> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my
    M> Serial
    M>>>> drives, and finding one failing.
    M>>>> Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier bios -
    M> I
    M>>>> know this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems
    M> with
    M>>>> raid controllers.
    ??>>>
    M>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    ??>>>>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA
    M> array
    ??>>>>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off
    M> of
    ??>>>>> the two m/b connectors.
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>
    M>>>>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They
    ??>>> are
    M>>>>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    M>>>> diagnosing
    M>>>>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed hd
    ??>>> to
    M>>>>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    M>>>> since
    M>>>>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    M>>>> tollerance.
    M>>>>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    ??>>>>>
    M>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility
    M> on
    M>>>> the
    M>>>>>>>> hd's?
    ??>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    ??>>> going
    ??>>>>>>>>> well
    M>>>>>>>> for
    ??>>>>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the
    M> 70
    M>>>>>> mb/s
    ??>>>>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    M>>>> described
    ??>>>>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down to
    M>>>>>> about
    ??>>>>>>>>> 1
    M>>>>>>>> mb/sec
    ??>>>>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The
    M> peak
    M>>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>>>>>>>>> problem.
    M>>>>>>>> Here
    ??>>>>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1
    M> so
    ??>>> I
    ??>>>>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T
    M> and
    M>>>> B
    ??>>>>>>>>> and the
    M>>>>>>>> drives
    ??>>>>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    M>>>> (i.e.
    ??>>>>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here
    M> are
    M>>>> my
    ??>>>>>>>>> results
    M>>>>>>>> where
    ??>>>>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle
    M> in
    M>>>>>> the
    M>>>>>>>> drive:
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID
    M> problem
    M>>>>>> that
    M>>>>>>>> only
    ??>>>>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who
    M> knows
    M>>>>>> this
    M>>>>>>>> stuff
    ??>>>>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    M>>>> this
    ??>>>>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    M>>>> rule
    M>>>>>> of
    ??>>>>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way to
    M>>>> get
    M>>>>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M>>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    ??>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M> Usenet
    M>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>> 120,000+
    M>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M> Encryption
    M>>>> =----
    ??>>>
    ??>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    ??>>> News==----
    ??>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    ??>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    ??>>> =----
    ??>>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    The raid controler writes hidden info to the disk, which is inturn used by
    the controler to 'access/manipulate the raid' I would assume this info would
    be returned if you did an image restore. If however you simply restored data
    I would think there would'nt be a problem
    I will, in the next couple of days be replacing my Sil raid controller with
    an Adaptec. I had mirror raid. I propose, in the first instance to break the
    origonal mirror, shutdown, disconect one sata and boot to the other.
    assuming everything is ok, I'll install adaptec reboot update the
    firmware/drivers then shutdown, connect the single sata to the Adaptec
    reboot and test. If all ok connect 2nd sata, reboot and build the mirror.
    I'm simply trying to avoid reinstalling everything, as I have full onsite
    and offsite backups I'm not to bothered about data loss. - I'm a bit
    paranoid re data, as to date I've lost three hd's

    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:426163e3$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:08:19 GMT:
    >
    > Fortunately, or unfortunately, I'm not concerned about the old array. Let
    me
    > rephrase that - based on my limited knowledge I don't THINK I concerned.
    > I've got the whole Array backed up to an image file so I can restore it. I
    > think I've already destroyed the raid0 array since I created the 2 raid0+1
    > disks. Having said that it may be that if I were to create the 2 disk
    array
    > via a different controller my backup restore would be worthless?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    > M> Excepting if the raid has been built a different raid controller may
    not
    > M> see the raid, and if it does it may corrupt the raid. - Info from
    > M> Adaptec, further they state if changing raid controller, sys must be
    > M> rebuilt as otherwise they cannot guarantee the raid -
    >
    > M> "Marc Stanton" <mks@mksengineering.com> wrote in message
    > M> news:1Pb8e.6980$MZ2.1045929@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > ??>> Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal
    an
    > M> add-on
    > ??>> Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    > ??>> Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.
    > ??>>
    > ??>> MS
    > ??>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > ??>> news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    > ??>>>
    > ??>>> Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0
    > ??>>> array
    > M> and
    > ??>>> recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the
    drives.
    > ??>>>
    > ??>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>
    > ??>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>
    > M>>>> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA,
    > M> if
    > M>>>> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    > M>>>> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my
    > M> Serial
    > M>>>> drives, and finding one failing.
    > M>>>> Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier
    bios -
    > M> I
    > M>>>> know this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems
    > M> with
    > M>>>> raid controllers.
    > ??>>>
    > M>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>>> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    > ??>>>>>
    > ??>>>>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are
    Hitachi
    > ??>>>>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA
    > M> array
    > ??>>>>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off
    > M> of
    > ??>>>>> the two m/b connectors.
    > ??>>>>>
    > ??>>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>>
    > ??>>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>>
    > M>>>>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility.
    They
    > ??>>> are
    > M>>>>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    > M>>>> diagnosing
    > M>>>>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed
    hd
    > ??>>> to
    > M>>>>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your
    case,
    > M>>>> since
    > M>>>>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    > M>>>> tollerance.
    > M>>>>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    > ??>>>>>
    > M>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > M>>>>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    > ??>>>>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    > ??>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    > ??>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>>>>
    > M>>>>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility
    > M> on
    > M>>>> the
    > M>>>>>>>> hd's?
    > ??>>>>>>>
    > M>>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in
    message
    > M>>>>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > ??>>>>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    > ??>>> going
    > ??>>>>>>>>> well
    > M>>>>>>>> for
    > ??>>>>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in
    the
    > M> 70
    > M>>>>>> mb/s
    > ??>>>>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    > M>>>> described
    > ??>>>>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down
    to
    > M>>>>>> about
    > ??>>>>>>>>> 1
    > M>>>>>>>> mb/sec
    > ??>>>>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The
    > M> peak
    > M>>>> to
    > ??>>>>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or
    MB
    > ??>>>>>>>>> problem.
    > M>>>>>>>> Here
    > ??>>>>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1
    > M> so
    > ??>>> I
    > ??>>>>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T
    > M> and
    > M>>>> B
    > ??>>>>>>>>> and the
    > M>>>>>>>> drives
    > ??>>>>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections
    separately
    > M>>>> (i.e.
    > ??>>>>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here
    > M> are
    > M>>>> my
    > ??>>>>>>>>> results
    > M>>>>>>>> where
    > ??>>>>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is
    cycle
    > M> in
    > M>>>>>> the
    > M>>>>>>>> drive:
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    > ??>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>>>>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in
    reverse)
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    > ??>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID
    > M> problem
    > M>>>>>> that
    > M>>>>>>>> only
    > ??>>>>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who
    > M> knows
    > M>>>>>> this
    > M>>>>>>>> stuff
    > ??>>>>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment
    on
    > M>>>> this
    > ??>>>>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break
    some
    > M>>>> rule
    > M>>>>>> of
    > ??>>>>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way
    to
    > M>>>> get
    > M>>>>>> to
    > ??>>>>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    > ??>>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    > ??>>>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > M>>>> Usenet
    > M>>>>>>>> News==----
    > ??>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
    World!
    > ??>>>>>>> 120,000+
    > M>>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M>>>>>> Encryption
    > M>>>>>>>> =----
    > ??>>>>>>>
    > ??>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > ??>>> Usenet
    > M>>>>>> News==----
    > ??>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>>>>> 120,000+
    > M>>>>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M>>>> Encryption
    > M>>>>>> =----
    > ??>>>>>
    > ??>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    > M> Usenet
    > M>>>> News==----
    > ??>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > ??>>> 120,000+
    > M>>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    > M> Encryption
    > M>>>> =----
    > ??>>>
    > ??>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    Usenet
    > ??>>> News==----
    > ??>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > 120,000+
    > ??>>> Newsgroups
    > ??>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    Encryption
    > ??>>> =----
    > ??>>
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    =----
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, MrGrumpy!
    You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:59:24 GMT:

    It looks like if I want RAID0 I now have an excuse to upgrade my m/b and
    chip. <g>

    Been thinking about it but had decided to postpone for a while but believe I
    will likely get an A8V Deluxe from Asus. I think it will handle all of my
    PATA and ATAPI (or whatever a CD is called) devices as well as the SATA
    raid0. If I can't restore the array I'll be aggravated but it is only OS and
    programs and with changing a m/b and going to the AMD 64 stuff I would
    probably reinstall the the OS anyway.

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    M> The raid controler writes hidden info to the disk, which is inturn used
    M> by the controler to 'access/manipulate the raid' I would assume this
    M> info would be returned if you did an image restore. If however you
    M> simply restored data I would think there would'nt be a problem
    M> I will, in the next couple of days be replacing my Sil raid controller
    M> with an Adaptec. I had mirror raid. I propose, in the first instance to
    M> break the origonal mirror, shutdown, disconect one sata and boot to the
    M> other. assuming everything is ok, I'll install adaptec reboot update the
    M> firmware/drivers then shutdown, connect the single sata to the Adaptec
    M> reboot and test. If all ok connect 2nd sata, reboot and build the
    M> mirror. I'm simply trying to avoid reinstalling everything, as I have
    M> full onsite and offsite backups I'm not to bothered about data loss. -
    M> I'm a bit paranoid re data, as to date I've lost three hd's

    M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M> news:426163e3$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:08:19 GMT:
    ??>>
    ??>> Fortunately, or unfortunately, I'm not concerned about the old array.
    ??>> Let
    M> me
    ??>> rephrase that - based on my limited knowledge I don't THINK I
    ??>> concerned. I've got the whole Array backed up to an image file so I
    ??>> can restore it. I think I've already destroyed the raid0 array since I
    ??>> created the 2 raid0+1 disks. Having said that it may be that if I were
    ??>> to create the 2 disk
    M> array
    ??>> via a different controller my backup restore would be worthless?
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    M>>> Excepting if the raid has been built a different raid controller may
    M> not
    M>>> see the raid, and if it does it may corrupt the raid. - Info from
    M>>> Adaptec, further they state if changing raid controller, sys must be
    M>>> rebuilt as otherwise they cannot guarantee the raid -
    ??>>
    M>>> "Marc Stanton" <mks@mksengineering.com> wrote in message
    M>>> news:1Pb8e.6980$MZ2.1045929@news20.bellglobal.com...
    ??>>>> Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal
    M> an
    M>>> add-on
    ??>>>> Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    ??>>>> Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> MS
    ??>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    ??>>>> news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0
    ??>>>>> array
    M>>> and
    ??>>>>> recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the
    M> drives.
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>
    M>>>>>> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA,
    M>>> if
    M>>>>>> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    M>>>>>> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my
    M>>> Serial
    M>>>>>> drives, and finding one failing.
    M>>>>>> Asus have acknowledged problems with Sil controller on earlier
    M> bios -
    M>>> I
    M>>>>>> know this is not relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems
    M>>> with
    M>>>>>> raid controllers.
    ??>>>>>
    M>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>>> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are
    M> Hitachi
    ??>>>>>>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA
    M>>> array
    ??>>>>>>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off
    M>>> of
    ??>>>>>>> the two m/b connectors.
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility.
    M> They
    ??>>>>> are
    M>>>>>>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    M>>>>>> diagnosing
    M>>>>>>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed
    M> hd
    ??>>>>> to
    M>>>>>>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your
    M> case,
    M>>>>>> since
    M>>>>>>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    M>>>>>> tollerance.
    M>>>>>>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    ??>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>>>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>>>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility
    M>>> on
    M>>>>>> the
    M>>>>>>>>>> hd's?
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in
    M> message
    M>>>>>>>>>> news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    ??>>>>> going
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> well
    M>>>>>>>>>> for
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in
    M> the
    M>>> 70
    M>>>>>>>> mb/s
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    M>>>>>> described
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down
    M> to
    M>>>>>>>> about
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> 1
    M>>>>>>>>>> mb/sec
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The
    M>>> peak
    M>>>>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or
    M> MB
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
    M>>>>>>>>>> Here
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1
    M>>> so
    ??>>>>> I
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T
    M>>> and
    M>>>>>> B
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> and the
    M>>>>>>>>>> drives
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections
    M> separately
    M>>>>>> (i.e.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here
    M>>> are
    M>>>>>> my
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> results
    M>>>>>>>>>> where
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is
    M> cycle
    M>>> in
    M>>>>>>>> the
    M>>>>>>>>>> drive:
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in
    M> reverse)
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID
    M>>> problem
    M>>>>>>>> that
    M>>>>>>>>>> only
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who
    M>>> knows
    M>>>>>>>> this
    M>>>>>>>>>> stuff
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment
    M> on
    M>>>>>> this
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break
    M> some
    M>>>>>> rule
    M>>>>>>>> of
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way
    M> to
    M>>>>>> get
    M>>>>>>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M>>>>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
    M> World!
    ??>>>>>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>>>>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    ??>>>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>
    ??>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M> Usenet
    ??>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>> 120,000+
    ??>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M> Encryption
    ??>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    M> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    M> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    M> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <snips>

    > The raid controler writes hidden info to the disk, which is inturn used by
    > the controler to 'access/manipulate the raid' I would assume this info
    > would
    > be returned if you did an image restore. If however you simply restored
    > data
    > I would think there would'nt be a problem

    This is recommended in some situatons - as I say in another post if there is
    an issue which affects both drives and one fails first, the one that is left
    may also have damaged meta data. They seem to include meta data at the disc
    sector level as well so if an image restore is performed a RAID 1 rebuild
    may fail at exactly the same point.

    I think the OP needs to go back to basics and backup data, reformat both
    drives, recreate raid and restore.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    If you have 2 discs, you can only create 1 RAID 1 array, or 1 RAID 0 array.
    You can't have a RAID 0+1 (or 1+0) array as this requires 4 discs minimum
    and you do not have enough discs.


    So, when you say raid 0+1, what are you meaning?


    "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:42610a54$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > Hello, Peter!
    > You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:19:21 -0400:
    >
    > P> How did you "check the array"?
    >
    > ??>>>> T to d2 OK
    > ??>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    > ??>>>>
    > ??>>>> B to d1 Ok
    > ??>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    >
    > P> Isn't above a bit contradicting. Can you explain?
    >
    > The only way I could do it was to delete the RAID0 array and recreate two
    > RAID0+1 disks 'arrays', one each on each of the hd's. Then I could see
    > each of the disks independently. I had no way to check the disks in the
    > array independently when set as RAID0 since all one sees is a single
    > volume.
    >
    >
    > [Sorry, skipped]
    >
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > ColBlip.
    > E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =----
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, Mercury!
    You wrote on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:14:05 +1200:

    Well to tell you the truth I'm not sure what I mean. On my m/b, on boot one
    is given a chance hit control-F which takes you into a setup for the
    SATA/RAID. You can automatically set RAID0 or manually set it up. All I did
    was to go into the manual setup and did whatever it allowed me to do to set
    two different arrays using the two disks. All I wanted to do was get the
    drives 'separated' so I could test them to see if I had a drive problem. I
    was then able to boot and initialize the drives in XP, format each of them,
    read and write to them like any IDE on my system. Since I didn't really care
    about Raidin' them I didn't pay that much attention to nomenclature so I may
    be mis-characterizing them. My objective was to split the siamese twins
    under RAID0.

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    M> If you have 2 discs, you can only create 1 RAID 1 array, or 1 RAID 0
    M> array. You can't have a RAID 0+1 (or 1+0) array as this requires 4 discs
    M> minimum and you do not have enough discs.

    M> So, when you say raid 0+1, what are you meaning?

    M> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M> news:42610a54$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> Hello, Peter!
    ??>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:19:21 -0400:
    ??>>
    P>>> How did you "check the array"?
    ??>>
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>
    P>>> Isn't above a bit contradicting. Can you explain?
    ??>>
    ??>> The only way I could do it was to delete the RAID0 array and recreate
    ??>> two RAID0+1 disks 'arrays', one each on each of the hd's. Then I could
    ??>> see each of the disks independently. I had no way to check the disks
    ??>> in the array independently when set as RAID0 since all one sees is a
    ??>> single volume.
    ??>>
    ??>> [Sorry, skipped]
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    ??>> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    ??>> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    ??>> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hello, Marc!
    You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:25:29 -0400:

    I'm leery of adding anything like a new board to this one since so far I've
    tried two different controller cards and neither of them worked. Looks like
    I will go ahead and upgraded to a new m/b and athlon64 chip.

    Thanks.

    ColBlip.
    E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com

    MS> MMmmm...too bad
    MS> Adaptec makes the Serial ATA RAID 1210SA - which is approx. $50US.
    MS> It will probably out-perform the one on your mobo.
    MS> SIIG, Startech and Promise also makes them for slightly less.

    MS> I'd buy the Adaptec - then you can use it with your drives in any
    MS> (older) system.

    MS> MS

    MS> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    MS> news:42616448$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>> Hello, Marc!
    ??>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:20:08 -0400:
    ??>>
    ??>> I've got a promise controller that I think can do raid but not sata.
    ??>> I'm out of luck on laying my hands on a raid sata card. I'm the expert
    ??>> among my friends so that should scare you. <g>
    ??>>
    ??>> Thanks.
    ??>>
    ??>> ColBlip.
    ??>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>
    MS>>> Being one for testing/experimenting, I would beg, borrow or steal an
    MS>>> add-on Raid card (Adaptec, Promise etc.)
    MS>>> Disable the on-board controll in the BIOS and then retest.
    ??>>
    MS>>> MS
    MS>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    MS>>> news:42613c9c$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:42 GMT:
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Your note prompted me to try this again since deleting the raid0
    ??>> array
    ??>>>> and recreating a couple of raid0+1 drives. Still doesn't see the
    ??>>>> drives.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> According to Hitachi web site their diagnostics support Serial ATA,
    ??>> if
    M>>>>> the tool is not finding your drives something is not quite right.
    M>>>>> I certainly had no trouble with a Samsung diagnostics testing my
    M>>>>> Serial drives, and finding one failing. Asus have acknowledged
    M>>>>> problems with Sil controller on earlier bios - I know this is not
    M>>>>> relevant, just shows that Asus have had problems with raid
    M>>>>> controllers.
    ??>>>>
    M>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>> news:42610af9$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>>> You wrote on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:21:22 GMT:
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> I had done this before even starting the thread. These are Hitachi
    ??>>>>>> deathstars but the diagnostic they provide doesn't find a SATA
    ??>> array
    ??>>>>>> on my m/b, only the other 4 IDE devices (PATA) I have running off
    ??>> of
    ??>>>>>> the two m/b connectors.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>> The hard disk manufacturers disk diagnostic checking utility. They
    ??>>>> are
    M>>>>>>> freely available from the hd manu. web site. Very usefull for
    M>>>>> diagnosing
    M>>>>>>> hd problems, and can in some cases reserect an apparently failed
    M>>>>>>> hd
    ??>>>> to
    M>>>>>>> enable data to be recovered. Which might be usefull, in your case,
    M>>>>> since
    M>>>>>>> you have chosen to impliment a raid level which has no fault
    M>>>>> tollerance.
    M>>>>>>> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
    ??>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in message
    M>>>>>>> news:426066b0$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>>> Hello, MrGrumpy!
    ??>>>>>>>> You wrote on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:08:51 GMT:
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> Sorry, what is the "hd manu checking utility on the hd's"?
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>>> Before you get to tech, you've ran the hd manu checking utility
    ??>> on
    M>>>>> the
    M>>>>>>>>> hd's?
    ??>>>>>>>>
    M>>>>>>>>> "ColBlip" <colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com> wrote in
    M>>>>>>>>> message news:42602136$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    ??>>>>>>>>>> I recently installed two SATA 80 gb drives as RAID0. All was
    ??>>>> going
    ??>>>>>>>>>> well
    M>>>>>>>>> for
    ??>>>>>>>>>> about a week. Checks on the speed of the drive came out in the
    ??>>>>>>>>>> 70
    M>>>>>>> mb/s
    ??>>>>>>>>>> range. Then I began to have problems with what can best be
    M>>>>> described
    ??>>>>>>>>>> as "hesitation". Checking the array showed it was going down
    ??>>>>>>>>>> to
    M>>>>>>> about
    ??>>>>>>>>>> 1
    M>>>>>>>>> mb/sec
    ??>>>>>>>>>> and then up to 60 mb/sec range and then back down again. The
    ??>>>>>>>>>> peak
    M>>>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>>>> peak cycle was maybe 15-20 seconds.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> I then started chasing the problem to see if it was a HD or MB
    ??>>>>>>>>>> problem.
    M>>>>>>>>> Here
    ??>>>>>>>>>> is what I found. I deleted the RAID0 and created two RAID 0+1
    ??>> so
    ??>>
    ??>>>> I
    ??>>>>>>>>>> could look at them independently. I call the m/b connectors T
    ??>>>>>>>>>> and
    M>>>>> B
    ??>>>>>>>>>> and the
    M>>>>>>>>> drives
    ??>>>>>>>>>> d1 and d2. I checked each of the drives/connections separately
    M>>>>> (i.e.
    ??>>>>>>>>>> first connecting T to d1 and testing and T to d2, etc). Here
    ??>> are
    M>>>>> my
    ??>>>>>>>>>> results
    M>>>>>>>>> where
    ??>>>>>>>>>> OK is normal consistently high performance and not ok is cycle
    ??>>>>>>>>>> in
    M>>>>>>> the
    M>>>>>>>>> drive:
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> Tests with both drives connected:
    ??>>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>> B to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> B to d1 Ok
    ??>>>>>>>>>> T to d2 Not OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>> (note - may have written down results on last test in reverse)
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> Tests with only one drive connected:
    ??>>>>>>>>>> T to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> B to d1 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> T to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> B to d2 OK
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> My conclusion from all of this is that the m/b has a RAID
    ??>>>>>>>>>> problem
    M>>>>>>> that
    M>>>>>>>>> only
    ??>>>>>>>>>> shows up when both drives are connected. Could someone who
    ??>> knows
    M>>>>>>> this
    M>>>>>>>>> stuff
    ??>>>>>>>>>> better than me (which is probably most people here) comment on
    M>>>>> this
    ??>>>>>>>>>> and whether the conclusion is likely valid or did I break some
    M>>>>> rule
    M>>>>>>> of
    ??>>>>>>>>>> connecting these things that makes the testing invalid.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> If this approach is not valid, suggestions on some other way
    ??>>>>>>>>>> to
    M>>>>> get
    M>>>>>>> to
    ??>>>>>>>>>> the bottom of the problem?
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> ColBlip.
    ??>>>>>>>>>> E-mail: colonel.blip@nospampleasebigfoot.com
    ??>>>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    M>>>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
    World!
    ??>>>>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>>>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    ??>>>> Usenet
    M>>>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    M>>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>>>
    ??>>>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
    ??>> Usenet
    M>>>>> News==----
    ??>>>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>>>> 120,000+
    M>>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    ??>>>>>> Encryption
    M>>>>> =----
    ??>>>>
    ??>>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    ??>>>> News==----
    ??>>>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    ??>> 120,000+
    ??>>>> Newsgroups
    ??>>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
    ??>>>> Encryption =----
    ??>>
    ??>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    ??>> News==----
    ??>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    120,000+
    ??>> Newsgroups
    ??>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    ??>> =----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    MrGrumpy wrote:

    >Excepting if the raid has been built a different raid controller may not see
    >the raid, and if it does it may corrupt the raid. - Info from Adaptec,
    >further they state if changing raid controller, sys must be rebuilt as
    >otherwise they cannot guarantee the raid -

    Either of you stupid top posters ever consider trimming your posts?

    Nah. Too much work.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    that's all you have you contribute? STFU
    stupid is people wasting others time by posting their OPINION of how things
    should be.
    go organize your pencil holder


    "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:joka61tajqj634j9ki8f5a3hqubrthemrq@4ax.com...
    > MrGrumpy wrote:
    >
    >>Excepting if the raid has been built a different raid controller may not
    >>see
    >>the raid, and if it does it may corrupt the raid. - Info from Adaptec,
    >>further they state if changing raid controller, sys must be rebuilt as
    >>otherwise they cannot guarantee the raid -
    >
    > Either of you stupid top posters ever consider trimming your posts?
    >
    > Nah. Too much work.
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    ColBlip wrote:

    >Hello, Mercury!
    >You wrote on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:14:05 +1200:
    >
    >Well to tell you the truth I'm not sure what I mean. On my m/b, on boot one

    No, Mercury did NOT write that, you idiot.

    Please learn how to quote, and how to post, you clueless idiot.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:joka61tajqj634j9ki8f5a3hqubrthemrq@4ax.com...
    > MrGrumpy wrote:
    >
    >>Excepting if the raid has been built a different raid controller may not see
    >>the raid, and if it does it may corrupt the raid. - Info from Adaptec,
    >>further they state if changing raid controller, sys must be rebuilt as
    >>otherwise they cannot guarantee the raid -
    >
    > Either of you stupid top posters ever consider trimming your posts?

    You ever considered professional help for your pathetic obsessions ?

    > Nah. Too much work.

    Choose not to, as you have been told many times and have chosen to ignore.
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID Storage