SATA and IDE Drives Installation

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Hi:

I want to install two SATA drives in a RAID 0 configuration to my
GA-8KNXP Revision 1 motherboard. I also will have a 80GB as a master
and a DVD ROM as slave on IDE 1and a DVD R/W as master on IDE 2. My
questions are:

1. Which SATA connector should I use, the ICH5R or the Sil3112 and
why?

2. Which settings should be enable on the BIOS for the above
settings?

3. I am still using the F6e BIOS with Windows XP with SP2 without
any problem at all. Should I upgrade to the latest BIOS before I
perform a clean install on Windows XP with SP2?

4. If I don't use a RAID 0 configuration and instead only use a
single SATA drive instead of two SATA drives, do the same instructions
apply?

The SATA drive(s) will be used as my BOOT drive. Thanks for your
help on this matter. Regards.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Maiso" <jorgemaisonet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa6a354e.0410150922.142af3e2@posting.google.com...

> I want to install two SATA drives in a RAID 0 configuration to my
> GA-8KNXP Revision 1 motherboard. I also will have a 80GB as a master
> and a DVD ROM as slave on IDE 1and a DVD R/W as master on IDE 2. My
> questions are:
>
> 1. Which SATA connector should I use, the ICH5R or the Sil3112 and
> why?

I just set SATA RAID0 up on this same mobo only a month ago using 2 x 36gb
Raptors. The concensus received from this newsgroup at the time was to use
the ICH5R since it is on-chip and easier on PCI resources, thus will realize
a performance advantage. Here was my procedure:

(1) Before installing the drives, updated bios to f11 or f12, the latest
IAA drivers from
http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/Product_Filter.asp?ProductID=663
(perhaps not critical), then activated the controller in the bios ("On-chip
SATA" enabled) and set SATA mode to RAID. I don't think you can update IAA
from within Windows or recognize the RAID controller until the bios settings
are correct as above. Boot into Windows and make sure the controller is
installed (Device Manager, SCSI and RAID Controllers should show "Intel
82801ER SATA RAID controller") before installing the drives.

(2) Cloned the old C: drive using Ghost if it will be used in the RAID
array. If not, use Ghost or other cloning software to restore it to the new
array later.

(3) Connected the drives to the ICH5R, started the system, and went into
the RAID setup using ^I at POST. You can then set up the drives as you
wish.

(4) Using a Win98SE startup floppy and latest DOS versions of FDISK
(download from the M$ site), partitioned the drive. You could set RAID up
first, then partition and format from within XP, assuming the OS is on
another drive. I chose the DOS route, though, as my old C: drive was to be
used in the new array.

(5) Restore with Ghost from the clone made earlier. Be advised that Ghost
cannot access the new RAID drive until it has been partitioned, and creating
the RAID array will wipe out all paritioning info.

(6) Booted into XP, and it's been working perfectly since (one month).

> 2. Which settings should be enable on the BIOS for the above settings?

"On-chip SATA" enabled with SATA set to "RAID."

> 3. I am still using the F6e BIOS with Windows XP with SP2 without
> any problem at all. Should I upgrade to the latest BIOS before I
> perform a clean install on Windows XP with SP2?

F10 was and F11 is stable here. I would definitely update the bios, as F6
is quite old.

> 4. If I don't use a RAID 0 configuration and instead only use a
> single SATA drive instead of two SATA drives, do the same instructions
> apply?

Yes. These bios settings work fine with a single SATA. In fact, it's best
because it'll already be set for RAID if you decide to move in that
direction later. That's what I did, originally installing a 160gb PATA
drive as C:, then moving to a single SATA, then RAID.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Hi Bob:

I thought that both SATA connectors, the ICH5R and the SiL3112 are
on-chip and therefore that why I was asking which one seems to be
better in terms of performance. Thanks for your answers to the others
questions. Can you tell me if both SATA connectors performed well in
benchmarks? Regards.


"Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote in message news:<i60cd.51275$cJ3.20500@fed1read06>...
> "Maiso" <jorgemaisonet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aa6a354e.0410150922.142af3e2@posting.google.com...
>
> > I want to install two SATA drives in a RAID 0 configuration to my
> > GA-8KNXP Revision 1 motherboard. I also will have a 80GB as a master
> > and a DVD ROM as slave on IDE 1and a DVD R/W as master on IDE 2. My
> > questions are:
> >
> > 1. Which SATA connector should I use, the ICH5R or the Sil3112 and
> > why?
>
> I just set SATA RAID0 up on this same mobo only a month ago using 2 x 36gb
> Raptors. The concensus received from this newsgroup at the time was to use
> the ICH5R since it is on-chip and easier on PCI resources, thus will realize
> a performance advantage. Here was my procedure:
>
> (1) Before installing the drives, updated bios to f11 or f12, the latest
> IAA drivers from
> http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/Product_Filter.asp?ProductID=663
> (perhaps not critical), then activated the controller in the bios ("On-chip
> SATA" enabled) and set SATA mode to RAID. I don't think you can update IAA
> from within Windows or recognize the RAID controller until the bios settings
> are correct as above. Boot into Windows and make sure the controller is
> installed (Device Manager, SCSI and RAID Controllers should show "Intel
> 82801ER SATA RAID controller") before installing the drives.
>
> (2) Cloned the old C: drive using Ghost if it will be used in the RAID
> array. If not, use Ghost or other cloning software to restore it to the new
> array later.
>
> (3) Connected the drives to the ICH5R, started the system, and went into
> the RAID setup using ^I at POST. You can then set up the drives as you
> wish.
>
> (4) Using a Win98SE startup floppy and latest DOS versions of FDISK
> (download from the M$ site), partitioned the drive. You could set RAID up
> first, then partition and format from within XP, assuming the OS is on
> another drive. I chose the DOS route, though, as my old C: drive was to be
> used in the new array.
>
> (5) Restore with Ghost from the clone made earlier. Be advised that Ghost
> cannot access the new RAID drive until it has been partitioned, and creating
> the RAID array will wipe out all paritioning info.
>
> (6) Booted into XP, and it's been working perfectly since (one month).
>
> > 2. Which settings should be enable on the BIOS for the above settings?
>
> "On-chip SATA" enabled with SATA set to "RAID."
>
> > 3. I am still using the F6e BIOS with Windows XP with SP2 without
> > any problem at all. Should I upgrade to the latest BIOS before I
> > perform a clean install on Windows XP with SP2?
>
> F10 was and F11 is stable here. I would definitely update the bios, as F6
> is quite old.
>
> > 4. If I don't use a RAID 0 configuration and instead only use a
> > single SATA drive instead of two SATA drives, do the same instructions
> > apply?
>
> Yes. These bios settings work fine with a single SATA. In fact, it's best
> because it'll already be set for RAID if you decide to move in that
> direction later. That's what I did, originally installing a 160gb PATA
> drive as C:, then moving to a single SATA, then RAID.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Maiso" <jorgemaisonet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa6a354e.0410161349.77b4855c@posting.google.com...
> Hi Bob:
>
> I thought that both SATA connectors, the ICH5R and the SiL3112 are
> on-chip and therefore that why I was asking which one seems to be
> better in terms of performance.

No, the ICH5R is "on-chip" (part of the 875 chipset), and the SiL3112 is an
"on-board" controller (add-on). Concensus is that ICH5R is the best
performer, and from what I've read the Intel 82801ER is a well-thought-out
concept that is stable and fast. I would fill the ICH5R first, then the
on-board controller if you decide to add more SATA drives.

> Can you tell me if both SATA connectors performed well in benchmarks?
> Regards.

My single 36gb Raptor performed as expected, as does the new RAID0 array
with two Raptors. Here are some HDTach v3 benchmarks (avg. read, access
time, CPU usage, burst):

RAID0, quick bench: 74.4, 8.7, 5%, 189.5
Single drive, quick bench: 49, 8.8, 3%, 99

The seat-of-the-pants difference of the single Raptor over the original
160gb PATA was quite noticeable, more than benchmarks reflected, and the
next step up to RAID just that much more so. Is the difference between the
single Raptor and RAID array worth spending $100 for a new drive? I think
perhaps not unless you do heavy photo editing like I do, and even then the
difference is not great since both setups are very fast. I was given the
second drive for helping a friend troubleshoot her computer, so I had no
reason not to set up RAID. The extra drive doubles the risk of a hardware
failure, but I have an elaborate backup plan and if one drive goes kaput I
can be up and running in the time it takes to restore a clone with Norton
Ghost (about 15 minutes), plus a few minutes to restore incremental backups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XYmcd.5199$EZ.4955@okepread07...

> RAID0, quick bench: 74.4, 8.7, 5%, 189.5
> Single drive, quick bench: 49, 8.8, 3%, 99

Another thought: Regarding the benchmarks, I'm using a 128k stripe size,
which is selectable from 8-128k when creating the RAID array. This size is
good for manipulating large files, which I do in my digital photo editing,
but is purportedly not best for benchmarks, which tend to favor smaller
stripe sizes. Intel recommends 128k for most users, which is the default,
and I would stick with this size or 64k. I'm not sure exactly what's best
for benchmarks, but who cares unless bragging rights are the highest
priority?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Hi Bob:

Thanks for all your info. Regards.


"Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote in message news:<XYmcd.5199$EZ.4955@okepread07>...
> "Maiso" <jorgemaisonet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aa6a354e.0410161349.77b4855c@posting.google.com...
> > Hi Bob:
> >
> > I thought that both SATA connectors, the ICH5R and the SiL3112 are
> > on-chip and therefore that why I was asking which one seems to be
> > better in terms of performance.
>
> No, the ICH5R is "on-chip" (part of the 875 chipset), and the SiL3112 is an
> "on-board" controller (add-on). Concensus is that ICH5R is the best
> performer, and from what I've read the Intel 82801ER is a well-thought-out
> concept that is stable and fast. I would fill the ICH5R first, then the
> on-board controller if you decide to add more SATA drives.
>
> > Can you tell me if both SATA connectors performed well in benchmarks?
> > Regards.
>
> My single 36gb Raptor performed as expected, as does the new RAID0 array
> with two Raptors. Here are some HDTach v3 benchmarks (avg. read, access
> time, CPU usage, burst):
>
> RAID0, quick bench: 74.4, 8.7, 5%, 189.5
> Single drive, quick bench: 49, 8.8, 3%, 99
>
> The seat-of-the-pants difference of the single Raptor over the original
> 160gb PATA was quite noticeable, more than benchmarks reflected, and the
> next step up to RAID just that much more so. Is the difference between the
> single Raptor and RAID array worth spending $100 for a new drive? I think
> perhaps not unless you do heavy photo editing like I do, and even then the
> difference is not great since both setups are very fast. I was given the
> second drive for helping a friend troubleshoot her computer, so I had no
> reason not to set up RAID. The extra drive doubles the risk of a hardware
> failure, but I have an elaborate backup plan and if one drive goes kaput I
> can be up and running in the time it takes to restore a clone with Norton
> Ghost (about 15 minutes), plus a few minutes to restore incremental backups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Bob Davis wrote:
> "Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:XYmcd.5199$EZ.4955@okepread07...
>
>
>>RAID0, quick bench: 74.4, 8.7, 5%, 189.5
>>Single drive, quick bench: 49, 8.8, 3%, 99
>
>
> Another thought: Regarding the benchmarks, I'm using a 128k stripe size,
> which is selectable from 8-128k when creating the RAID array. This size is
> good for manipulating large files, which I do in my digital photo editing,
> but is purportedly not best for benchmarks, which tend to favor smaller
> stripe sizes. Intel recommends 128k for most users, which is the default,
> and I would stick with this size or 64k. I'm not sure exactly what's best
> for benchmarks, but who cares unless bragging rights are the highest
> priority?
>
>
The intel SATA is not subject to PCI bandwidth constraints so you can
potentially achieve the full 150MB - the Promise although on board is
still subject to the limitations of PCI bandwidth or 133MB - For OS go
with Intel data sets use the promise.