Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Installing winxp on raid0

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 26, 2012 6:04:35 PM

Hello,

I am re-installing a RAID0 system on 4 identical HDD's...After it installs the basics from winxp. the computer is restarting and I get this eror
"A disk read error occurred Press Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart".
Ater that it just runs in circles

More about : installing winxp raid0

a c 80 G Storage
November 26, 2012 6:13:23 PM

You need to install the XP raid drivers during the install. At some point(during the install) it gives you an option to install other drivers or continue. You want to install other drivers. and install the raid driver.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 12:34:51 PM

Yes, the setup asks you to select F6 for non-windows drivers and to insert a floppy with the drivers on it. I did all of this and I still get the same error message.
I went back to the MB CD to make sure I have the right drivers on the floppy for the RAID..I also checked the MB manual to make sure I have the right settings in the BIOS
At POST it shows all the HDD's and passes the RAID test, and yet it will not boot onto the C:/ to continue the xp setup.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 80 G Storage
November 27, 2012 1:51:03 PM

What motherboard and raid controller is this? Check the MB's web site and see if there are different drivers than what is on the disk.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
November 27, 2012 1:59:00 PM

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I'd ditch the idea of RAID for an XP system drive entirely. It's a never ending headache, and you'll get far better performance by just using an SSD instead.

Not worth the trouble in my book.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 3:39:43 PM

ss202sl said:
What motherboard and raid controller is this? Check the MB's web site and see if there are different drivers than what is on the disk.


The MB is an ASUS P5WDG2-WS and the Raid driver is MARVELL SATA2 6141xp
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 3:49:06 PM

willard said:
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I'd ditch the idea of RAID for an XP system drive entirely. It's a never ending headache, and you'll get far better performance by just using an SSD instead.

Not worth the trouble in my book.


Hi Willlard:
I did have this system from the beginning on this machine and it worked fine; as a matter of fact, one time a HDD gave up, and I was able to restore the whole computer with just one click..no crappy restore etc etc.
Sometimes I am very stubborn and don't give up until I have the issue resolved, no matter if computer or cars. The point of giving in is close however...
Thanks for your respond
m
0
l
a b G Storage
November 28, 2012 2:22:15 PM

fritzjoerg said:
Hi Willlard:
I did have this system from the beginning on this machine and it worked fine; as a matter of fact, one time a HDD gave up, and I was able to restore the whole computer with just one click..no crappy restore etc etc.

Not if you used RAID 0. RAID 0 is striping, not mirroring, and provides no redundancy. It actually makes your data more likely to be lost, because if a single disk dies, the entire array is ruined.

If you want redundancy, go with RAID 1. With 4 disks, you have other options as well, like RAID 5, which will stripe your data and keep parity information for redundancy. Best of both worlds. You can also get exotic with stuff like RAID 10, but I think RAID 5 would be your best bet if you're looking for redundancy.

It's worth noting that rebuilding arrays with failed disks takes a very, very long time. Much longer than a system restore or restore from backup. It only gets worse as you add more disks to the array, as well. If you're just looking for a way to make your system hardened against disk failure, I think standard backup technology is absolutely the way to go. RAID's redundancy is really all about protecting data you absolutely can't afford to lose, and can't afford to have downtime on. If you don't need this, you don't need RAID.
m
0
l
November 28, 2012 4:03:09 PM

willard said:
If you don't need this, you don't need RAID.
I would respectfully beg to differ.

I don't need redundancy - for the specific use I have in mind, which is encoding raw video files to mp4 or mkv. What I do need is plenty of disk-space, and speed. SSD would give me the latter but not the former - not at a price I could afford. The best (relatively low-cost) solution for me is two 500 GB WD 'Black' HDDs in RAID 0 array. Encoded video is a "work in progress" production line, constantly altering in content. If I lose what's on it at a particular moment that can be re-created from the raw material (kept on a different disk, and backed-up) - annoying but not catastrophic.

For that purpose RAID 0 seems to me to offer the ideal balance of affordability and speed.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
November 28, 2012 4:31:22 PM

torpare said:
I would respectfully beg to differ.

I don't need redundancy - for the specific use I have in mind, which is encoding raw video files to mp4 or mkv. What I do need is plenty of disk-space, and speed. SSD would give me the latter but not the former - not at a price I could afford. The best (relatively low-cost) solution for me is two 500 GB WD 'Black' HDDs in RAID 0 array.

The performance benefit of RAID 0 is greatly overstated, to the point where sites like Anandtech stopped benching it entirely because people were so misguided about it. It provides up to double sequential speed, but in reality this is only realized at very high queue depths and when the controller doesn't get in the way. My workstation at my last job had a pair of 10k RPM drives in RAID 0, and it made almost no difference over a single drive.

My feeling is that you'd see similar or better performance using larger, short stroked drives, or 10k RPM drives (which can sustain sequential speeds close to that of older SSDs).
m
0
l
November 28, 2012 6:54:08 PM

willard said:
My feeling is that you'd see similar or better performance using larger, short stroked drives, or 10k RPM drives (which can sustain sequential speeds close to that of older SSDs).
I defer to your superior expertise (having none whatsoever myself, I can hardly do otherwise :)  ), but there are two things your evaluation fails to take into account - 1)price! and 2)absence of expertise

The only 10K rpm drive I know-of is the Raptor. A 1TB Raptor (even not of the latest model-line) retails at - what? 400 euro? Two 7200 rpm 500 GB WB 'Blacks' can be had for 255 euro.

Besides, I haven't a clue how to set about identifying a "short-stroked" (7200 rpm, presumably) 1 TB drive as a (possibly) cheaper alternative to the Raptor - as distinct from an (inferior) "long-stroked" one... How the heck would I know the difference?
m
0
l
November 29, 2012 1:54:30 AM

@ willard

On further examination, I've found that the price premium for the Velociraptor is less than I'd assumed. Still, 66 euro isn't exactly small change.

I had believed that RAID 0 would offer the best compromise, but your weighty criticism has persuaded me I ought to give serious consideration to preferring the V'raptor.

Are there any issues mixing 512-byte and 4K-byte sector disks on the same machine?
m
0
l
November 29, 2012 1:29:18 PM

willard said:
Not if you used RAID 0. RAID 0 is striping, not mirroring, and provides no redundancy. It actually makes your data more likely to be lost, because if a single disk dies, the entire array is ruined.

If you want redundancy, go with RAID 1. With 4 disks, you have other options as well, like RAID 5, which will stripe your data and keep parity information for redundancy. Best of both worlds. You can also get exotic with stuff like RAID 10, but I think RAID 5 would be your best bet if you're looking for redundancy.

It's worth noting that rebuilding arrays with failed disks takes a very, very long time. Much longer than a system restore or restore from backup. It only gets worse as you add more disks to the array, as well. If you're just looking for a way to make your system hardened against disk failure, I think standard backup technology is absolutely the way to go. RAID's redundancy is really all about protecting data you absolutely can't afford to lose, and can't afford to have downtime on. If you don't need this, you don't need RAID.



Hi Willard

Thanks for your very thoughtful response. Not too long ago I bought a GoFlex 1TB external drive. I had back-ups of 3 computers on it. One Morning I was looking for some file, and sure enough the sucker crashed on me. Seagate could't help me except to send me a new one....that is one reason why i like to go back into RAID. You made some comments about RAID5 or 10....just looking into my RAID Setup Utility, there are only two choices to have; RAID0 and RAID1...quite dated I might add...
m
0
l
November 29, 2012 1:35:57 PM

ss202sl said:
What motherboard and raid controller is this? Check the MB's web site and see if there are different drivers than what is on the disk.



Hi,
Thanks for your response.
I did find some newer versions of drivers on the MB's webside ...problem is, its quite a bit larger (over 10mb ) than what a floppy can handle and while uploading xp files it does ask you for the drivers to be uploaded, but unly from the A: drive.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
November 29, 2012 1:44:10 PM

fritzjoerg said:
Hi Willard

Thanks for your very thoughtful response. Not too long ago I bought a GoFlex 1TB external drive. I had back-ups of 3 computers on it. One Morning I was looking for some file, and sure enough the sucker crashed on me. Seagate could't help me except to send me a new one....that is one reason why i like to go back into RAID. You made some comments about RAID5 or 10....just looking into my RAID Setup Utility, there are only two choices to have; RAID0 and RAID1...quite dated I might add...

Then you're looking at RAID 1. As I've said before, RAID 0 doesn't provide any redundancy, and actually makes your data more vulnerable by allowing any single disk failure to destroy the data on all your disks.

RAID 1 will let you recover from failed disks, but it comes at a price. RAID 1 offers no write speed benefit (all data must be written to both disks), and it cuts your storage in half because you must replicate all data to both disks. This really just isn't a very good backup solution. Normal backups and system restore points take up much less than half your total storage space, and take much less time to restore.

As far as my comment about short stroked drives, that's actually not a special kind of drive. It's something you do to a normal drive. A short stroked drive is one that has had a portion of its capacity disabled in order to be sure that data is always stored on the outside portion of the platter, where rotational speeds are greatest, and thus throughput is greatest. It also reduces the number of tracks, which lowers the maximum distance the disk head may need to travel, and thus improves responsiveness and increases IOP rate.

Works especially well with sequential data, like large video files.
m
0
l
December 3, 2012 4:57:35 PM

I was wondering if there was a hardware and/or communication error between the MB and the HDD's.
I took one HDD off the RAID and connected it to the SATA port. Then I ran the winxp installation CD, and it worked like a charm.
This makes me to believe that there is something wrong with the BIOS setting. Am I right or wrong?
(The HDD's are checked and work fine, no MBR or mechanical problems)
m
0
l
!