P4C800-E Delux: Setting up SATA Drives with RAID

"Is setting up a RAID system as easy as it seems? " Yes. Read the manual,
Connect the drives to the right controller, configure BIOS right, install
the rights drivers, make sure you don't do a Quick format when installing XP
and it is done. Check your BIOS and driver versions first.

"I'm also aware that at least one writer claims the MTBF of the SATA drives
will be halved by using them in a RAID 0 array". Not a good way to phrase
it, and not correct. No doubt not what your meant either...

"the increase in speed using RAID 0 isn't substantial". Its not any increase
in speed that is not substantial, its the actual experienced increase that
is insubstantial. With RAID 0 you can have substantial increases in speed
(the more volumes in RAID 0, the better, but onchip controllers are
currently limited to 2 in ICH5R), but only certain types of application make
sufficient load for this to be worth while and noticeable EG video editing.
RAID 1 does give better read performance and much better performance with
asynchronous / overlapped IO's. Most applications do not use asynch IO's so
do not benefit. One person that posts here refers to this as Multi-Tasking -
this is just another manifestation.

Have a go with RAID 0 if you wish. Try some benchmarks including boot up
(the most apparent time for ordinary users of improved disc performance as
XP optimizes boot time block ordering) stopwatch and usage. Compare non RAID
to RAID 0, and if you have the inclination try RAID 1. There are so many
other factors involved in performance that for most people they will not be
able to attribute any improvement (or much) to RAID 0. I suspect most of the
attributed performance improvement with RAID 0 is due to having a new faster
system, using new faster disc drives, and setting SATA controllers into SATA
mode (when some are in IDE mode they stink) and noting only boot
performance.

You seem to have misunderstood some of the issues with RAID 0 & 1. The
drives won't wear out any faster - in fact for RAID 0 and 1 (and other
forms) drive wear should be reduced as overall, IO's are spread across
volumes. Wear is not an issue - drives seldom wear out, the issue is with
drives that fail prematurely. With RAID 0 if either drive fails (due to
shoddy manufacturing, bad luck or whatever) then the whole array is shot, so
all Windows Volumes on the array are shot. The MTBF of the Windows Volumes
(different perspective) you create on the array is affected by the combined
probability of failure of *either* drive.

With RAID 1, since each member drive is a mirror, the probability of a
failure of a Windows Disc Volume on the array is reduced since if either
drive fails prematurely then the mirror drive continues. Now some people
insist on saying What about Stupid Users (Deleting files).... What about
buggy software..... What about Power fails.... What about System Crashes...
These issues need to be fixed separately and are nothing to do with RAID.
All these issues are addressable - smarten up users, have good backups, get
rid of shoddy software, get a UPS, and make sure your system is patched, up
to date, has a firewall, AV, Anti Scumware etc. etc. Use hygenic internet
usage habits.

So, in terms of logical drive reliability the probability of loss of a
windows disc volume is 2 (twice) for RAID 0, 1 for single disc, and 0.5 for
RAID 1 (figures are demonstrative). IE the reliability of a RAID 0 volume is
1/4 that of a RAID1. Neither config will save you from stupid users, power
failures, controller failures etc. etc. etc. The costs per megabyte are 1,
1, 2 times (obviously) + cost of RAID controller where needed.

Regardless, have good backups. It is surprising how often multi disc
failures happen. If you buy identical drives from the same batch and use
them identically in a RAID 1, then gosh, often they die at about the same
time from the same defect. So when you have a drive failure in a RAID 1,
decide quickly and replace quickly.

Make sure you format volumes as NTFS. If you format using FAT then you run a
very much increased risk of filestore corruption. I have never had in the
many years of using NT, Windows 2000, 2003, and XP any NTFS corruptions.
Some claim that NTFS does not perform as well as FAT - it was measureable
quite easily on a P100, but these days for most applications you would never
ever notice a difference. FAT has got crappy performance when you have lost
your whole disc volume due to a filestore corruption or virus. NTFS supports
recovery (it's a journalising / transactional file store), security,
encryption, compression, and other advanced features. If you do not log on
as an administrator or run processes with Admin priveleges, using the
security of NTFS appropriately, even if you get a virus you can minimize
damage.

RAID 0 + 1 is as its name implies: each drive is mirrored then stripped (or
is it striped then mirrored). You get performance + reliability at a cost. I
have a RAID 10 config with 10 x Ultra 320 SCSI drives on a dual Xeon server


Penultimately, RAID 5 has slow writes.

Alternatives to Nortons? Zone Alarm. Get a copy and wait a few weeks (or
stick with it if you prefer) for Windows XP SP 2 - it comes with a good
basic inbuilt firewall (inwards blocking only, but then you need to be
infected to warrant an out blocking FW). If you are keen, you could get the
XP SP2 RC2 download now - warning: it is large, a release candidate so is
still a beta, but it is good, and will be supported as an upgrade path to
SP2 proper. Don't try to install SP2 RC2 on a computer that displays
problems: it must be virus and scumware free, and don't install it on a
production system.

HTH
- Tim









"Will" wrote in message
om...
I've built several computers but never set up dual SATA Drives under
RAID. I'd like to build a RAID 0 system that boots off the SATA
drives. From what I've read in the MB manual, it shouldn't be too
difficult when performing a clean Windows XP Pro installation. I've
read several articles (and every posting I could find), however, and
I'm not entirely sure this is the right way to go. I know RAID 0
offers no data back-up if one of the drives fails, but I can always
back-up data on an external drive, which is what I do now. If I'm
really concerned out the data I further back it up on a CD ROM or DVD.
I'm also aware that at least one writer claims the MTBF of the SATA
drives will be halved by using them in a RAID 0 array. I've worked in
QA (aircraft not computers per se), and I'm not convinced that the
failure rate of two SATA drives operating under RAID 0 would be worse
than the failure rate of the individual drives, or of drives working
under RAID 1. I know as well that the same author claimed the increase
in speed using RAID 0 isn't substantial, but I'd like to see for
myself. Apparently there is a compromise -- a RAID 0 + 1
configuration. The P4C800-E manual mentions it, then offers no
description of how it works or what it actually does. Some questions:
Is setting up a RAID system as easy as it seems? Are there any traps
to avoid? Has anyone tried using a 0+1 set up? Am I foolish to even
think about a RAID 0 set up? Last question (a bit unrelated to the
topic)-- is there a really good alternative to Norton for firewall and
virus protection? Their software seems to be getting progressively
buggy. Thanks for reading this too long posting and for any advice
you can give.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:59:55 +0100, (ChrisH)
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:19:55 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


Can you use both together? How many drives? Are the drives
interchangeable?

Relevance?

...being what's the ****ing point in having two different RAID systems
operating at once in one PC?

You're kidding, right?

What's the point in having two RAID arrays? Let's see... one boot/OS
array and one data array. One running RAID 5, one running RAID 1.

The standard way of setting up a mission critical MS SQL server is to
create at least three RAID arrays: a RAID 1 array for the OS (for
redundancy - you don't gain a whole lot in performance, but you can't
afford a drive failure taking the machine down), a RAID 5 array for
data (good combination of redundancy and expense since you don't take
a 50% space hit as you do with RAID 1+0 (0+1, 10, 01, etc.), and a
RAID 1+0 array for the transaction logs (maximizing performance for
this storage that is contantly written to).

Wrong, in intense multitasked small record random I/O one gets near exactly
double the throughput.


Yeah, right. Well obviously you're a ****wit so this conversation
ends. Plonk.

Agreed.

"Tim" wrote in message ...
"Is setting up a RAID system as easy as it seems? " Yes. Read the manual,
Connect the drives to the right controller, configure BIOS right, install
the rights drivers, make sure you don't do a Quick format when installing
XP
and it is done. Check your BIOS and driver versions first.

"I'm also aware that at least one writer claims the MTBF of the SATA
drives
will be halved by using them in a RAID 0 array".


That claim is false. The MTBF of an SATA HD remains unchanged whether in a
RAID array or not. The MTBF of a RAID 0 array containing two HDs is half
that of a single HD.

Not a good way to phrase
it, and not correct. No doubt not what your meant either...

"the increase in speed using RAID 0 isn't substantial". Its not any
increase
in speed that is not substantial, its the actual experienced increase that
is insubstantial.


Well that depends entirely on what you are doing.

So, in terms of logical drive reliability the probability of loss of a
windows disc volume is 2 (twice) for RAID 0, 1 for single disc, and 0.5
for
RAID 1 (figures are demonstrative). IE the reliability of a RAID 0 volume
is
1/4 that of a RAID1.


Well no, the probability that one will lose data due to simple HD HW
failure in RAID 1 is vanishingly small IF the mirrored drive is replaced
when one fails. So it's not 1/4 but vastly less.

Neither config will save you from stupid users, power
failures, controller failures etc. etc. etc. The costs per megabyte are 1,
1, 2 times (obviously) + cost of RAID controller where needed.

Regardless, have good backups. It is surprising how often multi disc
failures happen. If you buy identical drives from the same batch and use
them identically in a RAID 1, then gosh, often they die at about the same
time from the same defect.


No, that's not how it works.

So when you have a drive failure in a RAID 1,
decide quickly and replace quickly.


Always a smart move when using RAID 1.

RAID 0 + 1 is as its name implies: each drive is mirrored then stripped
(or
is it striped then mirrored). You get performance + reliability at a cost.
I
have a RAID 10 config with 10 x Ultra 320 SCSI drives on a dual Xeon
server


Penultimately, RAID 5 has slow writes.


Well slower than RAID 10 but not slow and RAID 5 is much less expensive.
For most redundant RAID configurations beyoned 2 drives where the percentage
of writes is not large then usually RAID 5 is the best choice.

"MikeSp" wrote in message ...
In my new computer build using paired Raptors (P4C800-E D mobo), it was EASY
to set up a RAID 0 configuration and I question the validity of the reduced
life of RAID 0 HDDs. Raptors come with a 1.2 MILLION HOUR MTBF rating which
nothing else compares to. The install went without a hitch and I had never
set up RAID before.

BUT, because of Norton (%^$#@!*&) conflicts with a couple of pieces of
software as well as itself on this, my THIRD clean install, I am getting
rid of Norton 2004 (have used Norton since 386's) and going to remove the
RAID partition and start over in a few hours--this time with RAID 1 instead
of RAID 0--a thread in this newsgroup convinced me that for my needs, RAID 0
was an uber geek thing and not really in my best interest. I also have a
200 GB IDE backup HDD too.

To set up RAID 0 or 1--use the Intel South Bridge controller and disable the
Promise controller in BIOS, which is PCI-based and IMHO, not needed for most
people. Have the Intel RAID drivers on a floppy diskette--AND BEFORE
starting the installation, set up the RAID configuation in the BIOS: set
OnBoard IDE Operate Mode to [Enhanced Mode], Enhanced Mode Support On to
[S-ATA], Configure S-ATA as RAID to [Yes], Serial ATA Bootrom to [enabled]
and press 10 ans ave changes and exit the BIOS setup (making sure your boot
drive is CD-ROM).

Create a floppy diskette of the Intel Application Accelerator RAID Editgion
to be used during isntallation of Windows XP--either off of the Asus
installation diskette in a folder labeled "IAA" or a newer version can be
obtained by downloading it from the Asus download/support Site. The file to
download is called "iaa35r.zip" Unzip it and notice that there is a
"MakeDisk.exe" file--place a floppy diskette in the drive and double click
that file to create a driver diskette that contains these four files:
iastor.inf, iastor.sys, iastor.cat, and txtsetup.oem.

Before attempting to load Windows XP, boot computer and while in POST, do a
CTRL-I (eye) to get into the RAID BIOS and make the following changes:
Creat RAID volume (in main menu), Set Stripe Size (probably to 64KB) in
Create Array Menu, Set Raid Level to 0 (striping) or..., highlight "Create
Volume" and press enter and press "y" when a confirmation message apepars
and scroll down to option 4 and press enter.

Place XP install CD in the drive and boot to the CD, having the RAID
diskette handy. At one point, WIndows will briefly ask if there are
additional drivers and if so, hit F6--do so and place the RAID driver
diskette in the drive. Eventually, Windows will then ask for SCSI drivers
and enter "S" for installation and "specifiy additional device" of a SCSI
driver (setup feels that RAID drives are SCSI too??), leave the diskette in
the drive, after pressing enter, a list of available SCSI adaptors will be
presented and it should list the Intel 82801ER Serial RAID controller which
should be selected by you and press enter. The next screen should confirm
that the Intel RAID controller was selected and press enter again to
continue. Finish Windows installation. Upon rebooting, get back into the
BIOS and reset the boot sequence to the RAID volume (making sure that the
RAID drive is shown).

The RAID should be up and running at this point--probably should go ahead
and install theInten Chipset Inf Utility...

Hope there are not too many typos above--was in a hurry since I needed to be
somewhere else. Good luck.

MikeSp

Thank you for the response. Great advice and directions! I'll give it
a try and let you know how I do. I think I'll cashier Norton, too.

Will