seanmcgpa

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About seanmcgpa

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Thanks to the helpful guys who helped me with my earlier 3ware raid issue. My other issue - and I have had this issue forever but just resigned myself to deal with it : When I cold boot my machine, the 3ware RAID controller (3ware 9590SE-8ML) doesn't see my (150GB Raptor x4) array properly. It complains that one of the drives is missing. I then reboot, it sees everything fine and viola - no problem. This is a known issue with the Raptor drives (from 3ware's website) : Q14866 - Compatibility: I am trying to use the WD1500ADFD (10K Raptor 150 GB) drive with the 9500S and 9550SX. The controller doesn't see the Raptor drive at boot. What is going on? Older WD1500ADFD drives require that registers be set correctly in order to be seen by the 3ware 9000 series controllers at boot time. You can run the attached utility from WD to set the registers in the controller. To run the utility, you will need to attach the drives to a motherboard SATA controller. Boot to DOS, then run the contents of the attached .zip file. The drives will then be detected on a 9500S/9550SX/9590SE controller at cold boot and warm boot. Since I have an ASUS striker extreme, I assume I can put the Raptor drives on my nvidia SATA raid ... but I don't have a DOS disk that has nvidia SATA raid support (so the drives are available for the mentioned utility). Anyone have any suggestions on how I update the firmware on these raptors so I can cold boot properly?
  2. I could just KISS you - this worked perfectly! Now the 3ware controller booted from my OS array, and upon boot XP sees the data array just fine. THANK YOU THANK YOU!! How do you like the 3ware raid? I am reading that the Areca controllers are much faster than 3ware .. I can't imagine, these things seem blazing to me ...
  3. I have a 3ware 9590SE-8ML and a new ASUS Striker Extreme motherboard. I have onboard nVidia raid disabled. The raid controller has two units (one 4xRaptor 150GB) and the other (4x750GB setup with dynamic disks) I installed Windows on a new partition on the 4x150 unit, no problems. Reboot, I get a NON BOOTABLE disk error. Hmm.. weird. I unplug one of the power cables from the 4x750GB units and reboot - Windows boots fine. I then reconnect the power cable, force a manual hardware redetection and the other raid unit (4x750GB) shows up. Ok. Reboot .. same problem. It's still seeing the larger (4x750GB) drive and trying to boot from it. I have to disable the raid unit manually every time ... boot from the first unit, and plug the damn power cable back in. Incredibly annoying. 3 ware says to select the unit to boot from in the BIOS - this isn't an option, I can only choose to boot from the controller. Any advice here? I'd hate to have to switch the 4x150GB OS to the nVidia raid controller and lose all the hardware raid acceleration goodnes.... seanmcgpa at gmale.com Thanks
  4. Well I did put the 4 150GB Raptors on the 3Ware 9590SE raid controller (with 64k stripe) and am getting a drive index of 270 MB/s according to Sandra (up from 223 on the Intel 975's onboard raid controller). You mention about a 64k cluster size - I did that for my second partition (games, files, movies, pictures, etc.) but couldn't do this easily with my 32gb boot/OS drive. Is there a way to do this easily? A simple Wind98 boot floppy wont' work, since I need to somehow load the RAID driver first. Any advice appreciated, thanks!
  5. Of course - 3Ware! How could I mix up 3Com and 3ware? Thanks for the advice on the Intel Raid 0 information... I couldn't imagine getting much more out of 4 150GB Raptors than 223 MB/s. The Intel raid controller built into the 975 motherboard (Asus P5WDH) is really fast. I think for shits and giggles I might try to put them on the hardware raid controller and compare my performance. I'd love to hear from anyone that has the 150GB Raptors on a hardware raid controller.
  6. Thanks for the advice! I do need to keep the 600GB online, so I have a 32gb OS install, and the rest for data. I'm curious, for a fresh OS install of XP, how do I configure the cluster size to 64K? I've never seen an option to manually set the cluister size in the Windows XP install screens. I'm using a 64K stripe over 4 Raptor 150's. so I guess it makes sense to have a 64k cluster size. Any advice on how to do that is greatly appreciated.
  7. This young jedi needs advice from my wise masters ... Currently using 4x150GB Raptors in a Raid-0 Array on a P5WDH and an overclocked Intel X6800 Conroe. The drives are on Intel's native 975 chipset raid controller. A friend tells me that Intel's 975 is a "software" raid, and that I would get much better performance by using a hardware raid like the 3Com 9590SE-8ML listed here. However, I'm getting really impressive boot times and the system is simply the fastest I've ever used. Here's a SiSoft Sandra 2007 benchmark: Drive Index : 223 MB/s Random Access Time : 6 ms Performance Test Status Run ID : OOGA on Monday, August 07, 2006 at 3:36:11 AM Processor Affinity : No System Timer : 3.5GHz Operating System Disk Cache Used : No Use Overlapped I/O : Yes IO Queue Depth : 4 request(s) Test File Size : 2GB File Fragments : 1 Block Size : 1MB File Server Optimised : No Benchmark Breakdown Buffered Read : 321 MB/s Sequential Read : 312 MB/s Random Read : 104 MB/s Buffered Write : 102 MB/s Sequential Write : 227 MB/s Random Write : 166 MB/s Random Access Time : 6 ms (estimated) Drive Drive Type : Hard Disk Total Size : 32GB Free Space : 22GB, 70% Cluster Size : 4kB Is this true? Is Intel's raid really software, and could I get more performance out of these Raptors by going hardware raid? I purchased the 3com card regardless (for file storage), but would consider moving the raptors to the hardware raid if you guys think it'd be faster. Advice greatly appreciated, with punch and pie.
  8. I'm getting ready to build a new rig with the Abit IC7-Max3 and two WD Rator 36gb SATA drives. I'd like to set up a raid 0 array for my Os/Apps ... I hear that this is an extremely fast setup. But what strip size should I use? I'm doing basic stuff... gaming, internet, etc... no NLE or video stuff. Thanks for any advice, Sean
  9. I'm running XP Pro SP1 with all the latest updates (except for infamous 811493 security update). I had been running McAfee VirusScan Pro 7.0 but had been noticing odd lockups. Sometimes the computer would not shut down properly. Somtimes programs that I use frequently would just hang for no apparent reason. And the whole system seemed a litle... sluggish. So maybe it's my virus software. I backup, reformat and reinstall XP from scratch, and install Norton AntiVirus 2003. All of a sudden my Duel Xeon system is a 486. Everything creeps along. Windows open after long pauses, opening up directories is excruciating. Can this really be what Norton does to Windows? Symantec tells me to download some patch and make a registry mod, which I do. It does seem a little better, but still painful. My mighty PC has been castrated. Wow, I long for McAfee's sluggishness as opposed to Norton's painful Windows experience. So I reformat and reinstall XP from scratch, and start doing some research on other Virus Software. In the mean time, Windows screams, everything opens the way I like it and want it to. No hangs. No crashes. Bliss. And now I'm thinking, do I really need Virus protection? I know it sounds ridiculous in this day and age ... but do I really? Outlook won't let me open any attachments that contain exe or scripts. I don't use IRC or Kazaa. Should I risk a virus to have fast computing in the year 2003?
  10. Can someone suggest what to do? I have a SuperMicro motherboard with onboard SCSI. I needed more drive space for my ever growing MP3/Ogg/Lossless audio collection, but SCSI drives were too expensive ($/GB) so I am using Western Digital 250GB EIDE drives instead. I placed 4 of these bad boys on my Motherboard's EIDE channels. Since I still had my older drives (WD120JB's), I installed the EIDE controller that came with the drives and put them on the card. Now when I boot, my motherboard correctly detects all 4 EIDE drives, the SCSI controller detects it's drives and then the Promise detects it's drives fine. However, the motherboard no longer boots from my C: drive (SCSI). After the Promise detects its drive it just sits there. I have correctly set my BIOS to boot from my SCSI drive, but I think herein lies the problem. In reading through the FAQ on Promise's web site, it states the Promise is detected as a SCSI device. So *I think* the Promise is trying to boot (although I get no warnings for No System Disk etc.) How do I change the boot priority to force a boot from my onboard SCSI instead of the Promise Tx2 controller? Or am I thinking this through incorrectly? Is this even possible with this configuration? If this gets too much of a hassle I would just pull the Promise controller and try to set the older drives up on firewire enclosures, since I'd like to remain booting from my SCSI hd (Unless the universal consensus is that SCSI under XPsp1 is munged and I should just use EIDE anyway to boot). Any help suggestions feedback greatly appreciated.... Thanks, Sean
  11. seanmcgpa

    WD press release: 250GB

    I, too, could use these drives ... I have 4 WD1200JB's.... 220 gigs of Mp3s, 150 gigs of videos, 90 gigs of porn (er... educational material). I need more space!
  12. It does. Any system that can support 2.8GHz Xeons is almost guaranteed to support 48-bit LBA. In your case, it uses Intel's 860 chipset, which has 48-bit LBA compatible UltraATA/100 support. (Technically, it is that it includes Intel's 82801BA 'ICH2' I/O controller hub, which, according to Intel's website, supports 48-bit LBA. Any Intel 8xx series chipset supports 48-bit LBA.) But, SuperMicro had to include 48-bit LBA support in the BIOS. Which they almost guaranteed have done. Also, if you are running Linux, BSD, Solaris, Windows 2000, or Windows XP, it doesn't matter if the BIOS has 48-bit LBA support, the OS ignores the BIOS and provides native 48-bit LBA support with your chipset. Thanks so much for the info!
  13. I'm rapidly running out of space, and looking at the new WD 250GB drives as a cheaper alternative to SCSI. I have a fairly new SuperMicro P4DC6+ motherboard with Duel Xeon 2.8ghz processors. I can't seem to figure out though if my motherboard will support large capacity (>137GB) hard drives. Anyone know how I can find this out? Thanks Sean