If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SATA and IDE Drives Installation
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 a 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Maiso" wrote in message om... 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 a 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 procedu (1) Before installing the drives, updated bios to f11 or f12, the latest IAA drivers from http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scri...?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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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" wrote in message news:i60cd.51275$cJ3.20500@fed1read06... "Maiso" wrote in message om... I want to install two SATA drives in a RAID 0 configuration to my GA-8KNXP Revision 1 motherboard. I also will have a 80GB as a master and a DVD ROM as slave on IDE 1and a DVD R/W as master on IDE 2. My questions a 1. Which SATA connector should I use, the ICH5R or the Sil3112 and why? I just set SATA RAID0 up on this same mobo only a month ago using 2 x 36gb Raptors. The concensus received from this newsgroup at the time was to use the ICH5R since it is on-chip and easier on PCI resources, thus will realize a performance advantage. Here was my procedu (1) Before installing the drives, updated bios to f11 or f12, the latest IAA drivers from http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scri...?ProductID=663 (perhaps not critical), then activated the controller in the bios ("On-chip SATA" enabled) and set SATA mode to RAID. I don't think you can update IAA from within Windows or recognize the RAID controller until the bios settings are correct as above. Boot into Windows and make sure the controller is installed (Device Manager, SCSI and RAID Controllers should show "Intel 82801ER SATA RAID controller") before installing the drives. (2) Cloned the old C: drive using Ghost if it will be used in the RAID array. If not, use Ghost or other cloning software to restore it to the new array later. (3) Connected the drives to the ICH5R, started the system, and went into the RAID setup using ^I at POST. You can then set up the drives as you wish. (4) Using a Win98SE startup floppy and latest DOS versions of FDISK (download from the M$ 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Maiso" wrote in message om... 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 $100 for a new drive? I think perhaps not unless you do heavy photo editing like I do, and even then the difference is not great since both setups are very fast. I was given the second drive for helping a friend troubleshoot her computer, so I had no reason not to set up RAID. The extra drive doubles the risk of a hardware failure, but I have an elaborate backup plan and if one drive goes kaput I can be up and running in the time it takes to restore a clone with Norton Ghost (about 15 minutes), plus a few minutes to restore incremental backups. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Davis" wrote in message news:XYmcd.5199$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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Bob:
Thanks for all your info. Regards. "Bob Davis" wrote in message news:XYmcd.5199$EZ.4955@okepread07... "Maiso" wrote in message om... 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 $100 for a new drive? I think perhaps not unless you do heavy photo editing like I do, and even then the difference is not great since both setups are very fast. I was given the second drive for helping a friend troubleshoot her computer, so I had no reason not to set up RAID. The extra drive doubles the risk of a hardware failure, but I have an elaborate backup plan and if one drive goes kaput I can be up and running in the time it takes to restore a clone with Norton Ghost (about 15 minutes), plus a few minutes to restore incremental backups. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Davis wrote:
"Bob Davis" wrote in message news:XYmcd.5199$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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|