RE: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted
From: Rho_1r (Rho_1r_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/20/04
- Next message: Jerrold: "inaccessable boot device"
- Previous message: Rho_1r: "RE: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- In reply to: Rho_1r: "RE: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- Next in thread: Stephen: "Re: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- Reply: Ron Reaugh: "Re: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:33:02 -0700
WHQL-windows hardware quality labs has not tested and optimzed SATA drivers,
plus ATA and SCSI was optimized in all components as they were around.
"Rho_1r" wrote:
> Windows XP default is 4KB cluster size-Std NTFS size , changing to 32KB size
> is like going backwards to Fat 32, establishing the raid array is standard,
> before loading the operating system, I'm surprised you chose SATA,,Tests on
> many premier web sites, show SATA is slower than 7200RPM-ATA-5 with 8MB
> caches( Look for SATA v ATA on WWW), due to pci 2.2 specifications (33MHZ
> bandwidth buses or 133MB/s speed maximum), a lot of people have been
> "clipped" chasing the speed angle, One site tested SATA v ATA-5 and concluded
> WinXP does not support the bandwidth of 150mb/s, which makes a lot of sense ,
> as WinXP was released before
> SATA showed up on the market, Microsoft has said "Ataport", the new mini
> drivers,
> will support SATA nad ATA's , however this will be in "Future" operating
> systems.
> SATA attempts to send a lot of data ect," down very few lines", this quite
> different than normal to date, as transfer wires have incresed speed has
> increased.
> 40 wire+shielded 66MB/s, 100MB/s, 133MB/s speeds
> 68 wire+ shielded SCSI 160mb/s
> 80 wire + shielded SCSI 320mb/s
> You understand ? Increase in transfer wires increase in speeds to from
> disk drives to memory, Now here comes SATA and transfer wires reduced to "7"
> or so and it goes 150MB/s, The new technology of SATA is a " faster clock
> chip", the compression on transfer data has sky rocketed, this slows things
> down, Plus WINXP has SCSI port drivers and ATA port drivers, NO SATA port
> drivers, Since Longhorn is a MS future operating system, ATAport may be in
> there, MS has not said yet it included in Longhorn, SATA will work with WINXP
> its still second class, The golden rule- If the operating system does not
> have initial support for Hardware, its like throwing dice "snake eyes" you
> lose, the operating system must be able to handle the hardware in its coding,
> RAID and its not working in many operating systems, till coding schemes were
> included is the " Number 1 example ". I'll wait until MS includes SATA
> drivers in the furture operting systems, this way "WHCL has optimized" the
> driver for the particular operating system of MS, SATA has no WHCL
> driver optimization.
> Rho1raid(VIP) not MVP
>
> "Stephen" wrote:
>
> > Thank you for reading. I know this will seem fussy on my part but I like to
> > see what I can do here.
> >
> > I've set up a RAID 0 with a pair of Maxtor SATA drives on an Intel P4 mobo.
> > It works very well. But some questions came to mind during the setup
> > process.
> >
> > I had to establish the striped *before* installing the OS. This involved
> > going into the bios, selecting the drives for the stipe and interestingly
> > enough selecting the --size-- of the stripe i.e. one of 32, 64, or 128 kB!
> > This is before either partitioning or formatting! The process turned two
> > harddrives into one 'drive'.
> >
> > So I choose 128 for performance then started the Windows install process.
> >
> > Through the facilities Windows provides I was able to change the active
> > partition and get Windows onto something other than a 4KB cluster formated
> > NTFS partition. Windows got installed on an NTFS partition formatted with
> > 32KB clusters on my 128 KB striped RAID 0 'drive'.
> >
> > To be honest, I do not have a clue as to what is going on. Does each 32KB
> > cluster take up 128KB of harddrive space? Should I have arranged for the
> > NTFS partiton to be formatted with 128KB clusters [ the Disk Management
> > option however only allows up to 64KB].
> >
> > How are the 32KB clusters 'split' across the RAID 0 stripe?
> >
> > Maybe I should have chosen a 64KB RAID 0 stripe then formatted NTFS with
> > 64KB clusters?
> >
> > BTW because the RAID 0 was set up *before* Windows was installed I didb't
> > have to upgrade the disks to dynamic.
> >
> > Any insights welcome - and thanks.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> >
- Next message: Jerrold: "inaccessable boot device"
- Previous message: Rho_1r: "RE: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- In reply to: Rho_1r: "RE: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- Next in thread: Stephen: "Re: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- Reply: Ron Reaugh: "Re: RAID 0 and the formatting of Partitions - Crossposted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
