Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Windows 7 and RAID 0 woes  (Read 8085 times)
Alex MacPherson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« on: January 01, 2010, 02:34:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you guys know anything about Windows 7?

I bought 2 brand new hard drives (WD Caviar Black 1T)  and Windows 7 Professional 64bit. I wanted to set them up as RAID 0 for photoshop.
Anyways, I went into the BIOS and set it up as RAID 0 according to my mobo instruction manual but I couldn't get it to boot properly after that.
I went back to change it back to regular and tried installing Win 7. It would hang during the first part of
the installation and then nothing would happen.
I ran the Microsoft Windows 7 compatibility software to see if there were any issues before I started
and my system checked out.

I gave up and plugged my old drive back in (with window XP) and now it won't start up either.

My system
Gigabyte GA-p35-dq6
Intel Core Duo E6850
2x G.Skill 2gb ram
Nvidia 8800gt
SB card

Anyone have any thoughts before I take it in to pay someone to fix it?
Logged

Alex MacPherson

Visit My Website
Alex MacPherson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2010, 03:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't even get it to boot from CD drive anymore.
I have my bios setup in a way that it will try to boot from CD from prompt first then the drives.
I had some problem with defective memory modules a long time ago that cause a boot loop.... to I configured it that way to recover.

I first tried the RAID thing ,,, it didn't work so I reset the bios to normal (not raid) to install the window 7 just on one drive. It got as far as the "windows is configuring files" screen with the progress close to the beginning then... it just quit. (froze)

I looked up online with my laptop to see if there was a solution. Someone said they had the same problem and flashed the bios to get it to work.

I went into the bios and did the same. It didn't work. I gave up and replugged in my system (XP) drive to go back to normal and now it won't boot either ... even with the windows xp disk in the cd drive.

I guess I will have to take it in.
Logged

Alex MacPherson

Visit My Website
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2010, 06:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Sounds serious, indeed. I'd take it in - could be a rootkit or just a hosed BIOS.
Logged

Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2010, 03:58:55 AM »
ReplyReply

In the motherboard manual, there should be a mention on the motherboard pins/connections(usually a sort of diagram/map of the thing) of a bios reset.  Usually this is a set of small pins you need to short out/bridge momentarily.  This should set it to default again, or your can yank the bios battery and slowly cycle the power a couple of times with it unplugged from the wall to drain the capacitors.

From there it's a matter of configuring everything back properly.  Often the simplest things cause the most annoying problems(usually stuff like disabling on-board sound or other things) - also make sure it's set to PNP/plug and play compatibility if that's there - it sets up the ports and a lot of things automatically.

Just go slowly and ask us here if there's anything that doesn't seem right or is confusing.
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2010, 12:12:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Your BIOS is set incorrectly.  Make sure the Drive Section under SATA is set to either IDE or AHCI, if you were running XP without the 3rd party AHCI driver you were most likely using IDE emulation - try that first. Win 7 natively support AHCI - use it instead.

Putting your O/S on RAID 0 is risky, if you are looking for better performance, short stroke your system drive and use the 1T drives in RAID 1 as data.
Logged

JuhaniVaihkonen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2010, 03:54:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I installed my RC into RAID0, it was a bit faster.
I needed to install my raid driver when installing Windows 7.
When I installed RTM I changed the drive into RAID1 because of security.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1923



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2010, 05:09:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dolce Moda Photography
Do you guys know anything about Windows 7?

I bought 2 brand new hard drives (WD Caviar Black 1T)  and Windows 7 Professional 64bit. I wanted to set them up as RAID 0 for photoshop.
Anyways, I went into the BIOS and set it up as RAID 0 according to my mobo instruction manual but I couldn't get it to boot properly after that.
I went back to change it back to regular and tried installing Win 7. It would hang during the first part of
the installation and then nothing would happen.
I ran the Microsoft Windows 7 compatibility software to see if there were any issues before I started
and my system checked out.

I gave up and plugged my old drive back in (with window XP) and now it won't start up either.

My system
Gigabyte GA-p35-dq6
Intel Core Duo E6850
2x G.Skill 2gb ram
Nvidia 8800gt
SB card

Anyone have any thoughts before I take it in to pay someone to fix it?

Did you follow the correct sequence of steps? You have to configure the RAID before installing Windows (you want the RAID array as your boot disk, right?). So, you would install the disks, connect to the motherboard, set any BIOS settings as needed, and then boot off the Windows 7 CD to install.

I have 2 RAID 0 arrays running with Win 7, one for boot and PS and one for photos, and have had not the slightest problem, so it can be done.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2010, 04:25:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Joh.Murray
Your BIOS is set incorrectly.  Make sure the Drive Section under SATA is set to either IDE or AHCI, if you were running XP without the 3rd party AHCI driver you were most likely using IDE emulation - try that first. Win 7 natively support AHCI - use it instead.

Putting your O/S on RAID 0 is risky, if you are looking for better performance, short stroke your system drive and use the 1T drives in RAID 1 as data.

Slightly off-topic but why is putting OS on Raid 0 risky? I have everything on unpartitioned pair of HDDs configured as Raid 0, running with Vista 64. Admittedly as a non-professional my time/cost equation for getting back up running is different, but I have everything backed up and can re-install all programs drivers from disc/download if need be.

As an aside, having taken advantage of almost free upgrade to 7 Home Premium from Vista on my daughters laptop, can't really see any point upgrading from the much maligned Vista 64 to 7 64, if you only use OS as gate into applications. I originally thought that you could run XP applications (in my case Silverfast SE for Canon 9950F and Nikon Scan 4) in XP emulation mode, where they are not compatible with Vista/7 64, but apparently it is not equivalent to a dual boot, it just emulates look and way of working of XP.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 04:26:41 AM by NigelC » Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1923



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2010, 08:04:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NigelC
Slightly off-topic but why is putting OS on Raid 0 risky? I have everything on unpartitioned pair of HDDs configured as Raid 0, running with Vista 64. Admittedly as a non-professional my time/cost equation for getting back up running is different, but I have everything backed up and can re-install all programs drivers from disc/download if need be.

As an aside, having taken advantage of almost free upgrade to 7 Home Premium from Vista on my daughters laptop, can't really see any point upgrading from the much maligned Vista 64 to 7 64, if you only use OS as gate into applications. I originally thought that you could run XP applications (in my case Silverfast SE for Canon 9950F and Nikon Scan 4) in XP emulation mode, where they are not compatible with Vista/7 64, but apparently it is not equivalent to a dual boot, it just emulates look and way of working of XP.

It's not risky. It's true that using RAID 0 doubles the chance of a disk problem (because there are 2 disks involved instead of 1), but disks are so incredibly reliable and doubling a minuscule probability still gives you a minuscule probability. Also, if you use a disk image utility (part of some OS versions), the process of recovering from a boot disk crash is quick and almost painless.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2010, 09:39:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterAit
It's not risky. It's true that using RAID 0 doubles the chance of a disk problem (because there are 2 disks involved instead of 1), but disks are so incredibly reliable and doubling a minuscule probability still gives you a minuscule probability.

Your math is off. With RAID 0, the probability of the array failing is the probability of a single drive failure raised to the power of the number of drives in the array, because failure of any drive in the array results in the loss of all data on all drives in the array, even the ones that didn't fail. RAID 0 is fine for temporary/scratch data or stuff that gets backed up regularly, but I would not recommend it for a boot drive unless you have a bootable backup drive handy. Drives are reliable, but I've had plenty of experience dealing with drive failures, and the probability of it happening to you is not nearly as remote as you might think.
Logged

NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2010, 10:50:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Your math is off. With RAID 0, the probability of the array failing is the probability of a single drive failure raised to the power of the number of drives in the array, because failure of any drive in the array results in the loss of all data on all drives in the array, even the ones that didn't fail. RAID 0 is fine for temporary/scratch data or stuff that gets backed up regularly, but I would not recommend it for a boot drive unless you have a bootable backup drive handy. Drives are reliable, but I've had plenty of experience dealing with drive failures, and the probability of it happening to you is not nearly as remote as you might think.

I do back-up mirror image of system with Acronis onto another hard drive

Anyone know if my assumption about XP emulation mode in Win 7 is correct? (i.e. its a simulation of the XP interface, rather than fully functional OS)
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1923



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2010, 11:12:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Your math is off. With RAID 0, the probability of the array failing is the probability of a single drive failure raised to the power of the number of drives in the array, because failure of any drive in the array results in the loss of all data on all drives in the array, even the ones that didn't fail. RAID 0 is fine for temporary/scratch data or stuff that gets backed up regularly, but I would not recommend it for a boot drive unless you have a bootable backup drive handy. Drives are reliable, but I've had plenty of experience dealing with drive failures, and the probability of it happening to you is not nearly as remote as you might think.

My math is quite correct (assuming a 2-drive RAID 0 array). The probability of A or B happening is the probability of A plus the probability of B, in other words double (assuming A and B have the same probability, which is the case in a 2-drive array with identical drives). In fact, precise calculation shows that the probability of a 2-drive array failing is slightly less that the sum of the individual probabilities (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID...0_failure_rate)

You are correct that the failure of any drive in a RAID 0 array will result in the loss of all data, and that's why you add the individual probabilities of failure.

Another way to look at it - more common with drives - is the mean time to failure (MTTF). For an n drive array, the MTTF is defined as (MTTF-one drive)/n. So, if MTTF for one drive is x, MTTF for a 2-drive RAID o array is x/2, which is mathematically the same as saying the probability of failure over a given time period has doubled.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2010, 05:17:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NigelC
I do back-up mirror image of system with Acronis onto another hard drive

Anyone know if my assumption about XP emulation mode in Win 7 is correct? (i.e. its a simulation of the XP interface, rather than fully functional OS)

Win 7's XP mode is not an emulation, rather a Virtual Machine with access to much of the machine's underlying hardware, including USB.  I'm running it under Win7-64 and succesfully using a film scanner that is not supported by Win7.   It requires CPU support for Intel-VT or AMD-V hardware virtualization.  Here's a link to compliant Intel CPU's:

http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx

Note that XP mode is truly independant from your underlying Win 7 O/S, other than a license for XP istself, you'll need separate licenses for any applications running within the XP machine.

edit:  here's some links to determine if your existing CPU supports Hardware Virtualization:

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/tools/piu/
http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/dynamicDet...&ItemID=172


hth - John
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 05:23:28 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2010, 05:51:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Joh.Murray
Win 7's XP mode is not an emulation, rather a Virtual Machine with access to much of the machine's underlying hardware, including USB.  I'm running it under Win7-64 and succesfully using a film scanner that is not supported by Win7.   It requires CPU support for Intel-VT or AMD-V hardware virtualization.  Here's a link to compliant Intel CPU's:

http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx

Note that XP mode is truly independant from your underlying Win 7 O/S, other than a license for XP istself, you'll need separate licenses for any applications running within the XP machine.

edit:  here's some links to determine if your existing CPU supports Hardware Virtualization:

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/tools/piu/
http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/dynamicDet...&ItemID=172


hth - John

Thanks
Logged
peter.s.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2010, 07:03:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Installing raid on the boot drive is always technically tricky and has always been.

I suggest giving up on that altogether and get a good value SSD like OCZ Vertex, Corsair Extreme 32GB or 64GB and install your OS & programs on that while keeping all your data on your new drives (raid 0 if you like). The system will boot up crazy fast (I have just helped a friend with this setup using Windows 7).






Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1923



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2010, 08:50:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: peter.s.
Installing raid on the boot drive is always technically tricky and has always been.

I suggest giving up on that altogether and get a good value SSD like OCZ Vertex, Corsair Extreme 32GB or 64GB and install your OS & programs on that while keeping all your data on your new drives (raid 0 if you like). The system will boot up crazy fast (I have just helped a friend with this setup using Windows 7).

I have boot and programs on a RAID 0 with no problems, although it was a factory installation. But, I think the key to a smooth install is to set up the raid before you install the OS and programs.

I don't see the point of putting the boot and programs on an SSD. Yes, it is faster, but booting and loading PS are things you do once a day so the extra speed has little if any impact on your workflow.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2010, 01:47:36 PM »
ReplyReply

That's just not true, though.  All of the swap and temp files that the OS uses, plus the various drivers, video, sound, and other components of the OS that are constantly running or being loaded in and out all will use the boot drive unless you've specifically altered Windows not to do so.  There also is the issue of firewall/AV software and any other secondary smaller processes that all run off of the same drive.

The issue is that there is only one set of read/write heads in use at any one time in a traditional hard drive design.  So this causes a massive slowdown as the rest of the system waits for its turn at this little piece of spinning metal.

A SSD(or ramdisk) gets rid of this.  Everything operates at the maximum bandwidth of the device, and pretty much all at once.  It's an immediate and noticeable increase in speed versus even a Raid 0 array, especially when caching/swapping temp data around or things like when quitting a program(instant release back to desktop and full speed as well - no lag)
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1923



WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2010, 03:33:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
That's just not true, though.  All of the swap and temp files that the OS uses, plus the various drivers, video, sound, and other components of the OS that are constantly running or being loaded in and out all will use the boot drive unless you've specifically altered Windows not to do so.  There also is the issue of firewall/AV software and any other secondary smaller processes that all run off of the same drive.

The issue is that there is only one set of read/write heads in use at any one time in a traditional hard drive design.  So this causes a massive slowdown as the rest of the system waits for its turn at this little piece of spinning metal.

A SSD(or ramdisk) gets rid of this.  Everything operates at the maximum bandwidth of the device, and pretty much all at once.  It's an immediate and noticeable increase in speed versus even a Raid 0 array, especially when caching/swapping temp data around or things like when quitting a program(instant release back to desktop and full speed as well - no lag)

But the question is, what specifically happens significantly faster with an SSD boot disk that will make a meaningful difference in my work? Having PS quit instantly is of little interest - and in any case it does that with my RAID 0 boot disk. The things you say are true, but it reminds me of the other thread about sharpening in which all sorts of theory (true as far as I know) is being bandied about, but no one is offering tools or techniques that will improve my or anyone else's work. Likewise, you've yet to make the case that an SSD boot drive will improve anyone's work experience in a meaningful way. For image storage or scratch, sure, but that's a different matter.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2010, 09:55:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry. Been away for a bit.  

There are many examples and reviews to be found concerning SSDs.  The main difference is that access speeds are generally in the range of physical memory and they operate at nearly the same bandwidth as physical memory(number of simultaneous operations).   Everything runs much faster with one, though not as fast as a real ramdrive/ramdisk.  That's even faster still.(Windows booting in 6-8 seconds and so on)

http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nan..._Comparison.pdf
From Intel concerning Photoshop(not counting system tasks and overall system speedup)
Logged
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2010, 01:23:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
they operate at nearly the same bandwidth as physical memory(number of simultaneous operations).

Current RAM in mainstream PCs gives transfer rates in the range of 10 GB/s to 20 GB/s.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3589&p=5

Typical SSDs give 200-250 MB/s in the best cases.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3757&p=4

Fast hard drives peak at 150 MB/s
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3668

The performance of RAM vs SSDs, on average 75:1

The perfomance of SSD vs HDs, on average 2:1

Please note that the "b" in the new SATA standard (6Gb/s) is a small "b", for bit.  

 

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad