More RAID Woes.... again....

[SomeJoe7777]

I'm not positive what the limitations are on RAID Reconstructor demo version. If it showed you how it could put the RAID volumes back together but doesn't actually save the image, then perhaps that is the limitation.

When I purchased the Runtime utilities bundle, it came with RAID Reconstructor, GetDataBack, and DiskExplorer. I never did use the RAID Reconstructor demo, when I used it for the first time it was the paid version.

Anyway, if you've already reinstalled, don't worry about it.

 

[angelkiller]

Yea, I guess it was the evaluation version limitations.

However, I seem to have another problem. My array will randomly fail. I forgot what I did the first time, but the Raid manager (during bios) said the array had failed. I checked the status and One drive was still in the array, but the other was indicated by a question mark. Strangely, another RAID 0 array appeared. It contained the second drive and was missing the other. In other words, two arrays showed up, each containing a drive. The first time the second array was named "graid", the default name. The second time this happened, it was "<my name> RAID". The real array's name was "<my name> RAID 0".

I have no clue what could be causing this. But the second time, I had just finished copying some data from a DVD, and my hand knicked a spare HDD (which contained some older data), and the machine reset itself, and the array failed. So it is possible that I could have briefly disconnected the power cable or the sata cable to the HDD. (Don't know if that can reset the machine)

I don't know what to do. This is irreversable also. When this happens, I must reinstall again. This will be my third time. I think this is a driver issue. If I recall correctly, I used the drivers directly from Jmicron's site. (Rather than using the ones that came with my mobo) There have been many reports of this controller being buggy. Before I reinstall again, should I use the drivers that came with my mobo again? What else could be the problem?

Thanks alot. (for the millionth time ) *bows head and kisses floor in front of you*

 

[4745454b]

Why are you still F'ing with AID0??? Haven't you learned your lesson yet, or are you the worlds biggest glutton for punishment? Don't use AID0, double for your boot volume. I know you think that you need the AID0 array, but I doubt your one of those users who really need it. Just set up all your drives as "normal" ones and be done with this.

 

[angelkiller]

I'm sorry!! But I'm addicted to the speed!! :twisted: I love it!! I'm the first person to spawn on the new map. You could get any vehicle you wanted, you can be the first to capture the CP's! It's great!!

But at what price does this come at? Well I guess threads like these, after I screw something up. But it wasn't the Raid 0 array that failed, rather it was something I did that screwed it up. To me its's like having a glass sphere balenced on a mini-pyramid. When it's perfectly balenced, it's awesome! But if you start messing with it, you screw everything up.

I know I should abandon RAID, but it hasn't failed me. (yet) I just keep messing it up. If I tied my hand behind my back, it would probably be fine. (But I do clearly understand you point, and it is very good. But I'm young and don't listen to good advice :twisted: )

 

[4745454b]

First to spawn on the map? How do you get your computer to load the game before the servers map is loaded? Don't make me break out the benchmarks that show AID0 setups loading maps a whole 1-2secs faster then non raid. Is two seconds seriously enough time to make this worthwhile? You've been without your machine for how long now?

I view AID0 as a myth. There was a megahertz myth that was broken, and I hope AID0 will brake too. Unless you are doing something that accesses the harddrives enough to make AID0 worth it, its a waste of your time trying to set it up.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

But I'm young and don't listen to good advice

The fact that you know that in the first place puts you 95% ahead of the rest. 8)

 

[bberson]

Ok, I'm back. My Raid 0 array won't boot. [...] Now, I had left some extra space on my Raid array (~10GB) to install Ubuntu (Linux) on at a later date.

Off-topic slightly, but of all the various *IX builds Ubuntu seems to have the largest number of vulnerabilities discovered. Just FYI.

OK, so it looks like trying to install an OS sans the proper RAID drivers, or perhaps screwing with dmraid borked your array. Then you made the problem worse (probably only a little worse, if that makes you feel better) by deleting that array instead of trying various rebuild options.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot to add at this point - many other folks have already chimed in with excellent advice, and some well-placed criticism. Luckily, unless you scrubbed the array at some point it's more than likely that most of your data IS still there, except for whatever areas Ubuntu may have over-written on one HD. Nicer still, Windows keeps more than one copy of its critical file structures so smart software can do a fairly decent job of retrieving your data. Just proceed carefully, so as not to further endanger the contents of your hard drives

By the way, I think those Marvell controllers suck. Just My Humble Opinion, YMMV, etc.

I know I should abandon RAID, but it hasn't failed me. (yet) I just keep messing it up.

I hope you see the horribly defective logic here.

I'm sorry!! But I'm addicted to the speed!! :twisted: I love it!!

Then replace that Seagate 7200.9 with a Raptor, or lay waste to your college book budget and buy a SCSI setup with a 15K Fujitsu or a Seagate 15.5 Cheetah.

Here's a novel approach that few folks consider: Just buy a drive that's at least twice as large as what you think you need. It reduces overall seek times, usually gives you faster sustained transfer rates just because of increased data density across the board, and drastically lessens the loss of sustained transfer rate as you reach the far end (inner zone) of the platters.

For example, a full ST3808110AS drops to a dismal 36 MB/s. A 150GB Raptor gives you 88.3 MB/s STR at the outer zone and by the 80GB mark, is still around 78 MB/s. A half-full Raptor is faster than an empty 7200.9, with superior native seek times as well.

The big Raptor also supports TLER, which may resolve some of your complaints about your random RAID set integrity failures.

What I find interesting is the value judgement in all this. You say "Nothing mission critical was on the array, but reinstalling windows and my games and programs is a pain in the ass", and that you had a one month old backup. And "there's no way I'm paying $100 for a month's worth of data". Yet you've been screwing around with this for two weeks now. What's all your time worth?

Lots of luck with your data recovery. At this point it seems like a merely academic exercise.

-Brad

 

[apache_lives]

i had to build a vista machine for a customer and i couldn't get the DS3 to work in RAID5 with Vista, i dunno who to be angry more at, Microsoft, Gigabyte, or Intel for there Incompetence and selling something that cant work as advertised.

 

[Athalus_nubie]

Ive had "some" experience with the frustration caused by RAID problems, and im with all the haters. its not worth it.
Also dual booting windows+linux of the same disk? not the best idea...and then dual booting off a raid array? thats just asking for death by deletion.
Still, i can tell you from experience that their is nothing like the satisfation you get when you finaly figure out how to get it working again after a few weeks of trying to fix it ;p