Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (
More info?)
Thanks also Tim.
Don
"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:c7mnbv$e78$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Richard,
>
> See inline.....
>
> "Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c7jrl4$74n$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > "ICH5R = On Chip SATA controller. ("On Board" is the Silicon image),
> > Manual
> > (not Auto) Config, Sata as Sata. Raid Enabled - even if you have only 1
> > disc, this is called RAID Ready and enables you to activate RAID at run
> > time
> > when ready after adding another disc of course."
> >
> > Why set the On Chip SATA Controller to "manual", what happens if you set
> > it
> > to "auto"?
>
> What happens? It doesn't work. This is one of the 'secret' settings that
if
> omitted causes people to rip hair out and scream. Set the controller To
> Manual and ensure that SATA is SATA not mapped to IDE. If you want, try it
> on Auto and watch what happens.
>
> > Why enable RAID?...why can't you enable BASE when using a single drive?
>
> 'Base' = Non Raid is for the Silicon Image controller. If you are not
using
> this controller, then disable it.
> If you are not using the ITE (aka Gigaraid) controller then disable it -
it
> will elongate your boot time by about 22 seconds otherwise. Common opinion
> is that the ICH5R is the preferred controller as it does not run via PCI
bus
> and so reduces PCI bus loading.
>
> For ICH5R, a single SATA drive will run as an ordinary non RAID disc, but
is
> ready for RAID. See Intel's documentation - they call it Raid Ready. When
> you
> are in this state, you can just add another SATA disc and at run time
> (supposedly) go into IAA and create your Raid 0 or 1 volume with the new
> drive. The IAA / drivers aren't perfect yet & the documentation is not too
> hot, but others have been less chicken than I and ignored the warning
about
> loss of data and completed a Raid Ready single drive to RAID 1 online
while
> Windows XP is running.
>
> I suggest you review what I said about BIOS and driver versions. If you
had
> a rev 1 board and an old bios, then things get a lot worse.
>
> If you have an old bios and / or old drivers, then you will have something
> less than described. The mobo bios contains the ICH5R RAID bios and
> integrates with the F6 installed driver determining what you can do at run
> time. EG the original bios and drivers supported only RAID 0 - striped.
The
> latest RAID 0 or 1 and onine RAID rebuilds along with builds.
>
> > Boot order...Floppy, CD-ROM, SCSI....correct?
>
> Boot Order: In Advanced Bios Features (yip I rebooted just 4 u):
>
> HD boot priority = SCSI-0 : Intel System
>
> First Boot Device = HDD (there is no SCSI in the list in F10).
>
> In Integrated Periperals
>
> On Chip SATA = Manual
> SATA Port 0 as Sata Port 0
>
> Note: this is with bios F10 - it is clear, correct and works. I would
expect
> a rev 2 board with the most recent bios to be the same. Prior to this the
HD
> boot priority menu was highly likely to get garbled and in F5 it was so
bad
> that it was including a randomising feature along with duplicates and
> aliens!
>
> > Can you use both PATA and SATA device at once over the ICH5R?
>
> Yes.
>
> If SATA is SATA then IDE works as you would expect.
> (If SATA is mapped to IDE then IDE is replaced by SATA and SATA is that
IDE
> device -
> you lose the IDE channel).
> The only issue you might ever have is if you put a bootable disc on IDE.
> Refrain from doing XP installs if you have disc drives plugged into IDE
and
> do not have any form of 'Disc Drive' other than the installed HDD
connected
> during install EG Secure Digital and other card drive adapter devices as
> they map disc drive letters and your C drive may end up being F: or
> something odd. Remove them during install...
>
> > Why were people previously talking about remapping the SATA controller
> > over
> > the PATA?
>
> You would only ever remap SATA to PATA (IE it replaces one of the IDE
ports)
> if
>
> a) you had devices that would not work when connected as SATA (EG a IDE CD
> Rewriter via a PATA SATA converter, but I think that would be a senseless
> thing to do....)
>
> b) you were running an OS that had no driver support for SATA EG DOS,
Win95
> etc. Unix's
>
> c) easy way out to get it going particularly on the earlier bios's.
>
>
> - Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>