Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58
  1. #16
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by sunofwolf
    You need to play with the raid to get it to work right-I always got more performace than a single disk and I have nothing fancy-your raid drivers -could be the problem-look for a bios hack-maybe to update the card-I am using one on my KX7-R and it does work good-highpoint 2.34 driver and bios 2.34, but I do not have a promise card-I am glad you posted because I was thinking of getting your card-now I really doubt it-not even beating my highpoint-but i actually think highpoint is a good raid card and it has support-and bios update-in fact my new Epox with a rare onboard 374 highpoint chip-supports just recently raid 5-a high end raid format-I hope to try it-and it might take a bios hack to enable it-don't know yet-it seems very few people have this rare board-one big reason why i bought it-and a review web site had this board up to 235bus-must be a record for a kt400 with tight timings-I will find out myself-raid 5 and 235bus-would be amazing for a $103 shipped board
    i am regretting the purchase of this card more and more. i bought it a year or so ago...(maybe a little less). was my first shot at raid (outside of my GA-7DX with onboard highpoint). was using it for a raid 1 config in a server i was running. thought i would give raid 0 a go with the dual JB drives...nope. prolly gonna go back to raid one.

    got offered a deal im not sure i can pass up. i intend to sell my tyan dual mobo. a friend of mine wants to trade (even) 2 rapotrs (36gb) and a promise serial controller for the mobo. even tho the card is promise...it ouwld be worth it just for the 2 drives.

    tempting...
    hmm...

  2. #17
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tulsa, Ok
    Posts
    13,940
    here is something that maybe to some interest. Seems that there is a bug within WinXp when using SCSI Raid-0 that causes poor performance. Some are finding this could be the same with Pata drive arrays since that Raid setups are handled as Scsi in Windows. Seems like this issue is suppose to be addressed in SP2!! Which who knows when we will see that. There is a patch from MS that you can request. From what I heard they aren't passing it around very losely. You have meet the Requirements and there is not leadway on that! This is just some chit chat I peaked up on so don't hold me to any of it.

  3. #18
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554
    BINGO - that's the one I was trying to remember but couldn't.

    I think it pertains to the same issue in this MS knowledge base article:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;Q308219

  4. #19
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,049
    type in q331958 this is one micro soft patch-other raid patch is in winxp sp1-thats the only two I know of-this is for enabling LBA 48.

  5. #20
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554
    Originally posted by sunofwolf
    type in q331958 this is one micro soft patch-other raid patch is in winxp sp1-thats the only two I know of-this is for enabling LBA 48.
    That's the 48 bit LBA support patch that fixes XP's problems with drives over 137 gigs, IIRC. Doesn't effect performance.

  6. #21
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by BWM
    That's the 48 bit LBA support patch that fixes XP's problems with drives over 137 gigs, IIRC. Doesn't effect performance.
    what kind of problems? this raid array ends up being 160gigs when striped.
    hmm...

  7. #22
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,049

    Red face

    Thats true ,but what else is microsoft hiding?But it would if your over the 137gig limit.

  8. #23
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554
    Originally posted by The Wise One
    what kind of problems? this raid array ends up being 160gigs when striped.
    Has to do with win-xp not seeing all of a drive that is larger than 137 gigs.

    http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=winxp

    I think that's the one

  9. #24
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554
    Originally posted by sunofwolf
    Thats true ,but what else is microsoft hiding?But it would if your over the 137gig limit.
    I'll look more into that after dinner, but I think it only pertains to windoze's 48bit LBA support, not performance.

  10. #25
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,049

    Red face

    If your at the 137gig limit and donot have the patch-how would the drive write anymore. It would be really screwed up. But I think his problem is with drivers.

  11. #26
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by BWM
    Has to do with win-xp not seeing all of a drive that is larger than 137 gigs.

    http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=winxp

    I think that's the one
    ahh ok. thanks
    hmm...

  12. #27
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by sunofwolf
    If your at the 137gig limit and donot have the patch-how would the drive write anymore. It would be really screwed up. But I think his problem is with drivers.
    thats entirely possible since a single JB out writes the raid by over 10K...wonder if promises serial controller drivers are any better.

    course i could try the onboard raid...but that is promise too...
    hmm...

  13. #28
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tulsa, Ok
    Posts
    13,940

  14. #29
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,049

    Red face

    This is not his problem.His problem is in the bios or poor drivers. If I used a old outdated driver-the same thing would happen. I think this is promise's fault for not updating their drivers, unlike highpoint which do update drivers, this is a problem with lots of poor raid cards like silicon image-no support-how can any controller work with poor software? I have seen cards using the same drivers for the last two years or more.

  15. #30
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by sunofwolf
    This is not his problem.His problem is in the bios or poor drivers. If I used a old outdated driver-the same thing would happen. I think this is promise's fault for not updating their drivers, unlike highpoint which do update drivers, this is a problem with lots of poor raid cards like silicon image-no support-how can any controller work with poor software? I have seen cards using the same drivers for the last two years or more.
    FWIW...i did use the latest bios/drivers off of promises site. thats not to say their latest arent out dated tho.

    ive been thru every inch of the promise bios. nothing i can change in there that would help this issue.

    im gonna go for this deal that was layed out before me for these raptors. ill give the promise sata card that comes with the drives a go. if that fails...ill give the onboard a shot. if that doesnt work...i can still go with one and be better off...
    hmm...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •