I can't figure out how to get WindowsXP to boot from my SATA RAID0 array. It will complete the first step of installation wonderfully, but won't boot into the second part ( Collecting info/ Dynamic update/ Prep inst/ Inst Win/ Finalizing Inst..) from the array.. It claims there is a boot failure. Should I try maybe unplugging the IDE hard drive I'm holding all my stuff on?

Quote: Originally Posted by konai_konai666 I can't figure out how to get WindowsXP to boot from my SATA RAID0 array. It will complete the first step of installation wonderfully, but won't boot into the second part ( Collecting info/ Dynamic update/ Prep inst/ Inst Win/ Finalizing Inst..) from the array.. It claims there is a boot failure. Should I try maybe unplugging the IDE hard drive I'm holding all my stuff on?

Does that mean that you did load all your RAID drivers and load the OS into the HDD?
If that is the case then in BIOS > Advanced Bios features> your first should be Serial ATA.
ANd I had a hard time trying to boot for the first time with my IDE drive that held all my stuff on it to.
BTW you are not using a PCI device for RAID correct? I take it you are using you onboard RAID connectors.

Do you have the drivers loaded on a floppy and hit F6 at the installation beginning when it asks for third party drivers?

Yes it is Onboard SISRAID and I'm on The Great Chai now, so I got it working! The IDE HDD was dogging the required C:\ space or something, but after installing XP on the SATA RAID0 with IDE unplugged, then plugging it in after I shutdown from my first successful RAID0 Windows bootup/ setup, everything was swell. I'm actually patching in my old installations and playlists to the registry and user's doccuments. Aswell as within the actual WINDOWS folder. Its much, much more pain-free than reinstalling all my already-up-to-date software. I am, however, reinstalling all my drivers for a good measure. I just can't wait to see how fast I can load a game now..

Games load considerably faster for me bro. With Raptors of course.

http://forums.pcapex.com/showthread....135#post299135

For anyone that missed this thread. I am not good with writing but I gave a very detailed way on setting up a RAID 0 array.

Good explanation of it, corrupt, that guide roughly follows the steps I had to take, ( though I don't know of many people that managed every part of the RAID/freshOS setup process without a hitch from the IDE controller or something..) I know my performance will be faster than my old location-sensitive-based setup where I split up all my files ( C:\ = Windows & Drivers/ Driver Apps) ( D:\ = Games, Music, Tweaking & Bench Apps, Downloads, Pagefile) etc.
My new setup >>> ( CD:\ (RAID0) = All of the above except Pagefile, all in the same virtual partioned config as before so all my old shortcuts work like that reformat was just a logoff, E:\ = Pagefile & Backup). I am skeptical as to if I'll actually see what I like ( a nice improvement in access time), especially because this is an onboard RAID controller. In the specification of the average, what loss might I see in performance because of the onboard controller? -Shots out to da Pimps for helpin'!

I think that windows will always default the ide drives before the raid drive. I went through hell the first time. After that I always unplug every other harddrive I have in a machine before I start installing windows. No matter if I am useing raid or not.

Also I have found that the 16k stripe size seems to be the fastest. I havenot tried them all yet but 16k gives the best bench scores for me so far. Also seems to be the best for video encodeing. If you are createing a RAID 0 set for storage I have found that the 64k size is best for that also.

I'm using a 64K stripe, but only notice that XP loads quicker and that my games boot-up faster ( but don't seem to load levels faster in-game ).. I think i've set my expectations too high, -that, or my old Basic config was boarderline with this onboard RAID0. I probably only have a tiny bit over the performance of a single 10K raptor..

Update on this- There is apperently nothing wrong here at all, i'm getting 88MB/s in Sandra2004 up from about 40MB/s.. Strange logarithmacy I guess..