I cannot decipher the necessary cabling requirements from the
motherboard manual. I have 2 identical Western Digital UDMA100 drives
that I wish to set up a RAID 0 array. The A8V has only one IDE_RAID
connector. The instructions simply say to connect the hard drives. Is
the array built off the one IDE_RAID connector? Do I simply configure
one drive master, the other slave, and connect them on one cable to the
one IDE_RAID connector. Or is the configuration one that will require
me to convert my drives to SATA in order to build a RAID 0 array?

Has anyone actually created a RAID 0 array using IDE drives? If so,
please help me understand how to do so on this board.
Thanks!

On 21 Dec 2004 14:20:35 -0800, "dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I cannot decipher the necessary cabling requirements from the
>motherboard manual. I have 2 identical Western Digital UDMA100 drives
>that I wish to set up a RAID 0 array. The A8V has only one IDE_RAID
>connector. The instructions simply say to connect the hard drives. Is
>the array built off the one IDE_RAID connector? Do I simply configure
>one drive master, the other slave, and connect them on one cable to the
>one IDE_RAID connector. Or is the configuration one that will require
>me to convert my drives to SATA in order to build a RAID 0 array?

You are confusing terms. The A8V has Serial ATA and Parallel ATA connectors.
(SATA and PATA). There are three RAID controllers, 2 X SATA, 1 X PATA. All
drives should be IDE drives.
The way you describe it, it should really work. Connect your two PATA drives
to the red PATA connector. Configure one as master, one as slave.
Disable the Promise controller in your BIOS, it speeds up the boot time and it
looks less confusing.
Now, during boot press TAB (?) to enter the configuration of your VIA RAID
controller and setup your two disks a RAID 0 set.

BTW: I suppose your disks are new and empty? Just dare to try, do some
experimenting, there is nothing to lose, you won't destroy them.

Bert

Thanks, Bert. I get everything but disabling the Promise controller. I
thought that was required to drive the RAID 0 array. And from some of
the other responses, the question also seems to be as to whether or not
such an arrangement will give the performance increase that I'm wanting
the RAID for in the first place. Having both drives on the one
connector would seem to simply let me stripe drives but without any
performance gain.

On 21 Dec 2004 15:05:07 -0800, "dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Thanks, Bert. I get everything but disabling the Promise controller. I
>thought that was required to drive the RAID 0 array.

The A8V has TWO Raid controllers. As you have parallel IDE drives
you can only use the VIA controller. The other controller, the Promise,
you won't need then.

>And from some of
>the other responses, the question also seems to be as to whether or not
>such an arrangement will give the performance increase that I'm wanting
>the RAID for in the first place. Having both drives on the one
>connector would seem to simply let me stripe drives but without any
>performance gain.

To my opinion is *is* slightly faster, even on one parallel cable.
(See my reply to Mercury).
The problem is - as stated - drive failure. If one of the two drives
fails, all data is lost. That is also the case with one drive,
but with two drives it is statisticly more likely to happen.
For that reason I'm using a RAID 1 configuration, (mirorring) but that's
more expensive, with two drives the system behaves as if it has only one.

Bert

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:27:00 +0100, Bert
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>To my opinion is *is* slightly faster, even on one parallel cable.

I stand corrected by Mercury, I suppose he is right.
Maybe you still can swap your drives for SATA drives?

Bert

Hi, I agree. But I suspect that the amount of performance gain would be so
negligable that the risk - even if only scratch files are on the drives - is
not worth it except in exceptional circumstances.

"Bert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 21 Dec 2004 15:05:07 -0800, "dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Thanks, Bert. I get everything but disabling the Promise controller. I
>>thought that was required to drive the RAID 0 array.
>
> The A8V has TWO Raid controllers. As you have parallel IDE drives
> you can only use the VIA controller. The other controller, the Promise,
> you won't need then.
>
>>And from some of
>>the other responses, the question also seems to be as to whether or not
>>such an arrangement will give the performance increase that I'm wanting
>>the RAID for in the first place. Having both drives on the one
>>connector would seem to simply let me stripe drives but without any
>>performance gain.
>
> To my opinion is *is* slightly faster, even on one parallel cable.
> (See my reply to Mercury).
> The problem is - as stated - drive failure. If one of the two drives
> fails, all data is lost. That is also the case with one drive,
> but with two drives it is statisticly more likely to happen.
> For that reason I'm using a RAID 1 configuration, (mirorring) but that's
> more expensive, with two drives the system behaves as if it has only one.
>
> Bert
>

from what I have read the only noticeable gain occurs while file serving and
if you are doing alot of audio/video-ripping/encoding..as for running it on
a "gamer" system..no noticeable gain.And then as a file server probably only
on a LAN connection would the benefit be realized.

Bert,
Is there a decrease in system performance when you run the drive mirrored?

Thanks,
Marcus

"Bert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 21 Dec 2004 15:05:07 -0800, "dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Thanks, Bert. I get everything but disabling the Promise controller. I
>>thought that was required to drive the RAID 0 array.
>
> The A8V has TWO Raid controllers. As you have parallel IDE drives
> you can only use the VIA controller. The other controller, the Promise,
> you won't need then.
>
>>And from some of
>>the other responses, the question also seems to be as to whether or not
>>such an arrangement will give the performance increase that I'm wanting
>>the RAID for in the first place. Having both drives on the one
>>connector would seem to simply let me stripe drives but without any
>>performance gain.
>
> To my opinion is *is* slightly faster, even on one parallel cable.
> (See my reply to Mercury).
> The problem is - as stated - drive failure. If one of the two drives
> fails, all data is lost. That is also the case with one drive,
> but with two drives it is statisticly more likely to happen.
> For that reason I'm using a RAID 1 configuration, (mirorring) but that's
> more expensive, with two drives the system behaves as if it has only one.
>
> Bert
>

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:52:18 GMT, "Marcus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Bert,
>Is there a decrease in system performance when you run the drive mirrored?

RAID 1 does have read speed benefits over a single drive, as the system can read
one block from one drive and the next block from the other drive at the same
time.

Bert