Can I switch SATA controllers without a reinstall of WinXP?


C

Coolasblu

First of all, I do think that this cross posting is justified!

I have just installed 2 x 300GB SATA-II hard drives in a RAID Mirror array.
I've installed windows xp with all the updates and all my software. My
motherboard is k8NXP-SLI. I have connected the 2 drives to the Silicon SATA
controller which I now fear doesn't offer SATA 2 capability.

I am right or wrong? If right, do I have to do a clean install of winxp
again or is there a way around it?

Thanks very much in advance to any help.

Ravi
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Rod Speed

Coolasblu said:
First of all, I do think that this cross posting is justified!

It is indeed.
I have just installed 2 x 300GB SATA-II hard drives in a RAID Mirror
array. I've installed windows xp with all the updates and all my
software. My motherboard is k8NXP-SLI. I have connected the 2 drives
to the Silicon SATA controller which I now fear doesn't offer SATA 2
capability.
I am right or wrong?

Doesnt matter, those drives dont need it.
 
A

Arno Wagner

What do you mean that they don't need it? I bought them as they sai they're
SATA-2...

And you wasted your money. SATA-2 is mostly marketing and only
marginal speed improvement, if any at all.

Arno
 
R

Rod Speed

What do you mean that they don't need it?

The drives will perform identically regardless
of what standard the motherboard has.
I bought them as they sai they're SATA-2...

And it wouldnt have made any difference
if they had been bog standard sata.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

Beemer Biker

Coolasblu said:
First of all, I do think that this cross posting is justified!

You left off the X-NETCOP-DISCLAIMER header. It shoulda gone in the above
line.
I have just installed 2 x 300GB SATA-II hard drives in a RAID Mirror array.
I've installed windows xp with all the updates and all my software. My
motherboard is k8NXP-SLI. I have connected the 2 drives to the Silicon SATA
controller which I now fear doesn't offer SATA 2 capability.

That is o.k., it just means the drive manufacturer has finally got SATA-1
stable and would like you to test out 2 for them and see if it has any
problem. They should run just fine at SATA-1 and potentially are more
robust than the ones rated only for SATA-1
I am right or wrong? If right, do I have to do a clean install of winxp
again or is there a way around it?

Should not have to install XP, why do you think you need to?

I dont have that K8NXP-SLI, I am sure it is a good board. We havent
jumped onto the 64bit stuff or into those new video cards yet. I thought
that gigabyte board was for gaming since it has a pair of those SLI sockets?
I was looking at a picture of it here
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1735 The claimed wireless
but just supply a pci adapter. That is cheating. Asus is even worse, they
have a slot for wireless but it just holds an adapter that a mini-pci board
plugs into. I would rather have a mini-pci slot on the motherboard.

Anyway, I had a question (we are in the market for 64bit and probably SLI).
Is that board good for gaming? What are the two sets of black sockets,
one big one small. Why are they in pairs? Are the big ones 64bit PCI
slots? They look like agp slots but then there are two.


--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (e-mail address removed)
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
=======================================================================
 
J

J. Clarke

Oscar said:
Not necessarily, they dont necessarily cost any more.


Nope, its about future capability.

Actually it's about competing with SCSI. SCSI goes 320 MB/sec, so SATA has
to go somewhere close to check that particular box on the pointy haired
boss's checklist.
 
F

Folkert Rienstra

Newsgroups:alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
restored.

Actually it's about competing with SCSI.

Nonsense. If anything, then with SAS, not Ultra320.
SCSI goes 320 MB/sec,

Which is about 80MB/s *per drive*.
SATA-1 beats that already. Ultra320 is old.
so SATA has to go somewhere close to check that
particular box on the pointy haired boss's checklist.

3 GB/s sure sounds less than 320MB/s so that's not working.

Now SAS, of course, is 3GB/s from the getgo.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top