| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 68748 | 2006-05-09 20:56:00 | Oh ****. RAID0 array corrupted, and my last backup is from February. | Zygar (29) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 453534 | 2006-05-09 20:56:00 | I currently have two 200gb seagate barracudas (sata) in a raid 0 array on my main computer . I recently had to move the computer, so I did that, plugged everything back in, and booted up . Everything was fine, but the side fan was being noisy so I powered down while windows was booting, not thinking that it would do anything . I was wrong . I went to boot up again, the fan problem solved (air intake was blocked) . I got the "we apoligize for the inconvienience yadda yadda" screen and chose start windows normally . "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt: \WINDOWS\system32\l_intl . sys . " Oh **** . So I restart, try to get in safe mode, same error . I pop the windows cd in, load up the recovery console, type "chkdsk . " . co . nz/images/ohno/noooo . jpg" target="_blank">zygar . co . nz I tried "dir" and got some crap about an error during directory enumeration . I typed "fixmbr" and it gave me a spiel about a strange or invalid boot record or something and didn't want to risk doing anything . I'm not sure what crazy **** SATA RAID requires in the boot tables to run properly . I tried fixboot and it said something about the currently active partition being d, despite me being in C:\ and despite my computer only having one 400gb partition . I don't really want to do anything without knowing what I'm doing, I might just make the problem worse and right now I know the data is still there, I just can't get to it . I went to have a look at the partitions in windows setup: . co . nz/images/ohno/w . tf . jpg" target="_blank">zygar . co . nz (remove the dot, go go retarded forum filters) Wait, am I reading that right? I have two 400gb partitions on one 200gb hard drive? I'm completely out of my depth here . I like consider myself good with computers but I've never had to deal with something like this before . The worst part is, there are 3 months of photos on there that would be lost . Only about 200 of them, but I would rather not lose them . I'd been putting off backing them up because my cd burner was faulty . Yeah, my dumb fault . I'd also lose about 30gb of downloads which, with a 10gb cap, would take 3 months to recover . The BIOS sees the RAID array just fine . My hardware: AMD64 3200+ - 754 . MSI K8N Neo Platinum . (Nforce 3 250gb I believe) 2x Seagate Barracuda 7200 . 7s in SATA RAID0 . EDIT: I should mention that I'm using NTFS . |
Zygar (29) | ||
| 453535 | 2006-05-09 21:49:00 | I have no idea why anyone would want to bother with Raid. It does nothing for your performance and this is what happens if there is a disaster. You would have been better off with an image on the other drive... |
pctek (84) | ||
| 453536 | 2006-05-09 22:08:00 | Actually RAID 0 can speed up disk operations quite a bit. But why you'd store anything important on a RAID 0 array is another matter. Lose one disk & the whole lot is gone. | autechre (266) | ||
| 453537 | 2006-05-09 22:11:00 | When (if) I get my data back, I'm backing it all up to dvds (just ordered a burner) and reformatting this. To hell with raid, it's caused nothing but problems. I'm going to sort everything into 26 partitions! I've cross posted this on a few forums to get wider opinion, one suggested this program: www.cgsecurity.org Does anyone have experience with it? |
Zygar (29) | ||
| 453538 | 2006-05-09 22:15:00 | I have no idea why anyone would want to bother with Raid. It does nothing for your performance and this is what happens if there is a disaster. You would have been better off with an image on the other drive... You are right for RAID1 arrays but wrong for RAID0 arrays which can get nearly double permance. It iscertainly significant and no worse than a single drive by itself as they can all fail and backups should always be done. The rive can be fixed by using the recovery option of the Windows CD and copying th missing file. You need a bootable windows CD and a floppy with the SATA RAID drive on it. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 453539 | 2006-05-09 23:12:00 | You are right for RAID1 arrays but wrong for RAID0 arrays which can get nearly double permance. It iscertainly significant and no worse than a single drive by itself as they can all fail and backups should always be done. Don't be fooled by comparing an old stodgy instal against a new RAID and thinking RAID must be better. From this page faq.storagereview.com "Theory states that RAID 0 increases the sequential transfer rate, but how much does this really effect performance in contemporary desktop machines? As often indicated in StorageReview's forums, the answer is: Not much. STR simply does not significantly impact performance of typical desktop applications. " |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 453540 | 2006-05-09 23:21:00 | To answer your question in a nutshell Zygar, you are indeed ****ed. It's been covered several times in this forum. RAID0 means zero redunancy. Lose one hard drive, and you've probably lost it all. Don't use it except for scratch volumes, such as the pagefile, scratch space or easily replaced temp work files. All other forms of RAID have redundant drives, but are vulnerable to fire, theft, and viruses. You still need a good backup. |
kingdragonfly (309) | ||
| 453541 | 2006-05-09 23:39:00 | I use a RAID0 array from my gaming and video editing work and it does make a difference. Sure using business apps and word processing etc you won't notice a difference. But loading games and editing video are two applications that DO benefit from RAID0. Of course once my videos are encoded I copy them to another HDD and burn a backup to DVD to insure no lost data should the RAID fail. As for the games, I'm not concerned in the least if I lose a few saved games, it's not the end of the world - unlike losing my business data. Don't assume that everyone is wasting their time with RAID0 just because it is not setup with the risks and benefits in mind. It is a useful system when used correctly. |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 453542 | 2006-05-09 23:58:00 | We lost a RAID5 array at work when we lost 2 disks at once . Lucky we had nightly backups on tape and gould restore it, once the disks were replaced . Sorry Zygar . RAID0 for Speed (I tried this once), RAID 1 or 5 for resiliency, and tape or CD/DVD for secure backup . |
KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 453543 | 2006-05-10 00:04:00 | you idn't swap any sata cables at all or get any caught in the fan ? actually i doubt its a raid problem. windows dosn't actually see the raid array, it just sees on big disk and teats it like one. when you booted up with windows cd did you use the nvida raid drivers ? |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||