| 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 | ||
| 453544 | 2006-05-10 00:31:00 | Maybe try a linux live cd & see if it can access your data, & if so, stick it on another hdd? just an idea :) |
stu161204 (123) | ||
| 453545 | 2006-05-10 00:33:00 | Real World Tests and results: www.overclockercafe.com Its not worth it. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 453546 | 2006-05-10 00:48:00 | Real World Tests and results: www.overclockercafe.com Its not worth it. *Yawn* If you actually read the conclusion you will see the reviewer state that RAID0 DOES give faster load times for games - exactly what I stated. The reviewer states that RAID) does not affect framerates (of course not) that is governed by CPU and GPU speed - they are talking about two totally different benchmarks. For encoding video (where there is lots of disk access) RAID0 also provides a substantial improvement. I stand by my own experience that there is a significant performance gain in the applications I have mentioned. But hey by all means set up an array and experience it yourself. |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 453547 | 2006-05-10 02:05:00 | I guess the other reason I'm not a fan of RAID's in home PC's is the extra heat and hard drive noise. I know some people aren't bothered by disk noise, and some drive are relatively quiet. However I went to great length in making a quiet PC, including rubber mounting the hard drive (with a grounding strap of course), and fanless water cooling. The hard drive mounts include a pair of large heat sinks; I can't remember the manufacturer. |
kingdragonfly (309) | ||
| 453548 | 2006-05-10 04:20:00 | *Yawn* If you actually read the conclusion you will see the reviewer state that RAID0 DOES give faster load times for games - exactly what I stated. The reviewer states that RAID) does not affect framerates (of course not) that is governed by CPU and GPU speed - they are talking about two totally different benchmarks. For encoding video (where there is lots of disk access) RAID0 also provides a substantial improvement. I stand by my own experience that there is a significant performance gain in the applications I have mentioned. But hey by all means set up an array and experience it yourself. Yep I did. And did you read his results? Bugger all of one. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 453549 | 2006-05-10 04:25:00 | PCTek, those benchmarks are for app running, nothing to do with access time which RAID 0 increases. If fact that whole review is a waste of time as the guys doesnt appear to know what to measure. I too use RAID 0 & it does improve disk I/O by a mile. |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 453550 | 2006-05-10 07:29:00 | Don't be fooled by comparing an old stodgy instal against a new RAID and thinking RAID must be better. "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. " I don't need theory when I have physical roof. I orginally had my 2 SATA drives set up as normal drives (2x200GB) and partitioned off. I then decided to change it after advice to RAID0 saying I would get a speed increase and I researched this off the web and it gave the same thing. I did some trials myself on copying files from one place to another on the drives and accross the drives etc to get some speeds. I then reformated as a RAID0 drive (1x400GB) and did the same thing. In every case bar one the speed was faster by a huge margin. The only one it slowed down on was the drive to drive copy which was logical because there was now no second drive to copy to, only partitions. I know which gives me the faster speeds. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 453551 | 2006-05-10 08:04:00 | It seems I have overestimated the problem. I was an idiot, and forgot to pop the floppy with the SATA RAID drivers in before heading into the recovery console. I guess I assumed that the recovery console would automatically load the installed drivers but thinking back on it, that's silly. Turns out it was just the system32 folder that was corrupt, and once I did a CHKDSK all was well. Thanks for the help anyway, especially tweak'e. I probably wouldn't have realized my mistake otherwise. | Zygar (29) | ||
| 453552 | 2008-08-03 19:42:00 | I know this post is a bit outdated but I thought I would give some tips and advice for anyone else that has lost their RAID. If your RAID does fail and the data is so important that you can't live without it. The first thing is to take images of the drives and keep them in a safe place. Therefore any strange configurations that you do to try and get the RAID back won't make things worst. If the testing of different configuration doesn't work. You can try getting the data back with Data recovery Software and mouting the images. The link below goes through some general data recovery tips and hints: [edit: URL to website removed] |
greco8523 (10380) | ||
| 453553 | 2008-08-03 21:55:00 | That looks really good advice greco I personally rather like raid. Never had a problem with it, and have been running it for a year. Done a few things that I thought would have corrupted it, but it still went on fine. I am rather impatient so anything that helps reduce load times is great :) I have my drives set up like this 2x250gb in raid. Anything and everything gets put here 1x80gb. Nothing on here except the pagefile. Had a spare drive, so why not |
mejobloggs (264) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||