after formatting w/ raid 0

T

TrueGamer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
228
When my computer restarts after formatting the hard drives i get this message.



<< Windows Cannot start because of a computer disk hardware configuration problem.

Could not read from the selected boot disk. Check boot path and disk hardware. Please check the windows documention about hardware disk configuration and hardware refference manuals for additional information. >>
 
Here's how to fix it. Ditch the RAID 0. It's all hype and it can actually slow down day to day tasks.
 
Going to need more information that what you have given. System specs and are you attempting to boot from the array? If not, is the boot drive hooked up to the same controller/channel?

edit: you may want to try and get this thread moved over to the disk storage systems section.
 
Archer75 said:
Here's how to fix it. Ditch the RAID 0. It's all hype and it can actually slow down day to day tasks.
Click to expand...
This is your best option.
TrueGamer said:
That isnt an option
Click to expand...
I'd make it one then....especially if you have data on this system that's important. Assuming the controller is configured the same, have you tried a repair install? Depending on what went wrong, the data may be gone completely. Since it was a new build, it shouldn't be that hard to break the array and install XP again, on single drives.
 
Come on guys. where's the fun if you can't learn how to do something? It doesn't matter what raid 0 does, or doesn't do. he asked how to get it running.

OP, model of the drives and the board and how you have them connected is probalby the first bit of info we need.

Setting up a raid 0 and then booting to it should be pretty straight forward. There has to be a step in here somewhere that you have overlooked.
 
If you look at my sig, the raid setup I have for my DFI motherboard is actually faster in both reads and writes then a single drive solution. Yes, yes, ran all the usual tests and such and even the [H]ardOCP review of this motherboard bears this out. Besides, just having 80G for my OS was too constraining for me.

1) Information that is needed is what are you booting your OS from? The raid array or another drive?
2) If another drive, when you formatted your Raid array, was Windows already installed? (Example: Windows on C:\Non-Raid and you formated E:\ Raid-Array)
 
RAID0's lack of performance is a known fact. In many cases, the real-world performance is actually decreased by using RAID0. If you go through the Storage subforum, you'll find much to read proving this.
 
RAID 0 looks good on synthetic benchmarks, but in real day to day usage, it does notthing for performance. Like posted above, it can actually slow it down marginally due to the overhead the RAID controller puts on the CPU.
 
OP..Your best bet is to ask this question on another forum..All your gonna get here is a bunch of people telling you that RAID 0 is no good...Then this thread will end up just like the rest of the RAID 0 threads..one big flamewar....
 
Crosshairs said:
OP..Your best bet is to ask this question on another forum..All your gonna get here is a bunch of people telling you that RAID 0 is no good...Then this thread will end up just like the rest of the RAID 0 threads..one big flamewar....
Click to expand...
Is a fact less factual if people argue against it? If many people started arguing that the earth was a square, would that make it more true? No...the problem is, many people choose to ignore fact and believe what they want, aka the placebo effect. It happens in many areas, not just computers. The RAID0 *cough* debate *cough* is the best example we have on here.
 
1st question I have is what was the configuration before the format? It sounds like the bootsector was on what is now your newly formated RAID partition.
 
djnes said:
Is a fact less factual if people argue against it? If many people started arguing that the earth was a square, would that make it more true? No...the problem is, many people choose to ignore fact and believe what they want, aka the placebo effect. It happens in many areas, not just computers. The RAID0 *cough* debate *cough* is the best example we have on here.
Click to expand...


The "fact" is nowhere in his post did he ask if RAID 0 was any good.....he was looking for help for a specific problem.....he wasnt asking for advice on his choice of drive configuration...
 
So, how does he restore the boot sector or how can he move it to whatever drive or partition he has his OS install on?
 
Crosshairs said:
The "fact" is nowhere in his post did he ask if RAID 0 was any good.....he was looking for help for a specific problem.....he wasnt asking for advice on his choice of drive configuration...
Click to expand...
You're right, but ditching RAID0 is a possible solution. Data corruption is common with RAID0 arrays. I also gave a suggestion to another possible solution in my first post, but the OP never returned to say if the repair install was tried. Just because an answer isn't what a particular person was hoping for, doesn't always mean it's an incorrect answer.
 
djnes said:
You're right, but ditching RAID0 is a possible solution. Data corruption is common with RAID0 arrays. I also gave a suggestion to another possible solution in my first post, but the OP never returned to say if the repair install was tried. Just because an answer isn't what a particular person was hoping for, doesn't always mean it's an incorrect answer.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with any of that ..:)
 
Alright, so my name is mud. Looked for reasearch from the usual sources and have found that yes, raid 0 may just be a placebo affect:
[H]ardforum
Anandtech
Tomshardware

I am keeping my current setup since I have 90G of installed games and applications on my raid array. 80G is too small and I do like backing up my games and applications together with my OS. I do this regularly so don't cry for me Argentina and all that.

I do have one question, are raid performance tests even necessary for motherboard reviews? Maybe something [H]ardOCP Steve can chime in about.

And people, please post links to information that is well known or for utilities that are useful.
 
You seem to be a prime candidate for a new single hard drive, like the WD 16mb cache.
 
djnes said:
Is a fact less factual if people argue against it? If many people started arguing that the earth was a square, would that make it more true? No...the problem is, many people choose to ignore fact and believe what they want, aka the placebo effect. It happens in many areas, not just computers. The RAID0 *cough* debate *cough* is the best example we have on here.
Click to expand...


Dj, you make me laugh :D My god your still on that placebo kick...lmao. I can quote a few times on this board where I showed you that it was BS. Honestly, you need to stop preaching unless people ASK for it, and so far the OP flat out told he wasnt interested in what your sermon.

Back on topic, to the OP, you need to make sure your trying to boot off the OS drive, whether its the array or a single drive. If your set right there, you need to edit the boot.ini file. Somehow its corrupt. Look at Microsoft Article 314477 , method 2 should work or at least get you into Windows. If that doesnt work, I would say its time to rebuild the array...again.Good luck.
 
djnes said:
You seem to be a prime candidate for a new single hard drive, like the WD 16mb cache.
Click to expand...


I just grabbed the 320 sata myself... put it in a usb enclosure for most of my storage. I love that thing :)
 
WTF.

I thought this was [H]ardland.

Pay no attention to the raid-a-phobes.

Ive been running raid0 2x36G raptors for gaming for 2 years and NEVER EVER had an instance of corruption.... thats with the array being used on NF7-S Sil3112, PCI based Sil3112, DFI Infinity Sil3114, and DFI SLI-DR NF4 controllers. My brother had 2 2x36G arrays in his gaming systems, again over a year of usage and not one bit out of place.

Pay no attention to the raid-o-phobes.

On my NF4 Ive had a weird issue trying to setup windows. I have brand NEW XPpro SP2 and yet they still havent built in the NF4 drivers. And Ive slipstreamed them but Windows seems to have issues and never quite manages to install correctly.... WINDOWS PROBLEM (MS doesn't know its 2006 not 1979) not a "raid" problem. Windows will not correctly install if I use a non-4K cluster size. SO I can boot XP on an IDE drive, format the raid array from there with whatever stripe/cluster combo I want, but windows will NOT complete installation on anything but 4K cluster size. Something in the SP2 that causes this.

If I go the hard way, use SP1 XPpro, install then update to SP2 with Windows update, all is well. But XP SP2 just wont cooperate.

So I use the following trick. I use an IDE disk, install XPproSP2 to it, then use MaxBlast4 from Maxtor to copy the image to the raid0 array. Alls well. Then activate XP once on the array. Unlike MSoft software, MaxBlast4 actually KNOWS about raid arays and sata controllers, etc and just plain works.

If you are a ghost user, you could do the same, make IDE install, image it, restore to the raid array.

If you game with anything that loads levels/maps alot, raid0 will be a huge time saver.

Pay no attention to the raid-o-phobes.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
If you game with anything that loads levels/maps alot, raid0 will be a huge time saver.

Pay no attention to the raid-o-phobes.
Click to expand...
Take your foot out of your mouth long enough to read the links given in one of the previous posts. :rolleyes:

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
WTF
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm saying about people who still can't wrap their minds around facts.
 
djnes said:
That's exactly what I'm saying about people who still can't wrap their minds around facts.
Click to expand...

The feeling is mutual Dj, even though for opposite reasons. Looks like you scared the OP off long ago anyhow, so no use keeping on it.
 
You can only present a fact so many times...as shown in the storage forums. Some people will keep an open mind and base their decision on facts, and some will not. The reason why I feel "qualified" to argue this one is because I used to be a RAID0 junky. I had my dual Raptors in RAID0 and two 120 GB drives in RAID0 on a test machine. I used to argue how wonderful it was, until the [H]ardChallenge. Quite a few people on here did some actual testing, and to my surprise, I didn't see any performance increases. My seek times actually increased with RAID0. I split the Raptors, gave one to my fiancee, and I haven't noticed any loss in performance. What's so frustrating, is that this has been beaten to death so many times on here, and yet people still will argue it. Why can't people be more like chojin_1999? With some research and fact finding, the truth came out...no arguing, no pissy attitudes, no nothing...just learning. THAT's what the [H] used to be about.
 
djnes said:
Why can't people be more like chojin_1999? With some research and fact finding, the truth came out...no arguing, no pissy attitudes, no nothing...just learning. THAT's what the [H] used to be about.
Click to expand...

You want to know why Dj? Because in my case, as most others, we use Raid0 also.And our findings are different than yours. So when a person such as yourself tells us what we experience is placebo and BS, we feel the need to defend ourselfs and our actions. And rightly so. Even though you personally experience no gains, even though SR and Anandtech showed tests against Raid0, there are still tests done everyday to prove its worth. Hell , do you really believe DL proved without a doubt that Raid0 is BS in his last "battle" against Raid0? In my mind, as well as others, he proved the opposite.

The arguing comes about when people like you tell Raid0 users they are full of it, when clearly they are not. And instead of admitting the usefullness of Raid0, you constantly are preaching. It gets old. You said it a millions times so far, its been beaten to death. Stop the preaching and let users do some research and read the numbers, the true testament to Raid0's worth. Its one thing to state some facts, but your preaching comes off as badgering, especially in this thread when the OP stated that breaking the array wasnt an option. Hell I almost felt like hitting the report button when you replied "I'd make it one then....especially if you have data on this system that's important." He clearly didnt want to hear you preach, he was just asking for help. And since that post, the OP hasnt responded. Its time to let it go.
 
Well, here's a thought.

I generally filter RAID0 threads because I don't think it's worth my time to help someone with them. I do the same with useless tweaks like "superfetch" for XP. If in *my* opinion it's useless I'll do one of the following things: ignore the thread, or post why I think it's useless. The evidence against RAID-0 on a desktop is pretty strong.

Why the hell would I help someone do something I think is useless?

Hell , do you really believe DL proved without a doubt that Raid0 is BS in his last "battle" against Raid0? In my mind, as well as others, he proved the opposite.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with this, do you have a link?
What was demonstrated?

Also, before you blast another user for recommending against something just because the OP asked for it... Well, let's just say I'm sure ALL of the posters out there trying to help others do this. Without searching I'm sure I could find a thread where you do the same, just on a different topic.

People simply won't help when they don't think it's worth the effort, common sense really.
 
So, you're asking me to agree that there's no difference between synthetic and real-world tests? When copying or moving extremely large video files, RAID0 can, in some cases, show a small, minimal gain in performance. Other han that, it offers no performance increase. Now add in the greater chance of data loss (which is a fact, based on common statistics and math), it doesn't make any sense. You're not going to convince someone with a systems analysis background that a tiny performance increase, in a unique situation is worth the risk. It's not. And I'm not dumb enough to base my conclusions on one argument that DougLite had. He had some good points, but one person isn't going to turn a debate into fact.

You seem to like pointing out that I am afraid to admit anything, but what about you not admitting anything either? Pot, meet kettle, as Phoenix86 likes to say. There's plenty of proof out there, showing real world testing, concluding that it's a worthless technology. Anandtech and StorageReview are two of the most respected sites on the web. If one were to conclude both are wrong, shouldn't they show some sort of proof? When I used RAID0, I felt it was faster too. I argued with people that my games loaded faster between levels. the only difference is, I had an open mind to the debate, when RAID0's worthiness started to be questioned. When my own testing mirrored the results of all the other people doing the testing on here (one requirement for validity), I started to think RAID0 wasn't all it was touted to be. Then as others began to repeat the tests (again, another requirement of validity), the thought that RAID0 was a joke started to hold more water. As time passed, and Anandtech did their own testing, as did SR, it started to become on the level of a fact. Life's too short to be closed minded,,,you don't learn anything that way. Call me crazy, but I enjoy being proved wrong about things that like that...because if you have convictions, and you find proof otherwise, you can have faith in the results. A fact is a fact, in short. I don't need to hang on to this anymore, because in the words of Fox Mulder, the truth is out there. I'm just astounded at the level of closed-mindedness present on the boards these days. If you want to use RAID0, fine...it's your system, and I'm sure you take extra steps to ensure good backups. You are free to do as you wish, and I'll defend that. But that doesn't turn a myth into a fact.
 
RAID 0 used to make a difference back when drives weren't running sustained 70+MB transfer rates in single configurations.

I used to RAID 0 a pair of old 20GB drives back in the day on my IWILL KK266-R. The drives each had a transfer rate of approx 19MB sustained...slow! Put them together in a RAID 0, and synthetic benchmarks showed transfer rate in the high 30's. And real world performance was boosted as well, but not doubled, but boosted enough to actually improve peformance.

The problem is with modern drives, they are already very fast. What does a Raptor do by itself? 70MB? 80MB? You can only go so fast before something else becomes the bottle neck...such as processing the data that is being loaded in the example of loading a game level.

Anyways, that's my theory. I came up with it all by myself and am proud of it :D

But yeah, it is getting to the point that if you post something that Djnes does not aggree with, he will debate it to death. I know RAID 0 is pointless. So do alot of other people. It is not a secret. I guess what I am saying is along the lines of what Pheonix86 said about not even bothering to reply to threads where he knows the topic is something worthless. I am just as guitly here, my first reply was anti-RAID also.
 
Met-AL said:
But yeah, it is getting to the point that if you post something that Djnes does not aggree with, he will debate it to death.
Click to expand...
I'm guilty of being passionate, yes. I've always had a rule (given to me by my father when I started working in the professional world)...do your research and be sure about something, if your going to stand behind it. It's saved me from a lot of trouble in the corporate world. If I'm not sure about something, or it's something I just think...I'll state that; just search my posts to see. I start many comments with IIRC, or I believe, or as far as I know, etc. I won't debate something unless I'm sure...I try to follow that ASSume saying as much as possible.

EDIT: Also, if I don't know something...I ask. Here's a thread I just started, with something others might consider common knowledge, but I've been wondering:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1032047
 
I understand that. But, some people dont care if a method or a way of doing something is best, they just want to do it anyways. RAID 0, BlackViper, etc, and in my case how I want to partition my games off from the rest of my system :D

You are scaring people off. I have read many threads where you debate something to death. I will hand it to you, at least in my opinion, you are most of the times right. But it gets out of hand and the poor sucker that asked the original question and is not part of the debate never ever returns to his thread. I have seen you go as far as reporting someone to a mod because they didn't agree with you. Sometimes you just need to relax, sit back and enjoy the fact that you are right and the poor sucker that wants to argue with you is wrong.
 
Met-AL said:
Sometimes you just need to relax, sit back and enjoy the fact that you are right and the poor sucker that wants to argue with you is wrong.
Click to expand...
I'll do that by stocking up on more Moretti beer. I'm getting married in two months...I need to fight for what little I have left!!!!
 
djnes said:
I'll do that by stocking up on more Moretti beer. I'm getting married in two months...I need to fight for what little I have left!!!!
Click to expand...

Good luck with that and start preparing to be wrong....ALOT!! :D Trust me, it is in your better interest to be wrong sometimes :D
 
Everyone, calm down. This shouldn't have been a flame-war between two decidedly different takes on Raid0. A user learns by taking in as much information as possible from different sources then finding the best solution from that. That's why I always try to post links to articles or utilities instead of just saying "it's the way it is". There is nothing wrong with differing viewpoints. We discuss these viewpoints everyday in our professions and in the process modify our current viewpoints, harden them, or make totally new ones. However it’s the process of discussing that we all learn something, hence the creation of computer clubs, FAQ's, forums, etc. Post your links, your FAQ's and your own benchmarks to prove or disprove a point and concede when a valid point is made. Smart-ass remarks are not the same as helpful hints to other users who are using these forums for help.

I have come to the conclusion myself that Raid0 is not important. However, I am not going to break up my raid array to simply reinstall everything because of it. I have learned that I am not gaining very much from it, but I am also not losing very much to it either, besides the increased likelihood of one drive bringing down my raid. Even if not running on a raid array everyone should backup their Windows installations.

p.s.: First year of marriage is bliss since you’ll both lie to each other because you don't want to hurt each other's feelings. Second year, because of all your lying you will want to strangle each other. Third year, if you are still married both of you will have learned to meet halfway on allot of problems and your marriage becomes stronger because both of you are truthful and honest. You don't have to agree with each other, you just have to compromise.
 
Met-AL said:
Good luck with that and start preparing to be wrong....ALOT!! :D Trust me, it is in your better interest to be wrong sometimes :D
Click to expand...
We've lived together for a year and a half, so if I've had a dollar for every "yes, dear", I'd be retiring already, and I'm only 27.
 
Phoenix86,this is the thread I was reffering to. And before anything else, congradulation Dj on your pending marriage. Now, Dj, my whole problem with your opinions are that they are just that, opinions. The only tests ive seen you point to in the past were the articles from SR or Anandtech. And to show my point of view, I posted links to Tweakers.nets article and their tests show the complete opposite of those two articles. Then, later, Dl started on his crusade with the latest thread posted in the link above. That thread went to hell from the beginning and never turned out to show he was right. Matter of Fact he changed the title from "RAID0 is dead" to what it s now. Because he was wrong. His whole arguement was based on Eugenes(SR) benchmarks of a single Raptor 150 vs 2x74 Raptor and 4x74Raptor. And in that article RAID0 scaled nicely. Sure it couldnt beat the 150, but that wasnt the title of the original thread, that an older generation drive in RAID0 couldnt beat a 150. The title was RAID0 is dead, which it clearly wasnt. And that article alone, which was the basis of the whole arguement, shot your comment of "placebo effect" all to hell. And real-world apps are what the first two tests in that article are. And it showed that two(or more) similar drives scale nicely.

DJ, Im not giving you a hard time because I dont like you, in fact even though I dont know you, I can relate to you alot. I , just like you, cannot let someone preach to someone else their opinions without showing my own. And also like you, find it hard to back down on a belief. Its nothing personal, believe me. The main point in this thread, as in some others, is this guy needed help. Why BS the guy, to the point of having him not come back...to a thread HE started? Dont you think, whether he has the same beliefs as you, that he has the right to actually get help when comes to this forum, instead of getting badgered? If your offended,so be it. But at least try to be helpfull instead of starting another one of these types of threads.
 
Im sorry for starting a ruckus.

For the record _I_ actually answered the OP's question. Given you'd have to do it to know how, the non-believers ar in no position to help.

I did a much simpler test over a year ago. Two identical systems in every way (one for me one for my brother). One using a 80GB ata133 Maxtor, the other using a Raid0 2x36GB Raptor array.

Farcry level loads were just shy of TWICE as fast on the raid system.

Im talking IDENTICAL systems with fresh slipstreamed XPpro and Farcry installed... then tested. Absolutely NO difference between the systems other than the disks used.

So when someone like me, a 25 year EE, tells you he's tested and proven it is valid for his uses, trust him.

That was all the proof I needed to justify the 2xRaptor raid, and then I installed my brothers raptors and thats that.

Since we've moved to NF4, still using Raid0, system is a crusher... 165 opteron, X1900XT, 4x512M VX @ 260Mhz 8,2,2,2.0 2T, 2x36GB Raptor, 250GB maxtor IDE, 16x DVD burner, CF1009 case, OCZ Powerstream 520 psu.

Couldn't be happier, only thing bothering me is fewer people playing online Farcry. Oh how I luv my buggy.... but America's Army has an ever increasing following and 1000's of full servers for when FCry is light.
 
PaHick said:
The only tests ive seen you point to in the past were the articles from SR or Anandtech.
Click to expand...
I've searched many times for our threads concerning the testing done on here by forum members, and never found them. They were well over a year ago, so I'm not sure how far back the archives go. I also had my graphs and test results on my personal web page, but they've been taking down and deleted a long long time ago. I've searched through old drives and ghost images, and haven't found them either. At the time, this wasn't a debate, and wasn't really discussed. I wish I had saved them, and the thread itself, since this debate has been brought back to the forefront. Hindsight's always 20/20 I guess.

As far xX_Jack_Carver_Xx, my test results and the others were far different than yours. I used 2 36 GB Raptors in RAID0 compared to just one of the Raptors. I used clean ghost images to do the testing, with all software being the same version and installed even in the same order. Same with drivers. BF1942 levels loaded within 2 to 3 seconds of each other, based on stopwatch testing. Some were faster and some were slower...so it was deemed a draw. I also timed copying several large files off to a USB 2.0 drive...again, the results were about the same, close enough to be within margin of error. My seek times however, were higher with the RAID array than a single drive. This factor is very important in typical Windows usage.

I'm not going to sit here and call you a liar, but no review...not even the pro-RAID0 write-ups, ever have levels loading twice as fast. Far Cry is one of the most common games used in said testing, along with BF2, and not one review I've ever seen has shown that kind of increase. If you legitimately had them load twice as fast, measured with a stop watch, I would start looking around at some other factors, such as flawed images, etc. RAID0, even in theory, doesn't give 2x the performance...must less in actuality.
 
Crosshairs said:
OP..Your best bet is to ask this question on another forum..All your gonna get here is a bunch of people telling you that RAID 0 is no good...Then this thread will end up just like the rest of the RAID 0 threads..one big flamewar....
Click to expand...


Opps...... looks like I was right..:) about the flamewar anyway.....
 
djnes said:
I'm not going to sit here and call you a liar, but no review...not even the pro-RAID0 write-ups, ever have levels loading twice as fast. Far Cry is one of the most common games used in said testing, along with BF2, and not one review I've ever seen has shown that kind of increase. If you legitimately had them load twice as fast, measured with a stop watch, I would start looking around at some other factors, such as flawed images, etc. RAID0, even in theory, doesn't give 2x the performance...must less in actuality.
Click to expand...

Even though we disagree... ALOT, I wholeheartedly agree here. Theres just no way to halve any level load time with Raid.

djnes said:
I also timed copying several large files off to a USB 2.0 drive...again, the results were about the same, close enough to be within margin of error. My seek times however, were higher with the RAID array than a single drive. This factor is very important in typical Windows usage.
Click to expand...

I find it odd you chose to copy files from a USB 2.0 drive to your test drives. Copying to either a single drive or an array, both setups wouldnt be stressed, correct? Both a single IDE/SATA or an array would be waiting for the USB drive to feed the files to them. Just an example, but..if your pushing 35mb/s sec from the USB to either setup they could only write as fast as they are getting the info. And a single/Raid0 would both most likely write at the same speed or damn close, because both can do faster than what the USB can throw at it. Am I off in my thinking or what? I just dont think that would be a proper test. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top