how to install vista beta on a RAID array

S

soloz2

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
430
hey, I'm having trouble installing windows vista 64bit beta on my computer. For some reason it won't let me install the RAID drivers so it can see my hard drives.

here is my hdd configuration. 4 hdds all on the Nvidia Nforce RAID controller

ports 1 and 2
2 WD raptor 74gb 16mb in RAID 0 with Win XP pro installed

ports 3 and 4
2 Seagate 80gb in RAID 0 with 2 partitions, one for Vista and the larger just for data storage


I have downloaded the Nvidia beta drivers for Vista in hopes to install Vista on my Seagate RAID array, but it won't work. I downloaded the drivers and extracted the SATA RAID drivers to a floppy, but there is no option to install them What gives?
 
when you get to the "select a drive to install" option, click load drivers, then load them from wherever you have them. i used my ipod, so i dont know if there is a floppy option... i would assume so though. i believe thats all i did...
 
I never get that far. It tells me that it can't detect my hard drives
 
Make sure your using the 5456 beta.. it's soo much better. I was having the same thing - wouldn't see my raid drives.. or drivers for that matter. Got the newer beta.. and everything went fine
 
I was never able to install Vista (5384) onto my RAID array either.
No matter what, Vista always saw the two individual drives, never the combined array.
Loading the RAID drivers made no difference.
Very weird.
 
soloz2 said:
so I need to break apart my RAID array? :(
Click to expand...
I'll go off topic with this one, but since RAID0 is pretty much an over-hyped joke, you won't be losing anything in terms of performance by splitting the array. Why deal with the hassles, when there's no positive reason to do so?
 
djnes said:
I'll go off topic with this one, but since RAID0 is pretty much an over-hyped joke, you won't be losing anything in terms of performance by splitting the array. Why deal with the hassles, when there's no positive reason to do so?
Click to expand...


wow... I'm not sure if I should laugh at you or not... but then again your comment is more sad then funny anyway.
But apparently you haven't run benchmarks because RAID 0 is in FACT faster. And yes, I have done benchmarks and tests. Others will collaborate my results. As far as hassles... normally RAID 0 isn't much of a problem. with Win XP Pro I have 0 problems running RAID and I get the added performance. It's Vista that seems to have problems, and Vista is still in the Beta stages. And it would be more of a hassle to undo my array than it would be to just leave it alone.
I'd tell you where to put your negative comment... but I'll pass and just say that your naive banterings are not welcome in this thread.
 
soloz2 said:
wow... I'm not sure if I should laugh at you or not... but then again your comment is more sad then funny anyway.
But apparently you haven't run benchmarks because RAID 0 is in FACT faster. And yes, I have done benchmarks and tests. Others will collaborate my results. As far as hassles... normally RAID 0 isn't much of a problem. with Win XP Pro I have 0 problems running RAID and I get the added performance. I'd tell you where to put your negative comment... but I'll pass and just say that your naive banterings are not welcome in this thread.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should get your head out of your ass and read the real-world benchmarks instead of the synthetic ones. You can laugh all you want, but do you really want to argue with facts? I could do some synthetic testing as well and make RAID0 look like a dream. Call me when you do the real world testing, and if you still think it's faster, there are some industry experts I'd like you to meet and debate with. The only naive banterings are listed underneath your username, pal. Did you do a search on these forums for RAID0? Oh, no you didn't...that's right. It's much easier to hit reply and be insulting rather than learn something. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't want to leave you without proof, so here's the most common article, but a very very well known and respected site. I'm linking the final page, but I'd suggest reading through the whole thing.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11
article said:
If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
Click to expand...
 
wow. that is all I have to say. Yes, I'll agree that it is the synthetic tests that show the large gain in RAID 0 over a single drive, but real world performance is also evident in windows load times and in game load times such as BF2, FEAR and Quake 4... games that typically have long loading times. While the difference is not dramatic, it is there nonetheless.

There will always be a debate about wether RAID 0 is faster or not. Some people claim it is, and there is data to back them up, others claim it isn't and they dig up data to back themselves as well. All in all, most data shows that RAID 0 is faster, even if the margins are very small. So, who are you to say that RAID 0 is a joke? Have you ever run a RAID 0 array? I do, and I enjoy faster load times.

Take for example the difference between 1T and 2T memory timings. Synthetic tests show about a 20-30% increase in performance difference, but real world tests show a much smaller differnce. many applications show no difference at all... but then many memory intensive games will show up to a 5-6% increase in framerates when using 1T over 2T. So, If at all possible wouldn't it make sense to use 1T? Absolutely!

Why do people overclock? why do people tweak? why do people crave the absolute highest performance? Becase we want it, and even 1 sec faster is still faster.

I don't want to continue this conversation any more. I have talked with several people on many different forums about the difference between RAID and non RAID drive performance and I firmly maintain that RAID 0 is faster

Now, moving back on topic. I just want to get Vista to work. debating the performance of RAID 0 is irrelevant to this topic and is not helpful.
 
Real world benchmarks show that RAID 0 is no faster than a non raid setup. Usually it is actually slower. The ONLY thing it speeds up is writing large files. That's it. It's a gimick.

Yes, I have indeed runa Raid 0 setup to verify this. My windows loading times were slower as well as game load times. I have 2 RAID 0 configs on this system for storing and backing up files and it is faster when making large backups of data from my main drive

Of course the synthetic benchmarks say it's super fast but there was nothing in my real world tests to indicate this when referring to OS/game/app load times. Went back a single drive for the OS and it's faster.

If you look around for real world Raid0 benchmarks I don't think you'll find a single one saying it's faster for the OS/apps/games.
 
Archer75 said:
Real world benchmarks show that RAID 0 is no faster than a non raid setup. Usually it is actually slower. The ONLY thing it speeds up is writing large files. That's it. It's a gimick.

Yes, I have indeed runa Raid 0 setup to verify this. My windows loading times were slower as well as game load times. I have 2 RAID 0 configs on this system for storing and backing up files and it is faster when making large backups of data from my main drive

Of course the synthetic benchmarks say it's super fast but there was nothing in my real world tests to indicate this when referring to OS/game/app load times. Went back a single drive for the OS and it's faster.

If you look around for real world Raid0 benchmarks I don't think you'll find a single one saying it's faster for the OS/apps/games.
Click to expand...


for crying out loud! get back on topic! and the size of files... that depends on the size stripe you use. smaler size stripes see you performance with smaller size files.
 
soloz2 said:
and the size of files... that depends on the size stripe you use. smaler size stripes see you performance with smaller size files.
Click to expand...

No.
 
soloz2 said:
WTF you guys are absolutely no help at all!
Click to expand...
Debating and your unwillingness to give in to facts aside, did you bother doing any searching yourself? There's a thread in the OS forum right now asking roughly the same questions, with some good answers, focusing mainly on the build number of Vista. We would appear to be more helpful if you dropped the know-it-all attitude, however. Just because you didn't like the answers we gave, doesn't mean we are to blame.
 
go screw yourself. Where do you get all high and mighty? I ask a simple question and all you people want to do is change the subject and bash me for my RAID array.
 
soloz2 said:
go screw yourself. Where do you get all high and mighty? I ask a simple question and all you people want to do is change the subject and bash me for my RAID array.
Click to expand...
So it's easier to insult everyone that follow my advice to read the other thread? *sighs* Good thing for the report button. :rolleyes:
 
djnes said:
Just because you didn't like the answers we gave, doesn't mean we are to blame.
Click to expand...
It's not the "answers" that irritate so much as their total irrelevance to his question.
Djnes only peripharally mentioned another thread that might have been helpful...why not post a link to it and let the whole "RAID isn't worth it" dickswinging go?
 
sprocket said:
It's not the "answers" that irritate so much as their total irrelevance to his question.
Djnes only peripharally mentioned another thread that might have been helpful...why not post a link to it and let the whole "RAID isn't worth it" dickswinging go?
Click to expand...


Thank you! finally someone with some maturity! This is the first helpful post. The next helpful post was about the versions of Vista Beta 2, but no one could answer how to tell what version. And saying there is another thread is of no use. I didn't find it the first time, what makes you think I'm going to magicly find it the second time?
 
I just found it with a grand total of 10 seconds....just enough time to click the search button and type in my search string. I'd post a link, but what fun would that be given your know-it-all attitude, you already know what thread it is. We have an unwritten rule on these forums, we help those who help themselves. If all you do is insult those reading your thread, why bother? A quick glance through this thread shows we gave you answers that would allow you to test Vista on your system. You didn't like them, and told me where I could stick my comments, and continued to decline from that point on. On top of all that, your comments were proven to be wrong anyway. I truly hope you earned yourself a vacation with this thread.
 
djnes said:
I just found it with a grand total of 10 seconds....just enough time to click the search button and type in my search string. I'd post a link, but what fun would that be given your know-it-all attitude, you already know what thread it is. We have an unwritten rule on these forums, we help those who help themselves. If all you do is insult those reading your thread, why bother? A quick glance through this thread shows we gave you answers that would allow you to test Vista on your system. You didn't like them, and told me where I could stick my comments, and continued to decline from that point on. On top of all that, your comments were proven to be wrong anyway. I truly hope you earned yourself a vacation with this thread.
Click to expand...
Love the use of the royal "we".
Also love the fact that you spent longer typing your diatribe than just posting the link.
 
sprocket said:
Love the use of the royal "we".
Also love the fact that you spent longer typing your diatribe than just posting the link.
Click to expand...
No royalty about it. When you've been here 6 years, you notice a lot of patterns, and you come to know the unwritten rules.

About the "diatribe", with the attitude I was given, can you blame me? I was berated with incorrect facts, and told where to stick my comments. That's just a plain and simple lack of social skills.
 
This isn't supposed to be a discussion on the benefits or lack thereof of RAID, if that's the kind of discussion you want, you can go to the Data Storage forum.

The question was for help to install Vista on a RAID, so unless you can contribute to that conversation rather than saying "RAIDsucksdon'tbother", just leave it alone. I believe the OP was looking for help from people that may have run into the same problem, not critiques for his hardware preferences.
 
soloz2 said:
Thank you! finally someone with some maturity! This is the first helpful post. The next helpful post was about the versions of Vista Beta 2, but no one could answer how to tell what version. And saying there is another thread is of no use. I didn't find it the first time, what makes you think I'm going to magicly find it the second time?
Click to expand...
Well if you legally aquired your copy of Vista, you should know what build number you have:
The downloadable customer preview version was 5384 iirc.
I am sure that MSDN subscriptions come with some form of documentation or support-line.

you may also want to read this thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1073868&highlight=vista+raid
 
Don't feel bad, soloz2, here's djnes crapping on the above-linked thread:

djnes said:
Not to piggy back on your other thread, but if you ditched the RAID0 over-hyped BS, you wouldn't have had a problem installing Vista. Intel chipsets don't need any special drivers loaded for using the SATA ports in normal mode.
Click to expand...

So, hey, at least his hard on isn't targeted specifically at you, just all RAID users. Good luck, man. Lemme know how Vista looks!
 
PNut12345 said:
Don't feel bad, soloz2, here's djnes crapping on the above-linked thread:
So, hey, at least his hard on isn't targeted specifically at you, just all RAID users. Good luck, man. Lemme know how Vista looks!
Click to expand...
Here's a common sense explanation you are missing. If the OP wanted to install Vista, which seems to be his primary goal, there's nothing to lose by breaknig the array and accomplishing the goal. Nothing is lost in terms of performance, and in a hour or so, he'd have a fully functional Vista machine. Does that solve his original question...maybe not 100%, but that would allow the ultimate goal to be achieved. In IT support, you call that a viable solution. You also fail to mention his degredation to flames up hearnig the truth he wasn't aware of.
 
djnes said:
Here's a common sense explanation you are missing. If the OP wanted to install Vista, which seems to be his primary goal, there's nothing to lose by breaknig the array and accomplishing the goal. Nothing is lost in terms of performance, and in a hour or so, he'd have a fully functional Vista machine. Does that solve his original question...maybe not 100%, but that would allow the ultimate goal to be achieved. In IT support, you call that a viable solution. You also fail to mention his degredation to flames up hearnig the truth he wasn't aware of.
Click to expand...


I'd also loose the data I have backed up on that array... it is my DATA DRIVE after all.

Thanks for all the other replies guys. I'll be sure to check out your info later this evening when I have more time.

And, my copy of vista was obtained legally, I downloaded it when it was open for download. However, I had it on my laptop and the hard drive failed leaving me w/o a copy and since the beta closed already I had someone send me a copy. I do have 2 legal activation keys.
 
djnes said:
Here's a common sense explanation you are missing. If the OP wanted to install Vista, which seems to be his primary goal, there's nothing to lose by breaknig the array and accomplishing the goal.
Except the array itself of course.
Nothing is lost in terms of performance,
This is debatable despite your insistence that it isn't.
... and in a hour or so, he'd have a fully functional Vista machine. Does that solve his original question...maybe not 100%,
Actually, not even 50%.
The original question ( and mine as well) involved Vista on a RAID0 array.
... but that would allow the ultimate goal to be achieved. In IT support, you call that a viable solution.
And in real life we call that a "cop out"
You also fail to mention his degredation to flames up hearnig the truth he wasn't aware of.
Click to expand...
The "truth" you insist on propogating is not only debatable but totally irrelevant.
Soloz2 (as am I, for that matter) is interested in experiencing Vista on a (possibly) faster platform and has run into difficulty.
What part of that is so difficult to comprehend?
I have already tried both versions of Vista on a single Raptor and would like to see what it might be like RAIDed.
If nothing else, the knowledge gained would be of value...playing with all the available options is interesting and fun.

I reserve the right to decide for myself if the speed benfits are real or imagined and no amount of persuasion form you or Anand will change my mind.
 
soloz2 said:
I'd also loose the data I have backed up on that array... it is my DATA DRIVE after all.
Click to expand...

I should resist, but cannot: You surely have a backup of that RAID-array don't you? In the end, you are planning to install pre-production software (beta) on that array. I surely wouldn't do that if the data on it was worth anything.
soloz2 said:
Thanks for all the other replies guys. I'll be sure to check out your info later this evening when I have more time and not backed up.
Click to expand...
Not a problem. Let us know if and how you solved your problem.
soloz2 said:
And, my copy of vista was obtained legally, I downloaded it when it was open for download. However, I had it on my laptop and the hard drive failed leaving me w/o a copy and since the beta closed already I had someone send me a copy. I do have 2 legal activation keys.
Click to expand...
Ok, then you should ask the person that sent you the copy what build number it is. He should know.
 
Im with drizzt and dj on this one. You are trying to install, not only a peice of beta software but an *OS*, on a machine production level (meaning its in use and/or has critical and/or unbacked-up data) machine?

R0 is for non-critical and/or easy re-creatable data.
Beta software is for test machines.

Installing a beta OS on an R0 drive with critical data is just asking for a "how do I get my data back, [vista crashed and killed it and/or a drive died]!" type of threas that the people who have been around for a while are sick of answering without throwing a sermon in.

I run R5. Its fast. If a drive dies, Im OK. If 2 drives die, Ive got backups. If I delete something, I still have backups. Im prepared. It doesn't sound like you are.
 
no, I also have an external hard drive so I keep backups and I back my system up regularly, but at the same point my external is only 40gb so it's somewhat of a pain to move data around to my mp3 player and my HTPC when i have to do a full system backup because I have a lot of pictures and music. And, I want to get a new hdd to replace my secondary RAID array and then move that array over to my HTPC for the system drive and use the current hdd for a data drive.

I didn't have time to mess with anything last night, but I did get this link from someone on another forum so I think there's lots of good info for how to install Vista.
http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/vista-beta2-and-nforce-sataraid-an-installation-guide-vt66299.html

I'm going to try to get it installed within the next few days
 
soloz2 said:
I never get that far. It tells me that it can't detect my hard drives
Click to expand...

IIRC.. the install loads up.. then it brings up a [choose where you want to install Vista] window.. (which would be blank if you didn't have the RAID drivers loaded).

At the bottom of the window, there should be an option (think it has a green arrow icon thingie?) where you click "Load additional drivers" and from then on you should be able to load the correct drivers.

I think the problem you *might* be having is that you didn't extract the nVidia drivers to your disk, you just put the installer on the disk and that would be why it doesn't locate them.. umm.. I don't have a nvidia chipset MB, but I think you can ghetto-extract them by starting the driver install (on a working version of windows :) ) and then cancelling it.. then you should be able to drag the install folder over to your disk.. It's going to be mostly a collection of .INF and .CAT files..

again.. IIRC and YRMV
:p
 
Danith said:
IIRC.. the install loads up.. then it brings up a [choose where you want to install Vista] window.. (which would be blank if you didn't have the RAID drivers loaded).

At the bottom of the window, there should be an option (think it has a green arrow icon thingie?) where you click "Load additional drivers" and from then on you should be able to load the correct drivers.
Click to expand...
You are correct.
I am having a very different issue with my install.

Having built the array in BIOS (shows up in Hard Drive Boot Priority as "nVidia stripe 138.xxGB), when I get to the "choose where you want to install Vista" screen it isn't blank -as it should be until I load the RAID drivers (which I have on a flash drive)- it still shows two separate 74GB Raptors. Vista is basically ignoring the nVidia stripe altogether.
I tried installing the drivers anyway...needless to say, that didn't work. Vista loaded/extracted the install files and then crapped out after the reboot.

I have no trouble installing x86 or x64 Pro onto this array so I'm sure the nVidia controller is working properly but I'm baffled by Vista's refusal to deal with it at all.
Maybe I'll just have to wait for a later release and try again.

Sigh.
 
sprocket said:
You are correct.
I am having a very different issue with my install.

Having built the array in BIOS (shows up in Hard Drive Boot Priority as "nVidia stripe 138.xxGB), when I get to the "choose where you want to install Vista" screen it isn't blank -as it should be until I load the RAID drivers (which I have on a flash drive)- it still shows two separate 74GB Raptors. Vista is basically ignoring the nVidia stripe altogether.
I tried installing the drivers anyway...needless to say, that didn't work. Vista loaded/extracted the install files and then crapped out after the reboot.

I have no trouble installing x86 or x64 Pro onto this array so I'm sure the nVidia controller is working properly but I'm baffled by Vista's refusal to deal with it at all.
Maybe I'll just have to wait for a later release and try again.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Now thats really weird.. Umm.. I know with my motherboard (Asus p5wd2-e premium), I have 2 options in my bios for RAID.. one sets the SATA mode to RAID, the other is to load the RAID boot rom (which it says you only need it on if you're creating a RAID 0 drive, not if your just using 1 already created if that makes sense..) If your BIOS has something like that, turn it on (RAID Boot ROM) and see. Otherwise, stick a WinXP install disk in and see if it see's the drive's the same way (if your curious) :)
 
I have RAID enabled in BIOS for SATA ports 1 and 2.
I've built the array in nVidia RAID and it appears in BIOS as a striped array.

After failing to install Vista I went ahead and reinstalled both 32 and 64 bit XP on the array.
That process went just as it should- F6 to install drivers and Windows sees the array as one single 138GB drive.
Piece 'o cake.

Vista, on the other hand....
 
I've got build 5456, 64bit version. I'll try to get it installed over the weekend. Thanks for the input... hopefully I'll figure something out. otherwise I may have to break apart my secondary array
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top