XP and SATA RAID Question.

[KSoD]

Well this is interesting. Since it should not have worked. Since RAID0 os data mirroring which takes the information and spreads it across both drives.

Of course i failed to read the whole topic. Being lazy. But if you imaged you OS then took it out of RAID, then put your image back on, yes it should always work. Since the information is all there for that system you should never have an issue.

That is why it dont work when you try to put it on a IDE drive. IT doesnt have those specific drivers installed. Nor does it recognize those drive specifically.

 

[Osiris]

I received an error when I tried to imge my sata with acronis but maybe thats because it sata to ide

 

[EricB]

I wouldn't do a raid 0 setup, especially with 2X250 gig drives. you will wake up one day to 2 dead drives. the only plus on raid 0 is speed, but you don't need that much speed over that much data. if you have to do raid 0, I suggest 2 36 gig 10,000 rpm seagate drives. use the 250's for storage.

you should also try doing the raid config in which one drive is a mirror image of another

 

[Win2kpatcher]

Its no big deal to me if the drives crash is the only reason I went after RAID 0. It is not crucial data at all. Just lots of crap mostly.I already have it all backed up on an external drive and DVD's. I would agree if losing data is an issue for you DO NOT go RAID 0

Also Eric I am very picky with my PC and HATE lots of partitions..lol..its nice having the main OS partition at 60GB and the DATA partition at 420GB. I already filled up most of the 420GB..damnit I can never win with this space thing

 

[Win2kpatcher]

Well this is interesting. Since it should not have worked. Since RAID0 os data mirroring which takes the information and spreads it across both drives.

Of course i failed to read the whole topic. Being lazy. But if you imaged you OS then took it out of RAID, then put your image back on, yes it should always work. Since the information is all there for that system you should never have an issue.

That is why it dont work when you try to put it on a IDE drive. IT doesnt have those specific drivers installed. Nor does it recognize those drive specifically.

Mak you post a good point..but I got confused there myself. When the image is created I can see the drivers for the RAID/SATA setup in the system32/drivers folder, which I loaded at time of install of XP via the floppy...so what would the difference be? How does the clone operation know its coming from IDE and not SATA? This is a good discussion by the way..keep it up all!

 

[KSoD]

The major difference is the way it transfers data. SATA transfers faster than IDE. It also does it a different way. That is why you shouldnt be able to use a SATA Image on a IDE Drive. Not only that but the IDE controllers are noticed for the CD/DVD ROM drives not your hard drives. That way it will think that those controllers only control that. If you also had a IDE drive connected along with you SATA you might be able to get away with a SATA on a IDE Drive.

RAID is a whole nother animal. Since it does data mirroring, where is just put in info on both drives and makes them act as one drive, that will cause issues. If one drive fails you lose all info. Cant recover the stuff on the second drive since part of the info is still on the failed drive. That is always why i suggest against RAID configs. That and SATA is actually faster for personal use.

 

[EricB]

The major difference is the way it transfers data. SATA transfers faster than IDE. It also does it a different way. That is why you shouldnt be able to use a SATA Image on a IDE Drive. Not only that but the IDE controllers are noticed for the CD/DVD ROM drives not your hard drives. That way it will think that those controllers only control that. If you also had a IDE drive connected along with you SATA you might be able to get away with a SATA on a IDE Drive.

RAID is a whole nother animal. Since it does data mirroring, where is just put in info on both drives and makes them act as one drive, that will cause issues. If one drive fails you lose all info. Cant recover the stuff on the second drive since part of the info is still on the failed drive. That is always why i suggest against RAID configs. That and SATA is actually faster for personal use.

so true...