HD RAID 0 OS? and NF7-S2 overclock

A

AMDCam

New Member
Urgent!!!!!! Hd Raid 0 Os Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I have a simple question. Whoever has used a RAID 0 configuration before, please tell me, does the OS install on 1 drive no matter what? With Windows XP SP2 it recognizes it as the same bus and channel, but still sees both drives and asks which one I want to use. Is this a safety feature so the OS doesn't get destroyed if the RAID 0 goes crazy? PLEASE TELL ME, I want to install this OS fast. IF YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTION I ASK, ANSWER THIS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, I have a NF7-S2 motherboard from Abit, and it looks like the "speed" is locked. For god's sake, why?!?!?! I can kind of mess with the front side bus (it doesn't recognize the monitor when I overclock it though), but why not the processor speed? Also, it's running at HALF speed (1.1ghz instead of 2.2, Athlon 3200+) which is part of the reason I want to mess with the speed and is at 32C. Is that hot for such low speed?

I also have a Swiftech heatsink and Vantec Tornado, so heat shouldn't be a problem for the processor but I'm scared that maybe I applied the Arctic Silver 5 too thin, but I don't think so. Should I put more Arctic Silver on or does it matter? I applied two thin layers, but I'm not sure if it's enough.
 
Last edited:
Please guys, if you know please reply. I REALLY NEED TO KNOW if I should install XP in 1 drive or figure out how to RAID the install. Just say "it has to install on 1 drive no matter what" or "no, it can RAID" and maybe explain. Thanks.
 
Did you setup the RAID array before trying to install the OS? In my experience the OS won't even recognize the array (or any disks) unless the third party drivers are installed.
 
well I made it take the drivers from the floppy that came with the motherboard, which were RAID drivers, but it still didn't do anything. I'm thinking it's just a safety precaution the OS has to take.
 
Once again, did you set up the array? You can't just expect the system or OS to know that you want the two disks to be a RAID0 array. This has to be done before you install the OS.
 
Yes, I created the Array. At least the BIOS knows I did. It calls it one 150.01Gb hard drive in Striped Array. which is 2x 74.50Gb drives, and I even made the Array bootable.
 
but did you install the os after making the array or before, is the os on the array partitition or a seperate one?
 
You have to make the array first, then partition/format the array while installing the OS (could do this before I guess)
 
I am trying to install it after I made the Array, and it does recognize it, like I said, as part of the same drive, but it somehow knows there are 2 smaller ones in it and asks which I should install it to.

What do you mean by partition/format? I know I can partition 1 drive, but how do I do both? And they're both new drives and have been "deleted" of all memory when I made the RAID 0, so how do I partition both and why would that help?
 
Anyone? Seriously, I have to get 2 computers running and I'm on a time limit. If you guys can tell me what I need to do please do.

If you have a step-by-step OS install on a RAID please tell me, don't worry about my specific configuration.

Looks to me from instructions I've found that I have to install the OS on 1 drive and 1 drive only, then install RAID software after Windows installs. If not, please obviously tell me.
 
Last edited:
I am obviously telling you that you can raid and then stripe your os across the array, you do not need to install the os to one of the drives.

it seems weird the way you have set the raid up. You should set up the raid, then insert os disk. OS disk should boot (from the cd obviously), the installation should continue as norm. and when it comes to selecting a partition you should only see one option which is the raid aray, you should not be seeing two drives since there arn't two drives as they are raided into 1 array. You may need to specify to install the 3rd party raid drivers early in installation, i think you have to press f3 during the very first setup stage. Once you see the one array, you simply tell xp setup to format it and install the os. Simple as.
 
, does the os install on 1 drive no matter what ?
Click to expand...
well there isnt really a drive 1 anymore since both drives are kinda one ... maybe read the raid 101 ?

is this a safety feature so the os doesn't get destroyed if the raid 0 goes crazy
Click to expand...
if the raid goes crazy, everything will be destroyed

also, i have a nf7-s2 motherboard from abit, and it looks like the "speed" is locked. for god's sake, why ? ! ? ! ? !
Click to expand...
read the oc 101 .

i applied two thin layers, but i'm not sure if it's enough .
Click to expand...
thats one layer too many

please guys, if you know please reply. i really need to know if i should install xp in 1 drive or figure out how to raid the install. just say "it has to install on 1 drive no matter what" or "no, it can raid" and maybe explain. thanks .
Click to expand...
chill we dont live here ;) if you wanted the quick answer, it was prolly already dealt with in the 101s

what do you mean by partition/format ? i know i can partition 1 drive, but how do i do both ?
Click to expand...
well if you setup the array properly there isnt really a concept ofboth as the os will see it as one drive

any ideas where the missing 10gig is, the raid0 overhead is not that high is it ?
Click to expand...
the drives arent 80gb in size but closer to 75gb a pop

but you know no hard drive has all 80gb available for writing .
Click to expand...
my 160s do. ;)

it seems weird the way you have set the raid up. you should set up the raid, then insert os disk. os disk should boot (from the cd obviously), the installation should continue as norm
Click to expand...
you may/will have to press f6 and load the raid drivers

.
 
One too many layers? Really, is thinner better? Because I just reapplied it thicker so it covered the entire core, and knowing how I am never allowed to do anything right, the motherboard doesn't seem to like what I did with it. It gives me an alarm whenever I turn it on now. Can a Socket A processor be mounted in more than 1 position? And thanks a lot for the help Praetor, and everyone else.

I was reading your OC 101, which I love by the way, so now I know I can overclock my processor (through the FSB), which is great, but the only problem here is, (even the troubleshooting section in the manual recognizes this but doesn't tell me how to stop it) the system stops telling my monitor what to do when I overclock (it sits in standby), but the computer is still running fine. All the manual says is that I have to clear the CMOS to get rid of that mistake, which is great, but how do I prevent the mistake? Thanks
 
Last edited:
one too many layers ?
Click to expand...
if you stop and think about it theres only one layer ... either its too think or its not. applying more "layers" just makes the one layer thicker. it's not like the chip is sentient and can tell the difference between layer 1 and layer 2.

can a socket a processor be mounted in more than 1 position ?
Click to expand...
if you try hard enough

i forgot to put the heatsink on my processor. the only thing is though, that my motherboard has "thermalguard" which shuts down the computer and hopefully prevented damage to the processor .
Click to expand...
1. one doesnt "forget" to put the heatsink on ... really. either you didnt know or you were being stupid .
2. thermalguard takes time to kick in thats potentially enough time to cause problems.
 
I did forget, and was being stupid. The processor still runs nicely, nothing "melted" or anything, but I can see a very thin clear layer that looks kind of like glue around the edges of the core, but I kind of think they were there when I bought the processor. Could you assume the damage it possibly did? It runs fine, even at twice the speed (still half the possible speed though) (standard FSB was 100 in the BIOS, but I set it to optimal at 200 and it's fine).

I was reading your OC 101, which I love by the way, so now I know I can overclock my processor (through the FSB), which is great, but the only problem here is, (even the troubleshooting section in the manual recognizes this but doesn't tell me how to stop it) the system stops telling my monitor what to do when I overclock (it sits in standby), but the computer is still running fine. All the manual says is that I have to clear the CMOS to get rid of that mistake, which is great, but how do I prevent the mistake? Thanks
 
but I can see a very thin clear layer that looks kind of like glue around the edges of the core, but I kind of think they were there when I bought the processor
Click to expand...
Did you clean off the old stuff before adding the new stuff on?

It runs fine, even at twice the speed
Click to expand...
You got a 100% overclock? :rollseyes:

(standard FSB was 100 in the BIOS, but I set it to optimal at 200 and it's fine).
Click to expand...
Well standard FSB for the XP3200 is 200MHz so you werent actually running twice speed.

the system stops telling my monitor what to do when I overclock (it sits in standby), but the computer is still running fine
Click to expand...
The computer is not running fine. That's a classic case of overclocking too much. Or without enough safeguards

All the manual says is that I have to clear the CMOS to get rid of that mistake, which is great, but how do I prevent the mistake?
Click to expand...
Dont overclock so much. Your system cant handle it :)
 
Actually it was twice the speed from where I first started, it started in the BIOS at I guess the fail-safe speed which was 100mhz. And yes I cleaned the old stuff off, it doesn't look the same as thermal paste. You're saying even Thermalguard couldn't help my idiocy when I forgot the heatsink, and your CPU 101 says that it can be damaged and still run. So do you think I damaged it because I can't overclock it as far as I hear other people can(some people say 2.5ghz, 32C idle times, I can go 2.30ghz, 39C idle times and it was 38C even before I overclocked it, but it's unstable after 2.28)?
 
Last edited:
So do you think I damaged it because I can't overclock it as far as I hear other people can(some people say 2.5ghz, 32C idle times, I can go 2.28ghz, 38C idle times and it was 38C even before I overclocked it, but it's unstable after 2.28)?
Click to expand...
From your other thread I think id be more concerned getting the CPU to function properly before tyring to OC anything really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top