# HOWTO RAID 0+1 on P4C800-E Deluxe



## Toby (Oct 13, 2003)

Dear Cliftan and others who I believe may be able to help me with my RAID:

I want to make use of the mixed RAID 0+1 feature that should be supported on the Promise FastTrak RAID controller. When reading the manual (yes - really did!) it does mention in the abstract that it is possible to build RAID 0, 1 and 0+1. But when reading the corresponding chapters only the RAID 0 and the RAID 1 howtos are described. RAID 0+1 really NOT possible or what?


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Too bad I don't have enough equipment to play around with RAID 0+1; given what I've learned today I'd be interested to see it work. :bandit: 


*THE ASSUMPTION: 0+1 IS SUPPORTED.*
My working assumption has been that yes, RAID 0+1 is possible on the Promise 20378. The chip supports it, and plenty of documentation lists it as a feature. The Asus mobo manual says in many places that 0+1 is supported, such as section 2.8.4: "...you may create a RAID0, RAID1, RAID0+1, or multi-RAID configuration..." but that manual is seriously short on detail. In fact, all manuals semm to be _terrible_ about this stuff in particular, and it's not just Asus. 



*WHAT IS RAID 0+1?*
From the many scant descriptions I had trouble figuring out exactly what is needed: 3 drives? 4 drives? What?

For starters, I looked to the Tyan Trinity i875P which runs the same Promise chip. Their manual is not much better than Asus, but its overview had an interesting note about RAID 0+1, _"...need to install two SATA hard drives and two ATA-133/100 IDE drives simultaneously."_ I checked MSI 875P Neo too, but all their manuals were too old to make mention of 0+1.

Next I hunted the general web with Yahoo, and found an Extremetech article confirming what Tyan had said, _"...with four drives, you can get a RAID 0+1 where data is striped between two drives, and those two drives are both mirrored, providing both performance and protection."_ Now a picture was starting to form.

But the very best RAID 0+1 descriptions were found in this great PcGuide article which should be required reading for anyone getting into RAID. Unfortunately the discussion is generalized, so I cannot tell how well it applies to the Promise 20378 capabilities. Anyway on page 2 it said, _"...RAID 0+1: we stripe together drives 1,2,3,4,5 into RAID 0 stripe set "A", and drives 6,7,8,9,10 into RAID 0 stripe set "B". We then mirror A and B using RAID 1."_ 

This suggests for 0+1 you actually create _two_ RAID 0 sets then create a third set which is RAID 1, using the RAID 0 sets... this is effectively the same thing the Extremetech article said. The article goes on to explain that after creating multiple arrays, you can apply a second RAID level to them, to create a higher-level "nested" array. And that,it appears, is how we get to 0+1.

Tonight I also found an article about using 0+1 arrays on FastTrak 2000. Regarding 0+1, this one said clearly, _"A minimum of four drives needs to be installed. With a four-drive disk array, two pairs of drives are striped. Each pair mirrors the data on the other pair of striped drives."_ This was another good article with lots of detail and configuration/ performance data.



*AND WHAT IS "MULTI-RAID"?*
The Asus manual also talks about "Multi-RAID". My web hunt showed this is practically an Asus-specific marketing term. And it sounds a lot like 0+1. 

For example two Asus datasheets here and here both stated, _"...with unique Multi-RAID function, RAID 0 and RAID 1 array can co-exist"._ 

A somewhat better description of Multi-RAID came in this Asus P4C800 Deluxe Review, _"Multi-RAID enables users to build a RAID array with any 2, 3 or 4 of the ports. With this unique multi-RAID function, RAID 0 and RAID 1 array can co-exist at the same time."_ Better, but based on the earlier descriptions I don't see how it could work with _3_ ports.  

In summary, where previously I had assumed RAID 0+1 meant all disks present were involved in RAID, while Multi-RAID meant you could also have other disks which were just JBOD (and this might still be true, I can't tell), from statements like the above, I now can see little difference between "Multi-RAID" and "RAID 0+1". It tends to make me think they are basically two names for the same thing. Or maybe it's like a statement I saw for some MSI mobo, which suggested to me that Multi-RAID may just mean you are combining Ultra-DMA disks with Serial-ATA disks to create RAID sets.


*SO HOW DO YOU DO IT?*
As for the specifics of how you set all this up, I found out there's a Quick Start Guide on the mobo support CD which is slightly more involved than what's in the mobo manual. It still lacks any explanation of 0+1, and doesn't mention Asus' term "Multi-RAID". And it doesn't show how to use the "Define Array" option, only the "Auto Setup" option. Oops. 

However this 28-page document is still quite important, since the Promise website makes no mention of embedded 20378 chips, their architecture or features, nor any mention of FastTrack 378 drivers or how to use them. Asus may be your only resource for this.


So here's my rough idea of a sequence:

1. Make yourself a disk with the latest FastTrak RAID driver on it from the Asus download site. Be sure to unzip the drivers to the disk.
2. Attach 4 drives on the Promise: two identical SATA and two identical IDE (ATA/133). All drives should be the same size in GB.
3. With so many drives you might even want to also consider swapping your power supply to something more powerful. 
4. Boot the PC and hit DELETE to enter BIOS setup. Enable the Advanced- Onboard Devices Configuration- Onboard Promise Controller and set its Operating Mode to RAID. This enables access to the Promise BIOS-based FastBuild utility. Hit F10 to save & reboot.
5. On the next reboot, the system pauses where the Promise gets scanned. Hit Ctrl+F when prompted (or ESC to skip it this time). Ctrl+F opens the FastBuild.
6. Using the number keys at the top of the keyboard (not the number pad) choose <2> View Drive Assignments to see what you've got. It will probably be something like "1:Mas" and "2:Mas" which are your SATA's, and "3:Mas" and "3:Sla" which are your IDE's. With 4 drives the 1/2/3 might be in a different order, I couldn't tell. Now hit ESC to return to the main menu.
7. Try <1> Auto Setup. Another screen opens. Now hit the Spacebar a few times to toggle your choices in the field at the top to see what's available to you; the available options change depending on how many disks are present. With only 1 disk, "Performance" is your only option. With 2 disks, "Performance" or "Security" are your only two options. I don't know what you get with 4, but I assume a "Striping/Mirroring" option will also become available.

*If someone else has experience from here on, please reply!*

8. Where we go from here is unclear to me. If you want 0+1 think you would want to go ahead and choose the Striping/Mirroring option and let the utility crunch for however long that takes.

9. If instead you want to do things manually, you would choose the option <3> Define Array. Arrow-down to highlight which array 1-4 to define, then hit Enter. From there you will be on your own. One _guess_ at a sequence for 0+1 would be:

a. Create array 2 using the two SATA ports, in Stripe mode (RAID 0).
b. Create array 3 using the two IDE ports, in Stripe mode (RAID 0).
c. Create array 1 using array 2 and array 3, in Mirror mode (RAID 1).

10. Some docs suggested there may be some DOS Fdisk/ Format steps after this, against the various arrays. I'm not sure how to specify arrays when doing this.

11. After all the offline work, you will need to boot XP. When you do, XP might discover the new Mass Storage arrays. An Add New Hardware wizard will run. Now use that disk that you made in step (1.) and let the drivers install.


If I were you I'd be tempted to email Promise support and explain the situation, and get them to walk you through how to do a typical 0+1 configuration in the FastTrak utility. If you do, please let us know the step-by-step too!

-clintfan


----------



## Toby (Oct 13, 2003)

Hi again,
i see that i was a little bit short in my discription. in fact i allready tried your suggestions without any success, unfortunately.

great overview of things regarding raid 0+1. what you write is also my understanding of this. i could add: raid 1+0 is the other way around, start with building two mirrored sets and stripe them together to a 1+0 set.

i THINK multi-raid might also mean that you could use 4 disks to create one (striped or mirrored) set. i managed to do this (i.e. a 320 gb striped set, using four 80 gb drives), but got more interested in the radi 0+1 feature. 

i have exactly your suggested configuration: two seagate 80 gb ide (master + slave) and two seagate 80 gb sata (to the promise). promise-raid enabled in bios. i did tryed using all four drives, but could only chose security (raid 1) or performance (raid 0). then i built two striped sets, but there is no way to nest the sets as far as i can see.

i emailed asus support several times - but guess what: its like sending something into a black hole. think i'll try the promise support now. i'll post the result here if any.


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Whew! Guess I got my guesses mostly right, then!  

I guess I should have prefaced this with something about not knowing how far you'd gotten. Definitely let us all know what you find out.

There have been several BIOS updates too, the Promise was updated in 1008, 1009, and 1011. I don't know what version you're on, or whether 1+0 was enabled by any of these updates, but it might be worth an update if you're not on 1011 yet.

-clintfan


----------



## Toby (Oct 13, 2003)

Hmm, maybe we got something there. i am on the 1011 now, but i wasn't when i tested the first option you mentioned: using all four disks at once in the RAID-bios.

Lets await the answer from [email protected] and [email protected]. If this wont help, i'll rebuild from scratch to find out.

/Toby


----------



## Toby (Oct 13, 2003)

Hi cliftan and others who have followed our raid thread.

since as expected no answers came from promise and asus support, i broke my two separate rais sets and tried cliftans suggestion using four drives in the "promise raid bios" (CTRL-F at startup). with the new drivers it is in fact possible to create a raid 0+1 and it works perfectly well and, according to feel and touch, fast (no measurements of HD-data-speed done).

Conclusion: 
To RAID 0+1 on ASUS P4C800(-E) you need:
2 SATA connected to the onboard Promise controller
2 PATA connected to the onboard Promise controller
ASUS BIOS 1011 or later
Enter CTRL-F and choose to build raid set. Toggle with spacebar until STRIPED/MIRRORED is selected, save&exit, off you go

Advantage of RAID 0+1 is speed from RAID 0 and security from RAID 1

Thanks cliftan for being a better support than the one from asus and promise

/Toby


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Thanks for the closure, glad to hear it worked!

-clintfan


----------



## Toby (Oct 13, 2003)

(sorry for missreading your name, CLINTFAN)


----------



## rozel (Oct 17, 2003)

*Extremely Interesting Thread*

Hi I have read this with much interest. I have the same Mobo and currently have 2 x SATA 150 WD Raptors in a RAID 0 setup running Windows XP Pro (SP1a) on the Intel controller and 2 x SATA 150 Seagate Barracuda 7's in a RAID 0 setup on the Promise Controller.

I'm sure you know what's coming......................

Would it be possible to add two more PATA drives to the Promise controller and configure the 4 drives attached to it to run in a RAID 0+1 setup, without starting out all over again? AND is is conceivable that as well as mirroring the RAID 0 on the Promise controller, it could mirror the RAID 0 on the Intel as well?

Obviously it's taken time to get where I am OS and program installation-wise and wondered if I could add the two new drives, at this stage?

TIA


----------



## Toby (Oct 13, 2003)

Hi,
i dont think you'll be able to do this . the controllers are as i understand it totally separated and the only way i found to get to my wonderful raid 0+1 was really to use four disks from start to build a combined set all on the promise.

i had two sata to the promise in a raid 0 and tryed to add two pata afterwards. it was not possible in the promise raid bios (CTRL F at startup). i even played around a while with the raid management utility that came with the installation cd (i think its called PAM), but couldn't get to the raid 0+1. logically it seemed to me that building two raid 0 sets and then using them to mirror into a combined set should work, but it didn't (for me). sorry. let us know if you manage.

/Toby


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

> is it conceivable that as well as mirroring the RAID 0 on the Promise controller, it could mirror the RAID 0 on the Intel as well?


Sorry, no. The same controller [chip] has to manage all RAID volumes it knows about.

-clintfan


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

*You can't do that*

Just so you all know... you will loose a LOT of speed if you are using 2 drives on the 3rd PATA RAID channel... the Controller can't access both drives on the channel simitanusly. I don't recommend it at all.... now for my problem which brought me here... 
I NEED HELP.. 
I am running the P4C800 Deluxe with 1011 bios. I am using the Fasttrak 378 for two Raptor WD drives (RAID-0). Which has been a computer geek's dream for the last 6months... Its soooooo fast, if you have the means I highly recommend getting it setup this way! Here is every RAID-0 user's worst nightmare... Here i am playing along in a game (homeworld2) and Poof, I get the blue screen of death siting a file NSLIP.SYS has caused an exception, system has been halted to prevent coruption and will reboot.

System reboots... POST test completes then the Promise controller can not bring "Array 1" online. (I take a deep breath in fear) Promise BIOS ver is .37 (lastest Sep 4th BIOS) 
It lists the First Drive which is Identical to the drive on the second channel as assigned to "Array 1" the Second Drive is listed as "Free" (as in "not assigned to an Array") When I plug Each drive one at a time to either channel it lists each drive by itself as "Array 1" however when Both drives are pluged in (even switched) the Channel 2 is always listed as "FREE" no matter which of the two drives plugged to channel 2... I have replaced SATA cables, reseated power plugs, checked both drives in the normal POST tests on the IDE SATA channels supplyed on the Motherboard. Tommorrow I will go get and try using the 40pin 3rd connecter with an SATA adapter for the second channel... There has got to be something I can do? Has the Second Channel on my Promise card gone out? it still detects the drive, just won't assign it to ARRAY 1... What could Cause a drive in RAID 0 to Lose its ARRAY Assignment ?? how can I tell it to use this drive for the other half of the ARRAY again ? It functed flawlessly since I set it up in June. I reflashed the Bios... I loaded Defaults... still same thing... 

I sent this same description to ASUS support form seeing as the board is under warrenty, but I don't know if they even support Faithfull Asus buyer's... 
Someone with Promise Bios knowage should know something about this.

I am open to ideas.... I havn't done anything to the drives... (write wise) and I am not going to give up... 

I would rather eat my SATA cables then give up RAID-0 due to no more trust... I never though I would really loose a DRIVE, jesse and NTFS is pretty fault toalerate if I lost data, I never even had a bad sector. But in this case the conntroller won't bring up the other Drive or even try on the other channel (channel 2)

I think its Mobo. but I don't know. I may try the drives in another system and see what comes up...


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

*new information*

After more testing its not the Channel... its one of the Drives....

One of the drives Assignment is "FREE" and not "Array 1" moving one of the drives around will cause the Channel to follow it in the VIEW Assigments" screen. HOWEVER pluging that Drive to the Array [BY ITSELF] the "VIEW ASSIGNMENTS" screen shows it "ARRAY 1" ..... so if I hook up one of the one... (Either one) by itself it shows "ARRAY 1" assignment.... however Both will Force one of the Drives to "FREE" 

if that helps anyone on the theroys...


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

*Suspection*

My best guess is the Promise controller for some reason can not tell the two drives apart? the show up SAME Model and every detail. i dunno but what would cause this all of a sudden?


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Sorry to hear about this. The SATA drives are _supposed_ to be identical, so it's not surprising they would report the same, is it?

Maybe you could try swapping the bad drive's SATA cable, with one of the spares that came with your mobo... you should have gotten 4 in the package.

Here I've done a lot of plugging and unplugging of those flat SATA cables since I built the box: it's all this testing of stuff for you forum folks!  But the other day I noticed the cables were feeling loose, like they weren't making the best contact with the drive anymore. 

So far so good, but I know I need to quit playing with these cables --they're not designed for frequent connects and disconnects. And if I start to have any trouble at all with offline SATA drives, I'll go straight for fresh cables. I'm thinking these were probably inexpensive SATA cables for Asus, and maybe there are better ones on the market. I haven't looked yet.

-clintfan


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

yes i have tryed differnt cables.. that was the first thing I tryed... I said i tryed it too in my first post... I have a box of them.

(MORE TESTING LATER)
One of the drives Assignment is "FREE" and not "Array 1" moving one of the drives around will cause the Channel to follow it in the VIEW Assigments" screen. HOWEVER pluging that Drive to the Array [BY ITSELF] the "VIEW ASSIGNMENTS" screen shows it "ARRAY 1" ..... so if I hook up one of the one... (Either one) by itself it shows "ARRAY 1" assignment.... however Both will Force one of the Drives to "FREE" 

if that helps anyone on the theroys...

Ok now I have downloaded a program to VIEW ONLY the MBRs of the to drives, which i can only look at in normal IDE mode... one MBR appears to be full of a bunch of HEX Code and words that say something to the effect of Missing Boot Files... (I asume this is a normal boot partition) and the other MBR on the other Drive is mostly Blank but for 2 chars between 000 and 400

Still no luck... I havn't seen any tools yet that would use my Fasttrak 378 chip.

Western Dig Forums have a simalar sounding problem
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc...hp?p_admin=1&p_faqid=913&p_created=1047068027
but the program looked at my drives and said it didn't need to update them... I have posted this at 5 differnt Forums now... ASUS and WDC included

I have found one SHOT in the dark fix... but its expensive... i can order two NEW Raptors and set them up the same way then mirror the MBRs to the old drives ? but I am guessing... and its expensive but I may have to try it.


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

*OMG IT WAS SOOOO SIMPLE!!!*

There i was, just about to cry... wondering what I am gona do... thinking how much crap I had on that system.... Software... Work... Games... Saved games... more games... and about 20gb stuff I can't mention here. Any ways... i am glazed EYED at what I think is a USELESS ASUS mobo manual thinking... I bet it doesn't even mention anything about the RAID control... and then I see it... in a One line sentence next to a picture of Mirror setup if you mess up. 

"Delelte Array (4) this commanddeletes an array to reconfigure the system. Deleting an array does not remove information on the hard disks, if an array is deleted by mistake, recover it immediatley by redefining it as the deleted array." 

and it hits me! I take a gamble and turn the ***** on, (what have I got to lose?) I delete the array from the "Array 1" assigned drive and re-create the array... POOF I get NO OPERATING SYSTEM FOUND, but the array was functional... I think the worst... then "Did I reverse my SATA Drives in my testing?" I reverse them, POOF NO OPERATING SYSTEM! dam... so I think... maybe switching them isn;t enough, it followed the unassigned drive before... so I delete it again, and re-do it... POOF WINDOWS XP BABBY!!!!

I was never so happy to see that microsoft XP logo... everything booted up fine... no problems... nothing... (I did a scan disk and defrag just to put it all behind me)

Dam i should get paid for this shizzy!!!

THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT!! I would have been much more said and "Giveup like" without this! 
WHOO HOOO! Theres no data like my data! Theres no data like my data!!! (KANSAS)

Regards 
Jason


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Thanks for the really GREAT tip about the delete function and the reversal. I think that will come in hand for others too.

No, go and enjoy your 20GB...

-clintfan


----------



## dmcgee (Nov 1, 2003)

*Striped drive failure*

Hello,

I had exactly the same problem with a p4c800 D. In fact the drive "failed" twice! I actually had to delete the array and start over again completely. Unfortunately rebuilding the array didn't work for me. I was using 2 WD 2500 drives. I was still early in the process of building my new system, but I did have all the operating system installed and many of the service pack upgrades installed as well as my email configured, all the drivers and software utilities on as well.

The system was quite unstable, in fact before the drive array actually failed completely it failed temporarily 2 or three times and would "come back" after a couble of reboots.

I tried all the things you mentioned, w/o success. When I rebuilt the array the third time I mirrored the drives (instead of striping them) and so far it's been far more stable.

But like others here I am confused about the 0+1 option. The manual definately says that 0+1 is an option, but I also don't see how, and I am worried about stability regardless.


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

the WD 2500 drive ? thats a 250gb right ??? Its not recommended to Raid such large drives... I dont know why, but i know drives over 100 gig and more is not good raid for some reason. you are trying to make 1 single drive 500gb?!?! i dont know ... 
But I don't honestly know why raid 0 wouldn't work either. explain your cable connections and jumpers on the Harddrives...

any anything else in that area as far as details... RPM rate of drives... Cache and such, connection type.. bios version...

ASUS did relese a revision to support large drives... I think... check that out...


----------



## dmcgee (Nov 1, 2003)

*Striped drive failure*

Yep, 500GB (7200RPM 8MB buffer) on SATA_RAIDE1 and SATA_RAID2 was the plan. Lots of real estate for video editing. I am running the latest version of the bios (ver 1011) which apparently had an upgrade for the Promise controller. (An aside, but the upgrade to ver 1011 stopped the Asus bios upgrade software (AsusUpdate for windows) from recognising the bios as Asus so the upgrade software crashes every time it's run - I've also read that it also does something to the Intel ICH5 bios menu see http://www.abxzone.com/forums/forumdisplay/f-68.html)

I do have the latest version of the Promise drivers I think (1.00.1.37).

You may have read about the problem with these boards and pressure from the heatsink causing solder bubbles on the MB to come into contact with nearby circuit etchings. Anyway, I now suspect that this may have been the culprit - it could have come into contact with a nearby trace at some critical time in which the drive is writing data and screwed things up.

Um, am I right in thinking that SATA drives in an array with ATA 133 drives would only perform as fast as the ATA 133 drives (about 133MB/s vs 748MB/s for serial ATA)? And about this 0+1 array... If I got 2 more drives - ATA 133s or whatever - what would be the process for going from 2 mirrored drives to 4 striped and mirrored drives? Would the Promise controller just give the the option on boot to mirror/stripe the array and then simply copy the contents of the mirrored array to the new drives striping them?


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

quote--
(An aside, but the upgrade to ver 1011 stopped the Asus bios upgrade software (AsusUpdate for windows) from recognising the bios as Asus so the upgrade software crashes every time it's run
--- end quote
First of all it shouldn't be doing that... I updated my bios without problems.. but At first ASUS pointed me to the wrong update, which i acutally tryed to flash, it didn't work and I was like *** then I lookat it the filename and saw it was for P4p not P4c even though I clicked on P4C when i was downloading...
but I got the Right file and it updated just fine.

Ok and the soder... anything is possable, but I REALLY doubt its that. 

133mbs and 748mbs those are only what the Standerd is capable of, yes today 150 SATA is what the borad is 133 on the 40 pin connectors. if your harddrive acheave a data rate or 100mbs more then once a day you are doing very well. 

yes.. mixing an Array with 150mbs channels and 133mbs in the event the bandwidth in the 133 channel is at capcity the the array with wait on it to catch up, it will wait on all channels, caused by the drive. IDE drives un-like SCSI drives... each drive has its own controller, they don't operate at the same speed ever.. they DO wait for bandwidth in the channel if sharing with another device, and they DO only operate as fast as the Computer can accept the data and request the data, then there limit is there own controll and heads management.

Bottem line... The best way to do an array is the right way...

Each Drive should be IDENTIACAL and each drive MUST have its own independant channel, all of which should be IDENTICAL... never master slave and such. and just for Stabliity the drive controller addrersses should be all next to each other... IE 80, 81
and so on... 

ASUS really SCREWED the P4C800-D people cause now everyone ACTUALLY used the RAID they are like.. "We got this new P4C800-E Deluxe.. oh look its got 4 Raid Channels... hey hey raid!"

The P4C800 Deluxe Really wasn't ment to be more then 2 drives raided.


----------



## dmcgee (Nov 1, 2003)

So just to be really clear, are you saying that you flashed your P4C800 Deluxe 1010 bios to 1011 AND you then had no trouble running your Windows based Asus update software? (I ask because I am not the only one that has posted this problem to techsupport forums.)

About the solder blobs - I'm not the first one to post this idea. Here's a link to an image of the problem. I understand that Asus has since changed the way they attach the CPU heatsink mounting bracket. 

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~nightops/eki/DSC00249.JPG

Thanks for the info about actual speed transfer. That's very helpful! I don't need to worry that if I decide to attach a couple of Ultra ATA drives to the other connector, that I'm slowing things down.




typo91 said:


> *quote--
> (An aside, but the upgrade to ver 1011 stopped the Asus bios upgrade software (AsusUpdate for windows) from recognising the bios as Asus so the upgrade software crashes every time it's run
> --- end quote
> First of all it shouldn't be doing that... I updated my bios without problems.. but At first ASUS pointed me to the wrong update, which i acutally tryed to flash, it didn't work and I was like *** then I lookat it the filename and saw it was for P4p not P4c even though I clicked on P4C when i was downloading...
> ...


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

WOW cool picture! thats some messed up ****..

any ways... 
quote--
Thanks for the info about actual speed transfer. That's very helpful! I don't need to worry that if I decide to attach a couple of Ultra ATA drives to the other connector, that I'm slowing things down.
-----
If you attach more then 1 drive to the Ultra ATA connection on that board you will losse a great deal of preformance... as ONLY 1 IDE device will talk on a Channel at a time... sorry if made it sound like that will just fill up bandwidth... but like I said... only Per Channel only one device gets to Talk Between Slave and Master at any given Moment


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

> The P4C800 Deluxe Really wasn't ment to be more then 2 drives raided.


Interesting viewpoint. We _have_ been telling people that running RAID on the Southbridge, will fundamentally perform better than RAID on the Promise, strictly because of the PCI bandwidth constraint.



> ONLY 1 IDE device will talk on a Channel at a time...


Not exactly. DMA transfers continue autonomously, once they have been started. That's part of what Bus Mastering is all about.



> only Per Channel only one device gets to Talk Between Slave and Master at any given Moment


Just to be clear, that is true for _any_ motherboard, not just the P4C800-D. But your point, is one reason RAID on the Promise PRI_RAID --using Master/Slave-- is not as efficient as SATA_RAID, where the controllers are able to act more independently.



> If you attach more then 1 drive to the Ultra ATA connection on that board you will losse a great deal of preformance


You're not _losing_ performance! Drives only supply data when the PC asks for it... and it only asks for as much as it asks for, if you get my drift. The simple act of having a slave HDD won't suddenly cause your PC to start asking for data from it just because it's there... not to mention asking for that data _while_ also asking for the Master data it was already asking for before. 

Even in the striped RAID0 case, since each drive holds _half_ the data, each drive only has to _supply half_ of what it would need to in non-RAID. So your Master/Slave bus bandwidth should wind up being _about_ the same as non-RAID, plus a bit of latency.

But what you say should remind us to make careful decisions about which drives we place our data on, compared to the intensive apps we will run.


-clintfan


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Just an administrative point here.
(I'm not an admin, just a user with a suggestion.)
Everyone, when you post a wide image, it makes the text go wide also;
try to keep your images narrower.

dmcgee, 
your embedding of the image of the solder problem, 
has caused this thread to go 2 times as wide as usual. 
It's not your fault, it's just the way the forum works. 
It just makes it very hard for people to read about RAID, 
needing to scroll sideways and back for every line, 
or to access the Reply/Edit buttons.

Can I get you to edit your earlier reply, to replace the image 
with a _link to_ the image instead, 

Picture of the Solder Problem? 

(This is
url=http://koti.mbnet.fi/~nightops/eki/DSC00249.JPG]Picture of the Solder Problem[/url
plus extra [ ] on the ends.) 

Or even resize and repost the image to make it narrower.
If you can't edit it, that's OK, but if you can, I think it would help.

Thanks,  

-clintfan


----------



## dmcgee (Nov 1, 2003)

Maybe someone got to it before me - when I looked it showed in a separate window and didn't seem to affect the text. However I've replaced the attachment as a link just in case different browsers display the image with the text.

I've certainly appreciated all the information about this issue. I have to decide if I'm going to keep the board or return it.



clintfan said:


> *Just an administrative point here.
> (I'm not an admin, just a user with a suggestion.)
> Everyone, when you post a wide image, it makes the text go wide also;
> try to keep your images narrower.
> ...


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

OK, it's cleaned up now, easier on the eyes. Thanks much.

-clintfan


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

> _You're not losing performance! Drives only supply data when the PC asks for it... and it only asks for as much as it asks for, if you get my drift. The simple act of having a slave HDD won't suddenly cause your PC to start asking for data from it just because it's there... not to mention asking for that data while also asking for the Master data it was already asking for before.
> 
> Even in the striped RAID0 case, since each drive holds half the data, each drive only has to supply half of what it would need to in non-RAID. So your Master/Slave bus bandwidth should wind up being about the same as non-RAID, plus a bit of latency.
> 
> ...


_ 

You computer is ASking for data ALL the dam time, its constantly accessing your files system... Your file systems esspaccaly your OS and swap! The faster you can make that the better!

Sorry Clintfan thats not right at all...
True each drive holds half, you cant pick what drive holds what half... Each drive has every other peice of data in a 2 drive config. NO each drive does not do HALF the work! Thats why it fills the bandwidth FAST, if you had to share a channel your are MORE likely to run out of bandwidth with TWO drives trying to feed FULL information into it... your just plain nuts! Each drive Preforms its Data reads at the FULL speed as if it was operated as one drive! But it only has to get HALF the information. So...

Now read this and really read it! it will help people understand why you should NEVER EVER EVER put two IDE devices on a chaneel in any kinda of RAID setup.... NEVER EVER! EVER!
Just cause you can hook it up doesn't mean its better... NEVER EVER!

lets say it takes DRIVE1, 10 sec to load 500mb file. 
So an Array of 2 idenical drives to DRIVE1 WILL load the Same 500mb file in 5sec. both maintaining there maxium speed. Thats the hole point of Raid!

Now... Lets Say we make raid0 array with 4 HARDDISKs with a DRIVE1 on each of two SATA connecters on the P4C800-D and 2 more DRIVE1s on the 3rd 40ping Raid connector... the 2 are master and slave...
now we have the same 500mb file

[D1] ----- SATA-----------------\
[D1] ----- SATA----------------->Promise 20378 Controller
[D1M] ---- [D1S]---- PATA----/

Here is what will happen when you load the file... effectively one fourth of the file is on each drive. you can not finish loading the file untill its all in ram. now the first 2 drives can load the information on them in 2.5 sec but your other 2 drives have to wait on each other... and they need 2.5 seconds a piece... so it takes you 5 sec... 

5 Seconds TOTAL! thats the same time it would take with just 2 Stinking DRIVE1s you just wasted your Time, Money and effort!

Want to squezze preformance out of it??? take off the Slave... you may get a little better then the 2... but if you just go with two 10000 RPM Raptor like I did you will never look back ever! only thing better is the new ASUS board that has FOUR SATA Raid plugs! I wish I waited 30 days!

Make sense??
its easy if you think about it... 
No it will not slow your computer Processer preformance, but when I say PREFORMANCE i am talking about the Whole machine.... bottem line is I can Access files and move large amounts of information around my system and not Drag ***. If you are going to make a RAID do it so that your computer doesn't have to do MORE work to maintain it... or just Run JBD that way your information is on seperate drives... this can be preformation Gain too... for example... if you Raid to small drives and run you OS and Swape file and then use your other EIDE connectoers for differnt drives... or perhapes other RAID 0 with 2 drives under Windows XP on the Southbrigde that would be VERY NICE for game drive! Even faster cause your Swap and OS are independant of your game files! Or porn or whatever it is your need to Load THAT FAST!

I hope i making some sense to you guys!_


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Nice post, typo91! This is good healthy discussion about RAID, I like it. Well I always say I don't do RAID, but I'm learning. So a certain amount of what I say will be wrong... er, _misinformed_. 

But anyway I do believe we are both in agreement that RAID in a Master/Slave environment is not as efficient as something that can use independent controllers.



> lets say it takes DRIVE1, 10 sec to load 500mb file.
> So an Array of 2 idenical drives to DRIVE1 WILL load the Same 500mb file in 5sec.


Yes, because it only had to load 250MB from each of the 2 drives, right? That's what I was trying to get at when I said "each drive holds half the data, [so] each drive only has to supply half".

So you are right, I agree RAID will load _the same amount of data_ faster. I'm not talking about _more_ data, just the same amount. I agree with you... up to a point: and that point is the bandwidth limit of whatever bus(s) the devices need to move their data through.

OK I realize yours were numbers pulled out of the air. No problem. I like using numbers to illustrate a point, I think it works well. If we run with this...

a 500MB file in 10s is loading at a rate of 50MB/s.
same 500MB file in 5s is loading at a rate of 100MB/s.
You see where I am going with this...
If we add a 3rd drive we might now say 500MB will load in 10s/3= 3.3s, but now 

same 500MB file in 3.3s is loading at a rate of 166MB/s.
At some point we are going to become limited by the bandwidth of some physical bus that our data has to travel over. Am I wrong? 

For example if all 3 of these drives were on a Promise 20378, that limit would be PCI's limit of somewhere around 126MB/s or so (133 less 5% for overhead). So we cannot reach the 166MB/s, not with this mobo. If we assume all controllers get equal access to PCI, 3 drives in RAID0 (no slave) will be the best we can do. We can still load our 500MB file in about 4s (not too shabby!), not to mention we'll flood our PCI bus in the process!


FWIW I think who want the RAID0+1 mode are _stuck_ using the master+slave on the Promise, only because it's the only way to do 0+1 with this mobo, at least today. And that, after all, was the topic of this original thread.

-clintfan


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

Well thats true about the PCI bus... However this Mobo is something of an oddity. 

I have the board... it say 800Mhz FSB all over it... but what it really is, is Dual buses at 400mhz... Don't ask me,, i have no clue how its wired. My computer thinks it has 2 CPUs... yes 2, that 64 threads I have full use of... I don't know how it works on the mobo side, but i will tell you when I run a Harddrive intensive test by Sandra Si Soft, 

my thoughput is 49,784 Kb/s 

now as you know my drives are 10000 Rpm 8mb cache Raptors. So could I slap down another Drive on my 3rd connecter and worry about bus bandwidth?... probably not, again, this 133mb per second or whatever is what the Bus is capable of, it isn't beening matched by the drives... YET. But already looking at the fact that even my Mother board is running Dual 400 mhz bus... No i dont know which of those the 133mhz PCI bus is on... or even if it is the old PCI standard, cause there is a new one now thats 266, and it can slow down to 66mhz... is the promise even on the PCI bus?
XP lost me when they went to 32 IRQs.. ie my promise is on 23. Cause as far as I knew we all still only had 16. but go figure... 

the point is if you are worrying about your PCI bus bandwitdh, or even comming Close to maxing it out, its time for a new standard...

For all we know the promise could be a lot faster then 133mb/s, because the specs say EACH channel is either 133mb/s or SATA whatever that Standard is... it only makes common sence that if you have 3 channels that support over 100mb/s your host connection is going to be something more? 

Keep in mind.. Promise makes cards that support 4 Drives! it has its own PC2100 ram slot too! (I bet thats nice) but thats a lot of througput... and what about for those of us that have a PCI 2940 SCSI card?!?! It supports 15 SCSI Drives Simitanusly! so how on earth would PCI ever keep up with even 7 drives? I dont know but it does... throughput max doesn't seem to be measured the way your are measuring it. 

Also, i have a 1gigbit Lan card... thats more then more then 100 mega BYTES a sec in theory.. somewhere the information is handed around between these devices are way faster then he have hardware to retrive it for a Long time to come... or maybe not with Soild State storage around the corner.

lets save this file to raid0... for fun..
FILE==
ABABABABABABABABABABABABABABABABABABAB
FILE==

File on Raid Drive 1==
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
File on Raid Drive 1

File on Raid Drive 2==
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
File on Raid Drive 2==


----------



## dmcgee (Nov 1, 2003)

*Funny thing happened*

So... I got to wondering what would happen if I plugged my WD 2500 hard drives - currently on my Promise SATA Raid controller (P4C800 D) into the other (Intel) SATA controller connector on the MOBO. I thought - "Hey, I should be able to plug them into the other controller and no problem." 

Here's what happened...

First I took the SATA drive on SATA Raid 2 and plugged it into the SATA 1 connector. Reboot. While the Bios found the hardware, it was like it wasn't formatted and so it never made it any further. Hmmm - then I tried SATA Raid 1 on the SATA 1 (Intel) controller and voila off it went found it but then launched chkdsk as the opsys loaded and found errors and corrected them - this went too quickly to actually see what it found and did. 

The OS never seemed to be able to "see" the other WD 2500 drive connected to SATA 2.

So? I thought the second drive was an exact mirror of drive one - so how come sata RAid 2 would't boot on SATA 1 or even be recognised as a drive when on sata 2? 

As an aside when I put the drives back on SATA Raid 1 and 2 XP loaded, but it ended up in a loop between chkdsk and reboot, chkdsk and reboot, etc, until I intervened and allowed it to boot ignoring the chkdsk option. Then when it booted it would crash and XP would say the old "System has been haulted so as to not dammage your computer..." It would boot into safe mode - so I suspected the video driver. I tried reinstalling the video driver, but it didn't fix the problem - finally I "Restored" my computer to an earlier point (previous day) and the problem seems fixed.


----------



## clintfan (Sep 4, 2003)

Well this wasn't about RAID 0+1, but...


> First I took the SATA drive on SATA Raid 2 and plugged it into the SATA 1 connector. Reboot. While the Bios found the hardware, it was like it wasn't formatted and so it never made it any further. Hmmm - then I tried SATA Raid 1 on the SATA 1 (Intel) controller and voila off it went found it


Experimenting is good. It's how we learn. I think if you are ever going to move a RAID set, always move the _entire_ set, not just part of it. There is no way the two separate controllers --Intel and Promise-- will find each other's drives if the set is split. You might be lucky you were able to get it back at all, after trying to boot it.



> So? I thought the second drive was an exact mirror of drive one - so how come sata RAid 2 would't boot on SATA 1 or even be recognised as a drive when on sata 2?


I really don't know RAID to much detail, but...

Maybe you had your Intel mode set to RAID instead of IDE mode. I assume you didn't go into the IAA and set up the drive you had moved?
Maybe you don't have the proper BIOS version to be able to run RAID1 on the Intel.
Mainly, I seriously doubt a member of a RAID1 set would work as a standalone, bootable drive _outside_ of the RAID context. Like take a RAID1 drive out of a set, stick it in a similar non-RAID PC and boot it? I believe there are RAID tables written to the drive which would not be part of a normal standalone disk, but I don't know how that impacts the rest of the disk layout.

Just my opinions,
And now back to our regularly scheduled 0+1 programming...

-clintfan


----------



## typo91 (Oct 23, 2003)

its only a mirror if you had it set to RAID1 and not RAID0..

that being said... you are lucky your OS works at all, cause Chkdsking anything on your harddrive while its not in the Configuration you set it up in original can be VERY DESTRUCTIVE...

it would be like letting a Chinese person that has never even seen English before re-alphabetize a Public Library's Duey Diecimal System.

YES it "should" be a mirror... however.. RAID1 designers never intended someone to do what you did. its suppose to be with the drives... but i think it should work too doing what you did.
One thing... the mobo Promise Accesses the MBR differntly then the Intel. this is because to this day not all bioses are consistant on what exactly the same Harddrive MBR evalueation IE it starts at sector 0x00 or 0x01 and such.

What sounds like happend in your case... the MBR doesn't seem to reside on Drive 2... I dont know why I never wanted to waste a drive in RAID1, so i never played with it... but I will when i build a machine for a company next month. But Raid1 sound like it would in theory. so I dont know. 

The other issue I might think is the Promise accesses the drive differntly? I mean I have a 64kb something setting in my promise bios... but i dont know. it shouldn't affect RAID1.... XP is used to Accessing that drive with a Promise Array Driver? could that cause it? possably...

The WORST thing you can do with any hard drive is put it in other system and scandisk... when I was 14 I lost all my data on my first 486SX25... i had a 170 mb harddrive that was doublespaced... god that suckd... but anyway it wasnt the primary drive... my 850mb was... so when I formated the 850 mb, the 170mb (with 350mb on it) didn't access, it was cause the table of the doublespace was on the primary drive... 

but our Bios is very simmlar to this today... it reads the Virtual Heads and Sectors into memory at POST, equaling Drive specs... now the Promise may say 10 heads and 200 sectors while the Intel says 8 heads 220 sectors... both being the same size in disk space. now your problem is that information is handled Slightly differntly by the controller... so like I said Chkdsk could be the Chinese guy trying to Fix what he doesn't know!

good test though....


----------



## Baseman169 (Feb 12, 2006)

I just ran into a situation that I didn't find posted here. I did find a solution.

I was working on a computer setup on Intel RAID 1 on the Intel SATA. I had to somehow switch the computer over to RAID 0+1 on the Promise keeping everything there from the Intel RAID 1.

The first problem I had was that one of the IDE hard drives wasn't dectected. Solution, new ribbon. I don't know if this was the reason for the ribbon to not work, but we were using a 20 wire ribbon first. When we switched it, we used a 40 wire ribbon. After that was solved I was able to set up the RAID 0+1 with no problems. :sayyes: 

There was one hard drive that wasn't used in the RAID 0+1 left that was used in the Intel RAID 1 so this hard drive still had all the information on it.

What we wanted to do was to just copy the partition from the RAID 1 hard drive to the new RAID 0+1 array. This was first done using Norton Ghost 2003. We though we had succeeded until boot time came. Quick flash of the boot screen then into a reboot. Endless cycle. :deveous: 

We then did a Repair/Install of Windows onto the RAID 0+1. This allowed the computer to boot sucessfully, but there were lots of programs and icons missing, we failed. :sayno: 

What solved this problem was to re-establish the Intel RAID 1 with the old hard drive to boot on, leaving the new Promise RAID 0+1 intact. Yes the Intel RAID was missing a hard drive but it was bootable and ran great. Windows then recognized the Promise RAID 0+1 and asked for a driver which was supplied from the motherboard CD. I now had to set up the RADI 0+1. I right clicked My Computer, left clicked Manage and then selected from the left Disk Management. From here I was able to format the RAID 0+1 array even though it had a Windows directory on it. Once that was done I then installed Partition Magic 8 Pro and instructed it to copy the RAID 1 partition to the RAID 0+1 partition. This completed successfully. Rebooted back into the BIOS, turned off the Intel RAID 1 leaving the Promise RAID 0+1 on and proceeded to let the computer boot on the Promise RAID 0+1. Success. No reboots and everything was there where it should be.  

I do hope this helps someone out there.


----------



## jgpa (Jul 31, 2009)

(really old bump)

If anyone w/ this mobo is still around, I'd like to:

Have two 250G PATA drives striped and then this pair mirrored to a single 500G SATA drive.

It sure sounds like it should be able to be done but I can't quite get it. The best I can so is get it to stripe one of the PATA's w/ the SATA and then mirror to the odd PATA.

Thx.

Oh, all on the Promise BTW.


----------

