Prev: BSOD in ksthunk.sys when attempting kernel streaming audio
Next: Romdump.com error on administrative logon
From: Tony Sperling on 7 Dec 2006 21:43
Probably SATA - yes, but underneath they are mimicking SCSI all the same as
soon as RAID comes into play. (Or, indeed 'burners'!)

This is much more obvious with Linux, but I think you can see it in Device
Manager as well?


Tony. . .


"Larry Hodges" <2larry2(a)2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote in message
news:caGdnY8pQujvUeXYnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> Even onboard SATA controllers require the drivers. In his case, he's
> probably talking SATA, not SCSI.
>
> In my case, my Adaptec 39320 PCI controller was recognized by x64 and had
> drivers on the install CD. I originally installed to a single disk.
After
> some time, I acquired some other drives, so I created a RAID0 array with
two
> Fujitsu 15k U320 drives using Adaptec's Storage Manager software from
within
> x64. I then used Norton Ghost to move my installation from the single
drive
> to the new array. Booted right up. I use the other 10k SCSI drive for
data
> storage and backups now.
>
> Many here advise against RAID0 because of data loss potential. I back up
to
> DAT and HDD so that isn't an issue for me. And the performance increase
is
> striking...I'll risk it.
>
> -Larry
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling(a)dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:eEAuPvlGHHA.1188(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > Yes, I'm begining to realize that, and that in turn makes me realize
that
> > perhaps the only responsibility the driver has is to attach the RAID
> > contrroller to the OS's SCSI subsystem! Data arriving at the controller
> > will
> > see an ordinary drive in all circumstances, so should the OS - why SCSI?
> >
> > It's a rethorical question, unless someone feels like throwing some
light
> > on
> > it.
> >
> > I still don't know why this is a convenient way to handle this - just as
I
> > have always wondered why 'burner' devices was hooked up to the SCSI
> > subsystem, it's a curious thing, but it will not keep me awake for very
> > long.
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
>
>


From: Steve Foster [SBS MVP] on 8 Dec 2006 05:44
RomeoJ wrote:

>Did some searching, found the nVidia drivers, and installed them. Got the
>RAID controller and the RAID array to show up in Device Manager. The array
>shows up as "NVIDIA STRIPE 465.77 GB" in Disk Drives. Still a no show in My
>Computer.

And I'm betting that the "SCSI/RAID Host Controller" entry has disappeared
(it morphed into the nVidia RAID Controller when you installed the right
driver). The individual drives would have disappeared too, replaced by the
stripe.

>Do I need to format the drives, or do something special to actually be able
>to use the array? It's working properly according to Device Manager

Yup. Just like any other additional hard drive. Use the Disk Management
section of Computer Management (accessible in Administrative Tools, or
compmgmt.msc).

--
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
---------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.
From: Larry Hodges on 8 Dec 2006 15:32
Don't know. I've never run SATA RAID.

-Larry

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling(a)dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:OSeDELnGHHA.3976(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Probably SATA - yes, but underneath they are mimicking SCSI all the same
> as
> soon as RAID comes into play. (Or, indeed 'burners'!)
>
> This is much more obvious with Linux, but I think you can see it in Device
> Manager as well?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Larry Hodges" <2larry2(a)2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote in message
> news:caGdnY8pQujvUeXYnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)comcast.com...
>> Even onboard SATA controllers require the drivers. In his case, he's
>> probably talking SATA, not SCSI.
>>
>> In my case, my Adaptec 39320 PCI controller was recognized by x64 and had
>> drivers on the install CD. I originally installed to a single disk.
> After
>> some time, I acquired some other drives, so I created a RAID0 array with
> two
>> Fujitsu 15k U320 drives using Adaptec's Storage Manager software from
> within
>> x64. I then used Norton Ghost to move my installation from the single
> drive
>> to the new array. Booted right up. I use the other 10k SCSI drive for
> data
>> storage and backups now.
>>
>> Many here advise against RAID0 because of data loss potential. I back up
> to
>> DAT and HDD so that isn't an issue for me. And the performance increase
> is
>> striking...I'll risk it.
>>
>> -Larry
>>
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling(a)dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:eEAuPvlGHHA.1188(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> > Yes, I'm begining to realize that, and that in turn makes me realize
> that
>> > perhaps the only responsibility the driver has is to attach the RAID
>> > contrroller to the OS's SCSI subsystem! Data arriving at the controller
>> > will
>> > see an ordinary drive in all circumstances, so should the OS - why
>> > SCSI?
>> >
>> > It's a rethorical question, unless someone feels like throwing some
> light
>> > on
>> > it.
>> >
>> > I still don't know why this is a convenient way to handle this - just
>> > as
> I
>> > have always wondered why 'burner' devices was hooked up to the SCSI
>> > subsystem, it's a curious thing, but it will not keep me awake for very
>> > long.
>> >
>> >
>> > Tony. . .
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: BSOD in ksthunk.sys when attempting kernel streaming audio
Next: Romdump.com error on administrative logon