Re: SATA Raid 1 Data Corruption - A7N8X / RocketRaid 1520
- From: "Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:40:59 GMT
<lam9068@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134547677.955137.31640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>a week ago i had same confusion as you. and i gave up, too.
> but yesterday i've saw some tech. through tom's and now i think
> raid must at least with 3 hdd then raid work !!
>
> good luck &
> merry christmas
No.
There are a lot of different forms of 'RAID'. RAID3, and RAID5, require
three drives or more (which is what the 'reference' you are seeing is
about). RAID0, should never have been called RAID at all (it does not give
any 'redundancy', and given that the 'R' in 'RAID', stands for
'redundant', it is naughty, that it is included as a form of 'RAID' -
however this has happened, since used in combination with RAID1, as
'RAID1+0', or 'RAID10', it is one of the simplest/fastest forms of RAID).
However 'RAID1', gives redundancy, and works perfectly with many
controllers. It is more commonly called 'mirroring', and is 'borderline'
on whether it should be included with the normal RAID forms (which
normally have parity calculations involved), but it most certainly
_should_ work. The 'higher' RAID forms, all need three or more drives, but
RAID1, is perfectly legitimate.
So, RAID1, is perfectly possible, and can work. The downside of it is that
you lose 50% of your storage capacity. Now the original poster has the
very strange situation, that the form that should provide redundancy
(RAID1), is giving data corruption, while the form that doesn't (RAID0),
doesn't. I'd have to say that this sounds like a controller problem, or
some borderline I/O problem with the drives, which is showing up in the
RAID1 configuration. Now there have been a lot of data I/O problems with
SATA150, and some manufacturers ship their SATA150 drives, set to wake up
using SATA133 for this reason (Hitachi do this, and offer a software tool
to switch the interface speed up, if you are confident that your hardware
really will work - given that the only speed gain from 133 to 150, is
basically immeasurable, except by benchmark programs, since the basic
speeds of the drives themselves is still below 100MB/sec, this is a much
safer way to go...).
I'd suggest seeing if Seagate have a software tool to turn the interface
speed down to SATA133, and seeing if both problems disappear (the
inability for the motherboard controller to recognise the drives, could
well come from the same source)...
Best Wishes
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: SATA Raid 1 Data Corruption - A7N8X / RocketRaid 1520
- Next by Date: Re: pin layout tv-out connector Asus motherboard(s)
- Previous by thread: Re: SATA Raid 1 Data Corruption - A7N8X / RocketRaid 1520
- Next by thread: Re: SATA Raid 1 Data Corruption - A7N8X / RocketRaid 1520
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
