Re: SATA Raid 1 Data Corruption - A7N8X / RocketRaid 1520


"ice" <no.spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:od40q15n7v874gu7r9t74ck1v11c1vjmpp@xxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Roger
>
> thank you for the reply.
>
> Contacted Seagate who replied:
>
> "The controller is what determines the speed (SATA 133) of the drive.
> Try exchanging your cables also."
I thought you said the drives were signalling at SATA150 rate?. The
utility _is_ available from Seagate (but you have to get them to
understand that you want to turn the rate _down_ from the maximum
supported by the controller and drive). It changes one of the mode page
settings in the drive, so the controller cannot use the faster rates.

> These are the second set of cables I have tried. I would guess that if
> they work for RAID 0 they should really work for RAID 1?
The problem is that if this is a really 'borderline' error, anything is
possible,and the slight timing differences between the two modes might
make a difference, but generally if the cable is reliable in one mode it
ought to be OK in the other.


> I have noticed that the rocketRAID card and my nvidia 6800 GT share
> the same IRQ (16) I don't really have any idea what that means, or if
> its meaningful. Or even what to do if it is...
>
> thank you
>
> Ice70
It means I'd suggest moving the card to a different slot. While devices
should be able to share IRQ's, the AGP display cards, are commonly one of
the devices that has the most problems with this (remember at times there
will be a lot of interrupts from an AGP card). If it is showing '16', then
it suggests that one of the advanced interrupt controllers is present that
supports interrupts above 15, and should avoid this happening. Normally
the AGP shares with the top PCI slot, so a different sot may help.

Best Wishes

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:40:59 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
> <rogerspamignored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>><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
>>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: bad blocks on raid5 cause filesystem failure
    ... It is setup in in RAID 5. ... How could a RAID controller botch this up? ... should be rebuilt on spare drive if available from remaining drives. ... All is fine unless you have double fault. ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: Freedos 1.1 Released some days ago
    ... If you have a SATA-1 controller then there should be win-98 drivers ... If your SATA controller is a SiL 3112/3114 chip then ... RAID requires *two* drives, ...
    (comp.os.msdos.misc)
  • Re: Is RAID worth it?
    ... as RAID0 (there are also two other HDD's for data/storage set as RAID1), then I read a thread from within this newsgroup in which Carey Frisch directed someone to read - Why RAID is a Terrible Idea http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29 and that has made me re-think my plans. ... Is RAID really worth? ... Indeed my own experience of a previous PC with RAID1 showed that it was by no means an easy task to restore everything when one HDD did fail after just 4 months. ... The one think that RAID1 'was' in my mind always useful for was data protection so I'm thinking there must be a way whereby I can install all four drives so that only two are visible and the other two are a mirror image set so that at the end of the day, or maybe twice a day, some software would back up the main visible drives to the 'invisible' back-up drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup)
  • Re: Dell PERC 2/SC Single Channel LVD SCSI RAID Controller
    ... 2/SC) PCI RAID controller is a high performance intelligent PCI-to-SCSI ... PERC 2/SC is an ideal RAID solution for the internal ... Multiple logical drives/arrays per controller Up to 8 logical drives ...
    (uk.adverts.computer)
  • Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?
    ... Also this would depend on which controller is ... Well MS's intrinsic SW RAID 1 drivers using typical Intel mobo EIDE ... controllers for ATA or Adaptec SCSI non-RAID cards do very well here. ... But do note that I only mentioned "3x drives ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)