raid ???

[GNXtreme]

My board will run 8 individual devices.  The manufacter suggests to use the RAID channels for your HDDs. I have not tried it any other way.

[bbjig]

Hey. If someone could tell me, if you don't use your raid can you use it as another IDE for a device. I know this is no doubt a stupid question but none the less one I do not know can someone help me out?<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif" border="0">

[zogmool]

I believe you should be able to use it as another ATA controller. If so, you'd want to move your hard drives over to it, and use the normal IDE channels for CD/DVD-ROM drives. --I've had trouble using the Promise ATA controler with CD-ROM drives. Unless your normal controler is slower, I don't see much reason to use it unless you plan to use the raid capabilities, though.

[bbjig]

Thanks for the info..<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

[Tshirt]

Highpoint chips on the MB support this, each raid connector is a seperate IDE channel (2 drives one master one slave) and are usally marked as IDE 3 and 4. So you could have 8 drive attached, if needed.

[bbjig]

Sooo, What you are saying is I could use IDE 1+2 for cd-drives and Ide 3+4 for my hard drives is that right ?

[Jake]

Yes, I think that is correct. I've heard that doing this actually helps the read/write speed of DVD/CDROMs b/c they're are not sharing an IDE port with another device. However, I have not tried this yet. I have a SOYO K7V-Dragon Plus w/ Promise RAID. Using WinXP Pro, I plan to setup an 80GB hd as my primary in IDE3 and another 40GB (as a data backup) in IDE4, so I'm not gonna use RAID. I plan to use IDE 1 and IDE2 for my DVD and LS120 floppy drives respectively. Originally I had planned to get another 40GB hd and do RAID using two 40's, but CompUSA had a faster 80gb (8mb cache) hd on sale that was cheaper than the 40GB. I hope this setup I'm attempting will work okay. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

[zogmool]

BBJig: That should work fine. Remember to set your bios up to use it.

[ADRAMELK]

If you can help it, its better to run a drive (like a cd-rom) and a harddisk on the same IDE. Think about it this way, say you wanted to copy something from a cd to a HD, if they are on seperate IDE's the information has to go through the motherboard rather than straight to the drive.<BR><BR>GNXtreme is very right, if you have RAID use it for you HD's.

[GNXtreme]

I have my main HDD on the same IDE as my CD-RW and transferring data is like "budda", ya know...smooth.&nbsp; The raid is just for X-tra storeage like MP3s and that kind of stuff.

[Jake]

I have some final questions and just need a recap from you guys. I have Soyo K7V+ MB w/ Promise RAID, 80GB (8mb cache) hd, 40GB hd, DVD, LS120 (IDE floppy) and HP Colorado 5GB tape. However, not sure if I'm gonna use the tape backup in this WinXP Pro system. You guys said:<BR><BR>(1) " BBJig: That should work fine. Remember to set your bios up to use it. ".............<BR><BR>Although BBjig is not going to use RAID, b/c he wants to use the RAID ports for IDE devices, he does need to enable RAID in BIOS? Correct?<BR><BR><BR>(2) "GNXtreme is very right, if you have RAID use it for you HD's."...........<BR><BR>Since I've got an 80 and 40 GB hd, and the RAID must be 40/40, I lose 40GB. In my case, should I use RAID ports for IDE hds even though I'm not setting up a RAID array (see last question)?<BR><BR><BR>(3) "The raid is just for X-tra storage like MP3s and that kind of stuff."...........<BR><BR>Sorry, getting confused. Given my hardware above, are you now saying I should use the regular IDE1 for primary 80GB hd and DVD (master/slv), secondary IDE2 for LS120 (and possibly tape backup) and use a RAID port (IDE3) for the 40GB hd (e.g., w/ no RAID array)? For better safekeeping of data like the mp3 stuff, I assume setting up a "RAID array" using two 40GB hds would be better solution (an 80/80BG array would be even better). <BR><BR>WELL, HOW DO YOU GUYS THINK I SHOULD SETUP MY HARDWARE?<BR><BR>Thanks in Advance<BR><BR>

[GNXtreme]

My board has the JBOD option with the raid.&nbsp; What that means is Just a Bunch Of Drives.&nbsp; It sees all the drives on the IDE 3&4 and lumps them all together to make one drive.

[zogmool]

You don't have to use raid. I posted about setting up the BOIS because there's usually an option to turn that controler on/off. Turning it on will not automaticaly create a raid array, it'll just be another controler.

[auld clootie]

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> If I might add my tuppenceworth at this late stage,I believe (no guarantees!) there may be a couple of <BR>misconceptions here. The way I understand it:- <BR>a) you can usually use the RAID ports in either RAID or normal modes,when set up accordingly. <BR>b) If you have a hard-drive on the same port as a CD or DVD,that channel has to switch <BR>between accepting the output of one and inputting the data to the other,slowing things down -<BR>the data does not travel direct between drives but via the processor.<BR>c) Also the hard-drive is slowed to the clock speed of the optical. so hard-drives should only <BR>share a port with another hard-drive.<BR>d) DVDs prefer not to share a port.<BR>e) The RAID ports do not guarantee correct operation of DVD or CD drives because there is a <BR>software control layer missing.<BR>SO - if you have a RAID mobo and don't want RAID,still put the hard-drive/s on the RAID port/s<BR>and connect the DVD and CD to the normal IDE ports - giving all drives their own ports if possible.<BR>Hope this helps....

[zogmool]

<< <i>if they are on seperate IDE's the information has to go through the motherboard rather than straight to the drive.</i> >><BR><BR><BR><BR>I don't believe that's true.<BR><BR>It has to access one or the other. Data still goes through the controller. On seperate controllers it'd be able to access one drive, and write to the other at the same time. <BR><BR>auld clootie: That was my understanding as well, with the acception of C. To my knowledge, recent controllers will switch modes, but not latencies.

[auld clootie]

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> Hi,zogmool. i'm not sure i get your first point.<BR>what i meant in b) is when two drives are being used on the same port,the data goes from the first to the controller and then from the controller back to the second. The channel cannot pass data in both directions at the same time,so this slows things down whereas,when separate ports are used,the data flows continuously from one drive to the second drive via the controller. - But,if i am wrong,i'd appreciate being put straight - i find this is a terrific site for learning,that is why i joined.<BR>As for c),i bow to your superior knowledge.

[zogmool]

<br><br><< <i>is when two drives are being used on the same port,the data goes from the first to the controller and then from the controller back to the second. The channel cannot pass data in both directions at the same time,so this slows things down whereas,when separate ports are used,the data flows continuously from one drive to the second drive via the controller. </i> >><br><br><BR><BR>Yeah, that's what I was trying to say with that.<BR><BR>As for what I said about C), maybe you shouldn't bow down just yet...<BR><BR>1: I know they are able to switch modes. 2: I know each mode has a specific latency. 3: I know it slows an ATA 100 drive (for example) down to run it with a UDMA 33 drive.<BR><BR>However, I'm not certain about wether it retains the lower latency, or if the switching is what causes it... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0">

[auld clootie]

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> yeah. well,reckon i'll still bow - unless anyone else can chip in. cheers!