Vista does not support RAID or Volume Striping

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Arthur, Oct 23, 2007.

  1. Arthur

    Arthur Guest

    After four hours, I just got off the phone with Monica, a Microsoft
    Professional Support Engineer who stated that RAID and Volume Striping were
    only supported under Vista Ultimate, although the options were offered under
    the other Vista versions, they were not supported.

    What a frustration and a let down!

    Arthur
     
    Arthur, Oct 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible Idea
    http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29

    RAID Explained
    http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=24

    --
    Carey Frisch
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Shell/User


    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    :

    After four hours, I just got off the phone with Monica, a Microsoft
    Professional Support Engineer who stated that RAID and Volume Striping were
    only supported under Vista Ultimate, although the options were offered under
    the other Vista versions, they were not supported.

    What a frustration and a let down!

    Arthur
     
    Carey Frisch [MVP], Oct 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Arthur

    Kerry Brown Guest

    Software raid is never a good idea. If you need RAID get a Vista compatible
    RAID controller card. Then it won't matter what version of Vista you use.
     
    Kerry Brown, Oct 23, 2007
    #3
  4. Arthur

    Arthur Guest

    I have and tried both onboard Gigabyte P35DS3R motherboard RAID controllers:
    Intel ICH9R and Gigabyte's own (both Vista certified).

    When any of these are enabled, Vista will not boot, period. The MS
    Professional Support Engineer could not make it work either and declared
    RAID and/or Volume Striping was only supported under Vista Ultimate.
     
    Arthur, Oct 23, 2007
    #4
  5. Synapse Syndrome, Oct 23, 2007
    #5
  6. Arthur

    Arthur Guest

    Thanks Carey, but I think that I am in one of the situations wher RAID 0
    would be beneficial: video editing (large files). SATA 3Gb/s provides 60MB/s
    from any single drive and the total throughput only over struping over 5
    drives; I am attempting to stripe a volume over two identical drives to get
    120MB/s throughput for video editing.

    Does that make sense?
     
    Arthur, Oct 23, 2007
    #6
  7. My Dell XPS 410 has RAID implimented in the BIOS (raid 0 striped) and is
    running Vista Home premium.

    Perhaps this is not 'Vista' supporting the RAID but the mother board.

    Vista reports that the device is 'ARRAY' rather than the actual hardware
    identifications of the two drives. Again this could be a result of the BIOS
    doing the RAID stuff.

    I would think that RAID at the BIOS or hardware card level would be
    transparent to the operating system.

    Michael

    ..
     
    Michael Walraven, Oct 23, 2007
    #7
  8. Arthur

    Leythos Guest

    You really should be using RAID on a controller card, not using Windows
    to make the RAID for you. Soft RAID is not a good idea on any platform.

    RAID controller cards are cheap and the nice thing is that the cards are
    supported under Vista - any version.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
    Leythos, Oct 23, 2007
    #8
  9. Arthur

    Rick Rogers Guest

    Hi,

    There are two basic ways to implement a RAID solution, software and
    hardware. For a software solution, the operating system must support it. For
    a hardware solution, the operating system is immaterial.

    In the software mode, an OS like Vista Ultimate or XP Pro must be installed
    to support striping or disk spanning. It sees two or more physical disks and
    handles the necessary configuration to implement the desired array.

    In hardware mode, the components and their drivers handle the configuration.
    The operating system only sees the one volume and handles it like it would
    any single drive, even if it's a multi-disk RAID5. For this type of RAID
    solution, any OS can be installed.
     
    Rick Rogers, Oct 23, 2007
    #9
  10. Arthur

    Augustus Guest

    I and most others I know have seen huge increases in boot time performance,
    as well application load speeds. Night and day difference usually. As for it
    being trouble prone or problematic for reliability, it's no more so than any
    multiple drive system. Not for the non-savvy user, but you don't have to be
    an certfied IT pro either. My twin 74gig raptors get Ghosted to a 1 Gig NAS
    device nightly. 2 years without failure. They also get cooled properly. If
    one did fail, it'd be back on line and imaged within an hour from the spare
    I keep on hand. Any critical work or data files don't go to the RAID0, they
    go to a 500Gig SATA data drive on the same system which also gets Ghosted
    nightly. Anyone who says RAID0 nets virtually zero speed gain is just plain
    wrong. Now software RAID, that's a waste of time.
     
    Augustus, Oct 23, 2007
    #10
  11. Arthur

    Leythos Guest

    Wrong - completely. In a RAID-1 system either drive can fail and you
    won't have any loss. In a RAID-0 system, if either drive is lost then
    you have a complete/total loss.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
    Leythos, Oct 23, 2007
    #11
  12. Arthur

    Augustus Guest

    Not what I meant....I was talking about the probabilty of a harware failure,
    period. I'm perfectly aware of what a drive failure consequence in a RAID0
    means versus a drive failure in a RAID1 setup. But the probability is the
    same for hardware failure in each. The recovery and data loss differences
    for RAID0 and RAID1 are obvious. Which is why the RAID0 array is for the OS
    and apps you want the speed/access gains from. I don't know of too many
    people using RAID1 on a home system used primarily for productivity and
    gaming.
     
    Augustus, Oct 23, 2007
    #12
  13. Arthur

    Kerry Brown Guest

    Both work fine in any version of Vista. The problem is either the driver was
    wrong or loaded incorrectly during the installation or the settings in the
    BIOS are not correct.
     
    Kerry Brown, Oct 23, 2007
    #13

  14. I have twin Raptors too, in Matrix RAID. If you have a Intel chipset, and
    are using that for the array, you can use Matrix RAID to have both RAID-0
    and RAID-1 partitions on the same two drives, in case you did not know. It
    works really well. The RAID-1 data backup has saved me a ot of time and
    hassle when one of the drives failed.

    The RAID-0 partition is used for OS, apps and Desktop user folder, while all
    the other shell user folders are on the RAID-1 partition. I have other
    drives for [True]images, files, video, TV-recording, etc etc, and all
    essential data is backed up on a server through network every night,
    incrementally, and those disks are in RAID-1 too.

    I also keep photos and stuff archived on DVD, and precious files are backed
    up off-site on my friend's server, in case of fire. I return the favour for
    him.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Oct 23, 2007
    #14
  15. Arthur

    Leythos Guest

    Then, since you don't know many that use RAID-1, the failure rate for
    the user, what they "Feel", is twice as high or more, considering that
    if either drive fails they have a total loss. If they had used RAID-1,
    they would not experience any loss of use.

    The point is that your post made it seem like there was no failure
    difference between using RAID-0 and RAID-1, but there is a clear
    difference if you care about being able to use your computer. Face it,
    people that use RAID-0 should be using it on computers that NEED RAID-0
    - like for video editing and such, and they should be using it on a
    secondary array, not the OS array, and they should have GOOD QUALITY
    BACKUPS, nightly at least.

    So, typical home user, installs two drives, in RAID-0, they have at
    least twice the chance that their computer will fail in a way that they
    can't do anything until they purchase at least 1 new drive and rebuild
    it completely from scratch. A typical home user installs two drives, in
    RAID-1, they have less chance that their computer will fail in a way
    that they can't do anything until they purchase at least 1 drive - since
    they can continue to work on the remaining good drive until they get a
    new replacement drive for the one that goes bad.

    Yes, if you only look at the failure of a DRIVE, the rate of failure is
    the same, but who the heck just looks at the "Drive" when the computer
    user is going to look at "why can't my computer boot up today"...

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
    Leythos, Oct 23, 2007
    #15
  16. Arthur

    Kerry Brown Guest

    Two drives you have a higher probability that one of them will fail. For
    either drive you have the same probability that it will fail as if you had
    one drive. In other words more drives means you have a higher probability
    that you will see a drive failure. With RAID 0 this means you have a higher
    probability that you will lose data. With any RAID method that uses striping
    if one drive fails you don't have all the data on the other drives. If the
    array can't be rebuilt (RAID 0) and you don't have a backup the data is
    gone. Even sending it out to a data recovery specialist won't help as you
    don't have all the data. Worst case scenario without a RAID method that uses
    striping the drive can be sent to a data recovery specialist and the data
    recovered. Worst case scenario with striping the data is gone.
     
    Kerry Brown, Oct 23, 2007
    #16
  17. RAID arrays are only better at keeping data if the mean time to repair is
    kept short.
    A RAID 5 that takes a week to get around to fixing isn't much more reliable
    than just having the disks.
    This is worse the larger the number of drives in the array which is why you
    have hot standbys to minimize the repair time.
    Unless you do the math you cannot state that RAID is better or worse in any
    particular circumstance
     
    [email protected], Oct 23, 2007
    #17
  18. Arthur

    Kerry Brown Guest


    The probability of a drive failure has nothing to do with RAID. More drives,
    more chance that you will see a failure. If you use cheap consumer drives in
    a RAID array there is an increased chance you will see errors because of
    timing issues. These errors may cause data loss but technically this isn't a
    drive failure. RAID doesn't really have a place in most computers.
     
    Kerry Brown, Oct 23, 2007
    #18
  19. Rubbish. The OS drive is the one that will benefit most from RAID-0.
    Having application files, the pagefile and the Desktop folder on that drive
    makes sense too. It is data that needs to be kept off the drive.

    When I have had a drive failure in the past, I have only lost data on the
    RAID-0 partition (using Matrix RAID) and everything on the RAID-1 partition
    was still immediately available, which meant a lot at the time, with work
    deadlines.

    All that was lost was the OS and application files, as well as work in
    progress on the Desktop. Apart from what was on the Desktop, everything was
    replacable from installation CD/DVDs.

    I am now more cautious to such a failure, and make automated weekly image
    backups of the C: drive, purely for being able to get back to a working
    system very quickly if it happens again, and I save important workfiles
    within RAID-1 shell user folders instead of the Desktop folder, which I
    choose to keep on the RAID-0 partition, for performance.

    I only backup the RAID-0 partition for speed of getting the system up again.
    No. They will not be able to rebuild the RAID-0 drive at all in such an
    event, unless they have made a clone image of the drive. If they have, they
    can restore that to the single working drive, and be in a normal,
    single-drive situation. If they do not have the drive space to do that, as
    they now have half the capacity, they can only restore the most essential
    files for getting the system up again - the OS and applications, and every
    drive is large enough for that.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Oct 23, 2007
    #19
  20. Arthur

    NoStop Guest

    And you failed to add that most of these cheap "raid" controllers are fake
    raid, ie. software based.

    Cheers.

    --
    Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
    http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

    Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

    Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:
    http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html
     
    NoStop, Oct 23, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.