Windows Vista
--
Questions
--
Followers
Top Experts
3-disk RAID5 on Vista
I built a system to be a Vista Ultimate platform. Â It had:
- ASUS P5B Deluxe with Intel Matrix Storage Technology for the RAID.
- 3-disk RAID5 configuration
- identical 320GB SATA drives.
Now, one of the disks failed and I got a new exact replacement. Â So far, so good.
I simply replaced the "bad" disk with the new one and lost the arrray.
I figured the system was smart enough to deal with a new disk. Â My mistake.
So now I'm rebuilding the software from scratch. Â Not something I want to do as a regular thing.
I observe this:
- With 3 identical drives the failure rate will be 3 times as with one. Â Just a simple fact.
- The point of RAID was to avoid failures as below. Â
If a failed disk forces a rebuild then it didn't help much. Â This isn't a server so immediate uptime isn't so much the issue. Â Redundancy leading to easy hard drive replacement IS.
I read that there's a Windows management interface that will deal with failed RAID5 drives but the article only mentions Server OSs. Â And, there's a step needed in Windows before replacing a failed drive???
I'm at a point in the rebuild that I have the opportunity to decide whether to stay with the RAID5 configuration or not.
It yields nearly 600GB of storage capacity with the 960GB of space on the 3 drives.
I could add another drive to the RAID5 array.
I could stay with 3 drives.
I could NOT use RAID5.
If I stick with RAID5 then I have to feel confident that a single hard drive / hard crash or failure / can be replaced.
I'm guessing that I will need to have a spare drive on hand just to make sure that I can get an identical drive.
Once that's used then what?
As you can see, I'm having some doubts about the practical aspects of RAID5.
I did do an experiment. Â Unplugged one of the drives and booted.
Then shut down, reconnected the drive and rebooted. Â It showed as REBUILD. Â So, that seems to work.
Why that didn't work when I introduced a new drive for a failed one is unclear to me.....
Comments please.
- ASUS P5B Deluxe with Intel Matrix Storage Technology for the RAID.
- 3-disk RAID5 configuration
- identical 320GB SATA drives.
Now, one of the disks failed and I got a new exact replacement. Â So far, so good.
I simply replaced the "bad" disk with the new one and lost the arrray.
I figured the system was smart enough to deal with a new disk. Â My mistake.
So now I'm rebuilding the software from scratch. Â Not something I want to do as a regular thing.
I observe this:
- With 3 identical drives the failure rate will be 3 times as with one. Â Just a simple fact.
- The point of RAID was to avoid failures as below. Â
If a failed disk forces a rebuild then it didn't help much. Â This isn't a server so immediate uptime isn't so much the issue. Â Redundancy leading to easy hard drive replacement IS.
I read that there's a Windows management interface that will deal with failed RAID5 drives but the article only mentions Server OSs. Â And, there's a step needed in Windows before replacing a failed drive???
I'm at a point in the rebuild that I have the opportunity to decide whether to stay with the RAID5 configuration or not.
It yields nearly 600GB of storage capacity with the 960GB of space on the 3 drives.
I could add another drive to the RAID5 array.
I could stay with 3 drives.
I could NOT use RAID5.
If I stick with RAID5 then I have to feel confident that a single hard drive / hard crash or failure / can be replaced.
I'm guessing that I will need to have a spare drive on hand just to make sure that I can get an identical drive.
Once that's used then what?
As you can see, I'm having some doubts about the practical aspects of RAID5.
I did do an experiment. Â Unplugged one of the drives and booted.
Then shut down, reconnected the drive and rebooted. Â It showed as REBUILD. Â So, that seems to work.
Why that didn't work when I introduced a new drive for a failed one is unclear to me.....
Comments please.
Zero AI Policy
We believe in human intelligence. Our moderation policy strictly prohibits the use of LLM content in our Q&A threads.
Vista (or Windows XP, 2000 Pro, NT Workstation) does not support RAID5. Â If you have RAID5 set up, then you are probably running a 3rd party solution, probably implemented in hardware on your motherboard. Vista just sees the RAID array like any other hard drive, it does not "know" it's RAID. Â The problems you are having therefore are to do with the Intel hardware, firmware &Â drivers, not Vista.
Can you post some more details as to versions of drivers, BIOS and how your HDDs are configured? Â I have used the Intel RAID5, it has worked OK for me in the past. Â
Can you post some more details as to versions of drivers, BIOS and how your HDDs are configured? Â I have used the Intel RAID5, it has worked OK for me in the past. Â
In the server world you wouldn't get any recommendations for running raid on aything but a reputable dedicated raid controller. Stability, management, reliability and performance come with a dedicated solution.
That said, have a look at this previous question for some ideas and tips:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/22645325/PC-RAID5-Problem-SATA-Windows-XP-Vista-Ultimate.html
That said, have a look at this previous question for some ideas and tips:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/22645325/PC-RAID5-Problem-SATA-Windows-XP-Vista-Ultimate.html
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
Log in or create a free account to see answer.
Signing up is free and takes 30 seconds. No credit card required.
Thanks for the great response. Â As a result I've decided to forego any RAID configuration of the disks and look for a cloning solution to go from the boot disk to another periodically.
As far as failure rates go: If there are 3 devices needed for operation of a system and if one assumes the same probability of failure for each device (at ANY stage in their joint use) then the probability of failure in the system is 3X the probability of failure of any one of them - barring any failover mechanisms. Â The latter is what the RAID is supposed to provide but it's starting from that position of 3X being worse off. Â I think that's a pretty good reason to forget about the RAID in addition to the points you've made. Â It means that one will be replacing disks 3X more often even if the system doesn't fail over all - and with the troubles with this RAID5 I don't see how it's worth it.
This points up that one must be able to go through the recovery process with confidence. Â With this RAID5 it's a lengthy process if there's failure and one has to rebuild from scratch for each failed experiment. Â I'll bet not many people do that - so there is precious little experience. Â At this stage I Â might say that I have one failed experiment and one successful one and not much confidence. Â Relying on an obscure hardware capability with little in the way of controls or history seems not a good thing.
As far as failure rates go: If there are 3 devices needed for operation of a system and if one assumes the same probability of failure for each device (at ANY stage in their joint use) then the probability of failure in the system is 3X the probability of failure of any one of them - barring any failover mechanisms. Â The latter is what the RAID is supposed to provide but it's starting from that position of 3X being worse off. Â I think that's a pretty good reason to forget about the RAID in addition to the points you've made. Â It means that one will be replacing disks 3X more often even if the system doesn't fail over all - and with the troubles with this RAID5 I don't see how it's worth it.
This points up that one must be able to go through the recovery process with confidence. Â With this RAID5 it's a lengthy process if there's failure and one has to rebuild from scratch for each failed experiment. Â I'll bet not many people do that - so there is precious little experience. Â At this stage I Â might say that I have one failed experiment and one successful one and not much confidence. Â Relying on an obscure hardware capability with little in the way of controls or history seems not a good thing.
EARN REWARDS FOR ASKING, ANSWERING, AND MORE.
Earn free swag for participating on the platform.
Windows Vista
--
Questions
--
Followers
Top Experts
Windows Vista is an operating system created by Microsoft as the successor to Windows XP. It was intended for PCs, workstations and laptops, and shares the same code base as its successor, Windows 7. New features included an updated graphical user interface (GUI) and visual style dubbed Aero, a new search component called Windows Search, redesigned networking, audio, print and display subsystems, and new multimedia tools. Vista aimed to increase the level of communication between machines on a home network, using peer-to-peer technology to simplify sharing files and media between computers and devices. Windows Vista included version 3.0 of the .NET Framework, allowing software developers to write applications without traditional Windows APIs.