I'm installing a new motherboard shortly, and am contemplating using my 2 300GB HDs in a RAID0 configuration. Both are SATA drives, and currently are in non-RAID configuration, acting almost like 2 primary drives. Using some older knowledge from here I currently run WinXP and the swap file on one, and FS9/FSX on the other.While RAID0 appears as though it will increase data transfer rates and provide redundancy, I will be back to having FS9/X on the same HD as the OS. Has anyone done a RAID install, and how did you manage hard drives between the OS and FS, assuming that there is some way to do that when using RAID?And- if I don't use RAID, but do use SATA drives (as I do now), is it necessary to do the F6 thing when installing XP to install the drivers? I thought that this was only when installing a RAID array, but maybe I'm wrong with that.Thanks- one day I will stop rebuilding this darned system and actually fly :)Bruce.

RAID0 will not provide redundancy - it will double your MTBF and risk of HD related problems.RAID0 provides increased throughput but decreased seek times. Since FS is mostly concerned with continual seeking and loading of relatively small files, RAID0 will probably be of no benefit and may even hinder performance because of the increased seek times.If you are doing work in photo or video editing then the large files involved benefit from the RAID0 throughput, but not FS.

Hi Bruce.Check this thread out.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchI have a 2 X 150Gig Raptor in RAID0 (partitioned it 15Gigs for Win XP. the others for FSX and Megasceneries (FS9 version).I have another 2 X 250Gig 7K RPM in RAID 0. Where I have partitioned it in two equal 250Gigs. 1 for FS9 and another for Backups and miscellaneous installs and downloads.As for backups.. I have to backit to a DVD. and then if anything happens...I know I have to reinstall.Manny

Hi Manny,Thanks- I went to the post in your link and wow- you did a lot of experimentation there! I saw someone near the end of it ask for the bottom line- SATA (no raid) vs. RAID0 for FS, but never saw where you had gotten to that point yet. Is there a bottom line comparison?So- it looks like you are running 2 independant RAID0 arrays? What size stripping did you decide on in the end? I'm anticipating this is where the tradeoff between seek and data transfer times lies??Thanks Manny, Bruce.

Thanks for the heads up, I'm very new to this. But being mew and learning is half the fun :) I wish I had more time in my life!! :)Bruce.

The bottom line.. Well I am unable to anwser that..cause I didn't do such a scenario with everything else remaining constant.I love megascenery and I always dreaded the blurries and I think I finally got it licked. and RAID 0 was a big component of it. Even though I do not have a clinical objective evidence, RAID 0 is better than non RAID 0. No Q in my mind. I also finally understood the concept of that FIBER_FRAME_TIME FRACTION and how keeping Set frame at UNLIMITED works with it and what it does.There is also somthing about RAID controller that you need to know in your MB. My RAID 0 Raptors runs on the primary RAID where there are two controllers one for each disk. My secondory RAID has only 1 controller shared by two diskis. And this does make a difference. while I had the Raptors running on the secondary RAID before moving it over to the primary, the Burst speed was half what it is now. The Burst speed almost doubled when each HD had its own controller.As for the stripping size. I didn't know what it was and what it meant at the time I set it up and I took the default size of 128MB. IF I were to do it again, I may have chosen a smaller number since the FSim files are small bits of files.Check this out there in another thread. http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=107582About the blurries. For FS9... Frames needed to set at UNLIMITED. and there are no other paramter in the cfg so whatever %age of Fibre is used to load vs render textures is up to the sim.For FSX on the other hand.1. Setting Framrs to UNLIMITED gives a jump in FPS. But thats fools gold. It seems to ignore the FIBER_FRAME_TIME FRACTION setting and It robs the procesing cycle from the texture loading and you end up with Blurries and it shows when you use phototexture sceneries. so setting this at a finite number (I have mine at 25FPS) makes the Parameter FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION come into effect. Here, the %age to set is purly judgement call as to each individual's PC.Since I have an OC E6600 and a RAPTOR RAID 0 (defragmented at that) and the best Video card that you can get today (8800 with 756MB video memory), I had some room for giving up some FPS. After all I could also turn down Autogens to 0 for phototextrues. so I set the fiber %age to .80. Terrific.. No blurries whatsoever.. I could fly at 660Kts and the suckewr kept loading the megasceneries.. But there is another tesit. Since it gives so much time for the Loading component, I found a certain jerkiness when the HD is busy loading. So I had to turn that %age down to .60 So thats where its at. I can ly at 250 kts (airlines) over megascneries with no blurries. When I fly non photo scnery...all I would have to do is..set the Frame to UNLIMITED..and FSX goes to the default .33 and I get extra FPS and hence I could turn on the Autogens to the extreme right if I want to.Manny

Thanks Manny, excellent info!I currently have 2 non-RAID DATA drives, and the fact that I will no doubt reinstall XP if I replace my mobo made me think of RAID, and read the relevant section in the mobo manual and do some preliminary reading. I found reference to the F6 activity when installing XP to get RAID to work, but could never figure out if non-RAID SATA needs the same drivers or not. What do you think? I never did this and the system appears to work OK as far as hard drive access goes, but I have no idea of what I should expect, and what the differences would have been had I installed the SATA drivers- or maybe they are just for RAID.Thanks- Bruce.

The F6 interrupt is just for setting RAID0. Its a RAID driver not a SATA driver.Yes. you need to prepare that floppy disk with the RAID driver if you want to setup RAID. Thats the only reason you need a floppy drive in your PC. But for it you dont.Hopefully your drivers are SATA drives and they are the same size preferably same manufacturer (Don't know if that is important or not)BTW..for Vista you don't need that f6 intruupt to load the RAID driver from a Floppy drive. Vista comes with the RAID driver. I never understood why Winxp doesn't come with a patch for that.Since you are reinstalling from scratch.. don't worry. If anything goes wrong.. just redo it. Last month I must have installed the Win XP and Vista like 15 times each and learnt a lot. :(Manny

Thanks- your help is much appreciated Manny.Bruce.

...but, the upshot is that RAID0 for FS is mostly a waste.I run VFR scenery (for which the recommendation is to run with unlimited frames) and don't suffer from blurries - that's on a single 7200 drive.Yes, transfer speeds are up with a RAID0 setup but, as said, scenery on FS is composed of lots of relatively little files being loaded sequentially (even more so with photo scenery).Seek times are more important than transfer speed for FS, and RAID0 can increase seek times over a single drive.

Here are the numbers. a) My Single Drive (non RAID): WDC WD2500KS-00MJB0-0201C03HD Tach numbersBurst speed.....171.5 Mb/sec>Random access.....13.5 ms>CPU utilization.....2%>Average read.......55.6 Mb/sec:( 2 X 250G 7200RPM WD in RAID 0 (EZ-RAID)Burst speed: 171.3 (this Burst speed may show a higher number but probably not as high as the 247.3 I got with the Raptors if I had this on the Primary Intel Matrix dual controller)Random Access: 13.2msCPU Utilization: 2%Avg read: 96.3 MB/Sec------------------------------------------------The seek time is no worse. But almost doubles the volume read. If you have dual controllers, The Burst speed could double as well.Manny

>The F6 interrupt is just for setting RAID0. Its a RAID driver>not a SATA driver.>>Yes. you need to prepare that floppy disk with the RAID driver>if you want to setup RAID. Thats the only reason you need a>floppy drive in your PC. But for it you dont.>>Hopefully your drivers are SATA drives and they are the same>size preferably same manufacturer (Don't know if that is>important or not)>>BTW..for Vista you don't need that f6 intruupt to load the>RAID driver from a Floppy drive. Vista comes with the RAID>driver. I never understood why Winxp doesn't come with a patch>for that.>>Since you are reinstalling from scratch.. don't worry. If>anything goes wrong.. just redo it. Last month I must have>installed the Win XP and Vista like 15 times each and learnt a>lot. :(>>Manny>>>>>I agree Manny. Win-2000 and XP had to use a floppy, you would think they would allow you to point to the files location be it floppy or CD-Rom.I installed 2X Raptor 74 GB 10,000 RPM drives and configured them RAID-0. Had a choice to use NVidia or Promise, used Promise. That was right after FS9 first came out. Used a 150GB ATA-133 just before switching to the Raptors. Never had to reinstall the OS or anything else since. Totally reliable!I noticed a much faster load times for everything I did. I set the block size to 256Kb, I think it works better for MSFS. 64 or 128 is better for a server doing transactional type computing. I think 256Kb is important, less seek time, less churning.

Does anybody have any experience with the performance penalties if RAID 1?I just build a brand new system and was getting ready to back up files from my old system when the drive died on me. I lost over 3 months of pictures which is what I really wanted to back up (lost my Oblivion saves too... I'll have to start that over).I would really like to use RAID 1 if the write penalty is not too severe.New System:Intel 6700Intel DG965WH2GB ram150 Gb Raptor8800 GTS

When I purchased my new MOBO my concern was with protection of valuable data. So, I installed two SATA drives (250Gb) in a RAID 1 configuration. On my system you don't notice any delay in the system when writes are made - at least not consciously. I'm not sure but I don't think operational software performance is affected unless disk writes take place. Note: It is critical that both drives be exactly the same even from the same manufacturer - at least this is Intel's recommendation.This configuration provides the peace of mind I wanted since if one drive fails, you just install a new one and you're on your way - FM man! :-)fb

>When I purchased my new MOBO my concern was with protection>of valuable data. So, I installed two SATA drives (250Gb) in>a RAID 1 configuration. On my system you don't notice any>delay in the system when writes are made - at least not>consciously. I'm not sure but I don't think operational>software performance is affected unless disk writes take>place. Note: It is critical that both drives be exactly the>same even from the same manufacturer - at least this is>Intel's recommendation.>>This configuration provides the peace of mind I wanted since>if one drive fails, you just install a new one and you're on>your way - FM man! :-)>>fb>>It's been a few years. I do tho recall with my Promise controller there was a way to prioretise the read function of the RAID setup.Do that if possible and set the block size to 256k and you should see some real fast reads. I noticed Windows booted faster and HD response was much faster.After a few years without ANY issues, I remain.