I am using four Seagate 250G drives in a RAID 5 array configured with software (nForce, abit Fatal1ty N32 board) since October. I always thought the load times for FSX were long, but figured this was the norm with all add-ons (FS Genesis, FEX, GEX, etc.) Performance was stable but loading was slow, but acceptable. 4GB of matched CORSAIR memory installed.While attempting to implement the /3GB mod to avoid OOM issues with the PMDG FSX version, I placed the page file on a separate drive, made the mod to FSX with the 4GB patch tool, modded the boot.ini. I have defragged both the RAID 5 "C" drive and the drive the page file resides on. Now, while FSX loads, it is extremely slow (multiple tens of minutes!) At this point I have replaced the modded FSX.exe with the original version (my understanding is that both FSX.exe and the boot.ini need to be modified to get any better VM recognition)So aside from reversing my mods to the boot.ini file and reversing the location of my page file on a separate drive, can I ask for any ideas on how to speed up a RAID 5 array or should I just take a disk image and go to a new configuration? Thanks in advance for any ideas.

You should not run any game, especially FS, on a Raid 5. Performance is horrible. Raid-0, or get a fast 10Krpm single drive for gaming. Then use one of those 250GB for backups and images of the box.

When you enable the /3Gb option on a 32 bit O/S, some hardware drivers accustomed to have free reign on the 2gb kernel memory space are not expecting this at all. True, RAID5 is slow, but something else must be going on here.The first thing I'd do is check for a driver update for your motherboard chipset, then for your hard disk controller chipset. Also, there may be a BIOS or firmware update that may address this.Note that the problem may be caused by another driver component in the system. I tried the /3gb switch on XP, and my system took three times longer to boot and often blue screened after about 30 minutes or so, I called it quits and moved to 64 bit O/S.Since you have 4gb of physical memory, have you considered simply switching to the 64 bit version of the O/S? I'm running Vista 64 here with the PMDG on FSX SP2 and it is an amazing experience.Cheers,Etienne

Thanks Jordanal - I'll consider those options. I restore to the original boot.ini and I am back to my prior acceptable, yet slow, performance.

Etienne - I never would have considered WIN XP PRO 64 unless you had mentioned it! Thanks. I checked it out and it seems like the way to go. The software is about $140 on Newegg and I can see setting up a dual boot for this so that I don't have to dismantle what I have already. In the meantime I know the BIOS needs an update and I'll check on the other chipsets.I wanted to ask what sacrifices or non-compatibilities have you found with FSX add-on software or hardware? My understanding is that most 32-bit s/w should work, but not all.

I have no issues whatsoever with either FS9 or FSX in Vista 64. There are a few things to note however:1) Vista 64 is big on security. You should run FSX as an administrator to avoid problems with some programs.2) Some add-ons written for FS9 with the FS9 SDK and made compatible with FSX are not compatible after FSX SP2 (or Acceleration). This is causing a bit of grief with some add-on devs who have products that used to work in FSX prior to SP2 but do not anymore. All the sdd-ons I have that were written for FSX have no issues (eg, LevelD, PMDG, RealAir, Wilco Citation). Some of my "FSX compatible add-ons", read, FS9 products that magically work in FSX all have texture or transparency issues.3) The DX10 preview has issues with light effects (strobes/beacons/position lights). Don't know if this is a video driver issue or not - there are many odd problems with video in DX10 mode.Hope this helps,Etienne

Not a problem with SP2 for FSX - I plan to stay with SP1 and continue flying carryover FS9 aircraft. I guess I misunderstood your first post - you are running Vista 64 Pro, not XP Pro 64?

Yes, running Vista 64, and XP 64 will be similar in terms of memory allocation and solving problems. On my little benchmark, SP2 on Vista 64 is MUCH faster than XP 64 in DirectX 10 mode, especially at busy airports, noting that I'm comparing apples to oranges as DX10 is not supported under XP 64, so I'm really comparing DX9 performance under XP vs DX10 performance under Vista.You should be just fine with XP 64 although I still think that if you purchase Vista 64, you get a free "downgrade" to Windows XP 64 from Microsoft? I'd probably recommend Vista over XP if you have a decent video card, although Vista effects can be turned off and made to look very much like XP. Ideally, if you can get both this way, and 2 choices seem better than one :)Etienne

RAID 5 requires extremely intensive XOR calculations for the CRC error correction codes and they will slow your CPU to a crawl if they are perfromed in software (i.e. on CPU hardware).You should only use RAID 5 if your mobo southbridge chip supports RAID 5 via hardware (e.g. Intel ICH9 or a separate RAID 5 chip e.g. Promise Technologies).Alternatively, you may purchase a PCI Express RAID 5 card and you will have blazing throughput! (But no advantages at all in latencies)Mind, to avoid the stutters in FSX you don

No doubt RAID 5 without a dedicated controller is resource hungry - and may explain in part my OOM with the PMDG 747X. I imaged my disk with Acronis and then rebuilt as a RAID 0. While the loading is faster (although still above 90 seconds), the performance once in flight is definitely improved. Also have been able to fly the PMDG for much longer flights, however, I haven't put it to the test with a apron to apron long haul yet.Thanks for all the suggestions here. Learned alot and appreciate the input from the pros.