Now THERE's the spirit. Go ahead and DO the world that little favor. I'm
sure you won't mind those of us who pull up a chair to enjoy the event.
As for the issue at hand, of which you seem to have so little grasp, I am
apparently at LEAST as fucking clever as Chaintech support, because four
days of fruitless troubleshooting ended with me resolving the problem and
walking THEM through the solution. (I realize "Ron" may be step or two
ahead, but I'm afraid he smacks of the adolescent girlfriend who is wealthy,
adorable, and willing to put out, yet no one has ever met her because she
"attends a different school" or is perpetually "on vacation with her
family".) Neither Intel nor Maxtor could offer any insight either.
Unlike you, and Ron for that matter, I will gladly share the solution for
those who may have come across a similar problem or are considering a RAID
configuration in the future.
So, Ginchy, before you shuffle off to the big adios, pay attention. ($5
says that the solution will be magicaly identical to Ron's). The great
thing about not being a wanker is actually being able to show your cards
FIRST!.
Drive Letter Assignment
The drive letter assignment resulted from the fact that the XP does NOT
include drivers for the ICH5R and must fetch them during setup via F6.
F6 does not offer a positive acknowledgement of any drivers it adds except
to scroll through the name as it does all the other devices it loads. If it
cannot read from the floppy for ANY reason, be it a bad sector, disk not
inserted, or any other anomaly, it proceeds on its merry way and is easy to
miss during an unattended installation. It also offers no NEGATIVE feedback
if it cannot load a driver.
If, after loading all stock drivers, it still cannot detect a mass storage
device, it will attempt to reread from the floppy and will load the device
driver, but by this point it has already inventoried and assigned volume
letters to all existing storage devices, and the hard drives on the RAID
controller end up at the end of the device list.
EITHER scenario will activate the RAID controller and drives, and the ONLY
acknowledgement it offers is the presence of the drives themselves. When XP
can detect the driver, it will default to the RAID volumes.
Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the USER to ensure that the F6 method
works as intended. There are many factors to consider. First, ensure (to
the best possible means) that there are no defects on the floppy disk
containing device drivers). Second, ensure that if you use a USB keyboard,
the BIOS reflects that to ensure that it can dectect F6. Otherwise, it will
load as the drivers load, there will be no F6, but the driver will load
after all the others (again, with no warning that it as done so). Third, if
you have a newer keyboard with a "F Lock" key, ensure that it is active so
F6 transmits as F6.
RAID 1 Support
Yes, the ICH5R does support RAID 1, but only if the BIOS does. Chaintech
stated that at time of press, they did not have the development overhead to
implement RAID 1. Instead of stating it as a "future enhancement" or
"BIOS-specific" feature, their documentation omits the option of RAID 1
altogether. Intel's Application Accelerator for RAID 3.5 is the current
version and WILL work for RAID 1, but Chaintech support had not encountered
any RAID 1 users, nor had they configured it internally. The Intel
Application is necessary for creating, modifying, and deleting RAID volumes
on the fly. Chaintech support could not verify this, but I have through my
own installation and configuration that it works and I have tested all
configuration and drive management features to ensure they work as intended.
They do. (For the record, their stance on RAID 1 was "Oh, no... ALWAYS
choose RAID 0". NOT the answer to give for those who prefer fault
tolerance.
Long BIOS Access Time When Intel RAID BIOS is Active*
Chaintech has NO solution except to send the board for service. No
configuration changes made a difference (besides either disabling RAID or
disconnecting the drives entirely) nor did using paired WD or Seagate SATA
drives instead of Maxtor.
* I'ld love to hear what ol' "Ron" has to say about this, although it still
is HIS alleged knowledge, not yours.
So, I hope this information proves useful to anyone considering the upgrade
or confronting similar symptoms. In lieu of sharing "Ron's" alleged insight
(which would require that he both exists and has some), and considering your
offer to croak yourself, I look forward to the absence of your future
responses. (Unless you choose NOT to off yourself, and demonstrate a lack
of character to go with the general lack of substance you already seem to
have). It's a WIN/WIN for us ALL!
Sweet dreams.
P.S. Don't forget to leave a note for the authorities and close the windows
to contain the stench.
"Ginchy" <whoknows.RemoveThis@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:breujg$81l$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> I am sorry for the affliction I have bestowed upon you. Due to my haste in
> reading your post I have left you with the disease of conceit and it seems
> chronic.
>
> I really do apologise.
>
> The only solace I can offer you is that I will in fact kill myself. I have
a
> bottle of whisky and 50 diazepam so that should do the trick.
>
> If you are so fucking clever why didn't you think to ask chaintech techies
> about your problem?
>
> Best thing is......you`re going to feel a right idiot when you discover
what
> you have done wrong because my mate Ron just explained it to me!
>
> Carry on wallowing in your grandeur!
>
>
> "Chaintechee" <chaintechuser.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:TemCb.96$ev2.18@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > Well, at least you're owning up to having been such a horse's ass. I
> > suppose I've done my good deed for the day.
> >
> > As for trying to help, what help did you try to give? I must have
missed
> it
> > in your response. I mean, you didn't read what I wrote, or at least
> didn't
> > take the time to process it beyond being a smart ass. If you happened
to
> > share some wisdom regarding the long BIOS access times, drive letter
> > assignments, or the apparent inconsistency with the Intel Application
> > Accelerator, I missed it. Could you point it out in your original
> response?
> > No? I thought not.
> >
> > As for shooting you or feeding you to the crocs, there's really no need.
> > First, you committed no transgression that is so grave it would warrant
> such
> > effort on anyone's part. Second, such empty self-importance usually
ends
> up
> > with someone either shooting or jumping into the Everglades him/herself.
> > Happy Swimming!
> >
> >
> > "Ginchy" <whoknows.RemoveThis@whocares.com> wrote in message
> > news:brcpft$f2f$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > I`m awfully sorry that I tried to help.....really truly......I`m
> breaking
> > my
> > > heart here that I upset you........maybe you could just shoot me or
feed
> > me
> > > to the crocs?
> > >
> > > Sell your board on e bay, you`re right, its a piece of shit
> > >
> > > Its worth more if you havent opened the thermal paste.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chaintechee" <chaintechuser.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:qZiCb.395$5K3.365@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> > > > No. I am at version 3.5 of the RAID BIOS, and am referring to the
> text
> > in
> > > > the user manual, which states the limitation as a specific, not
within
> > the
> > > > context of a rev-level iteration. I even stated the presence of an
> > > apparent
> > > > RAID 1 BIOS configuration option in my original post.
> > > >
> > > > Have no insight or anything constructive to offer?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we shouldn't respond until we do, shouldn't we?
> > > >
> > > > "Ginchy" <whoknows.RemoveThis@whocares.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:brcaq8$jvt$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > > > This seems to be a board that is
> > > > > extremely feature-rich, but full of half-assed implemented
features.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe you should have checked for bios updates before saying that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Version 3.0 in particular!
> > > > >
> > > > > Still at version 1 are we?
> > > > >
> > > > > ;o)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chaintechee" <chaintechuser.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:UdgCb.210$891.72@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > > > > > Can anyone offer some RAID configuration insight for the 9CJS?
I
> > have
> > > > > > several issues I'm trying to overcome with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, does it support RAID 1? All specs say yes, until you
open
> > the
> > > > > > manual; it says no. However, there is an option in the RAID
Bios
> > for
> > > > Raid
> > > > > > 1, but the supported version of the Intel Application
Accelerator
> > says
> > > > it
> > > > > > does not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Second, after configuring a pair of Maxtor 120GB SATA drives as
a
> > RAID
> > > 0
> > > > > > volume (which does benchmark phenomenally), I install XP which
> > assigns
> > > > it
> > > > > > drive letter I, behind all the CBox Storage devices and
CD-ROM's.
> I
> > > can
> > > > > > (but shouldn't have to) disable the USB until after XP installs,
> but
> > > > what
> > > > > > about my CD/DVD, which I need to install the O/S?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, does anyone else have to wait a LONG time to enter the
> Setup,
> > > > until
> > > > > > the RAID BIOS finishes whatever it does? This seems to be a
board
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > extremely feature-rich, but full of half-assed implemented
> features.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: 9CJS Raid Problems 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
