Software Raid - HardWare Raid

We finnaly got our Novell Server Setup and configured. and we just noticed
in the bios that The hardware raid was disabled. and that we have been
useing software raid. Is there anyway to enable the hardware raid and do a
back up of our system or do we have to start all over. -=\
Erik

Erik, I suspect you will have to do this one from scratch.
What sort of RAID controller?
Barry Schnur
Novell Support Connection Volunteer Sysop

Similar Messages

HT204053 hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

Some configurations such as a software or hardware RAID do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with Find My Mac.

I'm getting the following error message when attempting to invoke "Find My Mac"
Some configurations such as a software or hardware RAID do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with Find My Mac.

You have no recovery partition. This is a normal condition if your boot volume is a software RAID, or if you modified the partition table after running Boot Camp Assistant to create a Windows partition. Otherwise, you need to reinstall OS X in order to add a recovery partition.
If you don't have a current backup, you need to back up before you do anything else.
You have several options for reinstalling.
1. If you have access to a local, unencrypted Time Machine backup volume, and if that volume has a backup of a Mac (not necessarily this one) that was running the same major version of OS X and did have a Recovery partition, then you can boot from the Time Machine volume into Recovery by holding down the option key at the startup chime. Encrypted Time Machine volumes are not bootable, nor are network backups.
2. If your Mac shipped with OS X 10.7 or later preinstalled, or if it's one of the computers that can be upgraded to use OS X Internet Recovery, you may be able to netboot from an Apple server by holding down the key combination option-R at the startup chime. Release the keys when you see a spinning globe.
Note: You need an always-on Ethernet or Wi-Fi connection to the Internet to use Recovery. It won’t work with USB or PPPoE modems, or with proxy servers, or with networks that require a certificate for authentication.
3. Use Recovery Disk Assistant (RDA) on another Mac running the same major version of OS X as yours to create a bootable USB device. Boot your Mac from the device by holding down the option key at startup.Warning: All existing data on the USB device will be erased when you use RDA.
Once you've booted into Recovery, the OS X Utilities screen will appear. Follow the prompts to reinstall OS X. You don't need to erase the boot volume, and you won't need your backup unless something goes wrong. If your Mac was upgraded from an older version of OS X, you’ll need the Apple ID and password you used to upgrade, so make a note of those before you begin.
If none of the above choices is open to you, then you'll have to start over from an OS X 10.6.8 installation. There's no need to overwrite your existing boot volume; you can use an external drive. Install 10.6 from the DVD you originally used to upgrade, or that came with the machine. Run Software Update and install all available updates. Log into the App Store with the Apple ID you used to buy 10.7 or later, and download the installer. When you run it, be sure to choose the right drive to install on.

Software or Hardware RAID for LVM

Well, I've been looking into setting up a RAID for my home server. I've been trying to decide between a software raid or buying a relatively cheap SATA controller and using it for a hardware RAID. I'm trying to figure out the pros and cons of buying a cheap hardware card for use rather than simply using a software solution.
Are there any negatives to using LVM with either setup versus the other? Have software solutions become decent enough to be relied on?
If you recommend a hardware solution, a card suggestion would be appreciated. Preferably something under $50.. if that's even possible for a semi reliable card.
I'm also curious as to whether there would be an issue with software raid if it is run across multiple SATA controllers. Can you even run a single hardware RAID using 2 separate controllers?
Appreciate any advice!
EDIT: I'd also appreciate any information on the processor overhead of running a software RAID 5 with 5-6 disks. The home server is just an old Core2 and doesn't have all that much power to it.
Last edited by nedlinin (2012-01-05 00:35:03)

Anntoin wrote:
Stick with the software RAID, more flexible and probably more reliable. Hardware RAID only - arguably - becomes worth it if you have fancy stuff like a battery backed write cache, etc...
I'd avoid using RAID 5 and go for something like RAID 1+0, look up 'RAID 5 write hole'.
The processor overhead should be quite low even on a Core2.
The wiki has a bunch on info on RAID and LVM:
e.g. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/So … ID_and_LVM
Appreciate the info. I've actually been reading over the RAID/LVM wiki over the past couple days making sure I get myself aligned to what needs to be done.
As far as avoiding RAID 5, I was specifically choosing it as it allows for some form of backup while giving me a large amount of hard drive space. I will be using 6x2TB drives in the array and using a RAID1 would end up giving me half of it usable, RAID5 giving me 10TB usable. Right now each of the drives are on their own so even with the write hole issues I'd assume I'd be better off with the RAID 5 then simply having the drives separate no?
I don't simply want to put all 6 drives into a LV as I'd be worried about one failing and losing more data than each drive on their own.

Software vs Hardware RAID question

I want to mirror my data files (mainly music)to an external RAID 1 array. I already use Time Machine for my system disk and will probably keep it running off of an old Firewire 400 enclosure. I have seen many dual drive enclosures for Firewire 800 in 2 basic price ranges. For about $100 there are some nice aluminum ones with only RAID 0 and independent channels. For about $150 NewerTech makes a nice one with RAID 1 capability. Is the Hardware-based RAID in the enclosure a significant improvement over Tiger's software version? I've never used a software based RAID and don't know it's limitations. The NewerTech Guardian Maximus from OWC does have a feature to rebuild the bad drive, although it doesn't specify "hot-swapable". As an aside, if a multiformat enclosure includes a SATA port, is that port usable to get a SATA peripheral into my iMac (at reduced throughput) or is it for connecting the enclosure to your computer only. Thanks for any thoughts.

Where is your music stored now and why do you want to store it on a mirror raid setup?
The NewerTech Guardian Maximus from OWC does have a feature to rebuild the bad
drive, although it doesn't specify "hot-swapable".
They are not hot swappable because you have to take the case apart to change out the drive. RAID1 is where 2 drives are formatted to look like a single drive and the second drive mirrors the first drive duplicating the stored data. If one drive should fail then you can replace the bad drive and the RAID will "rebuild" just by mirroring the data from the other drive. This kind of RAID is good for redundancy but not any better for performance(often less). You also loose half of your total disk space of the 2 drives. For example 2 500GB drives in RAID 1 will look like a single 500GB drive which will have ~465GB usable storage space.
As an aside, if a multiformat enclosure includes a SATA port, is that port
usable to get a SATA peripheral into my iMac (at reduced throughput) or is it
for connecting the enclosure to your computer only. Thanks for any thoughts.
An eSata port is slightly different shape than internal SATA but they are exactly the same interface. The iMacs do not have any eSata ports on the back so there would be no way for you to connect the external via eSata. If you got a quad interface external case then you would just use the fastest interface you have being the FW800.
George

OS/Software RAID vs Hardware RAID

Good day IT folks,
I'm a total noob on RAID techology. But I'm quite familiar on different RAID type. I would like to ask what's the pro's and con's of OS RAID vs Hardware RAID (OS RAID will be setup on Disk Management).
As we all know, OS RAID is the easiest way to setup a RAID. But what are the possible drawback if implemented on an environment having less than 200 users.
Thanks.
akosijesyang - the conqueror

This one may help.
http://www.adaptec.com/NR/rdonlyres/14B2FD84-F7A0-4AC5-A07A-214123EA3DD6/0/4423_SW_HWRAID_10.pdf
Regards, Dave Patrick ....
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties or guarantees , and confers no rights.

Using a Mac Pro w / Apple Internal Hardware RAID Card?

Anyone using a Mac Pro with a Apple Hardware RAID Card 2010?
( I have a 12 Core )
Is it worth the $600-700 ?
How much faster than the software RAID 0?
I see Hamm's RAID tips chart .. but it doesn't include such options .. plus it is based on a PC system.
Any tips would be great ..
I find many areas where the application is slow / unresponsive .. and I'm not sure where the bottleneck is ... Maybe the hardware RAID will solve it?
I'm really am impressed with CS5 .. it would be even better with some adjustments .. but I am absolutely disappointed with sluggish performance on my top-of-the-line Mac Pro 12 Core.
This is not what I expected for a $8,000 machine.
Some users says that the port of CS5 for the Mac has taken a back seat to the Windows version at Adobe.
I can't imagine that Adobe would not put 100% effort into Mac products.
Go Team!!!

I have a 2009 Mac Pro 3.33GHz Quad core w/ Apple RAID card, 16GB RAM from OWC, and Apple's Radeon HD 5870 GPU.
I have RAID 0 set across 3x1TB drives internally, and the standard 640GB drive for OSX and all program files. I set all video assets, renders, previews and such on the 3TB RAID.
This seems to work wonderfully. I built this system specifically to edit a feature film shot on P2 DVCProHD, and I've been impressed with how it handles it. This was all built prior to CS5, which took me by surprise. Had I known nVidia would become such a problem for Apple, I would have built a PC, but that's another story.
I just started a new project in CS5 on the same system, this time using H.264 video from my Nikon D7000, and so far, it seems to play just as nicely, despite not having hardware acceleration via CUDA technology. Yellow bars on top, even. I haven't had any problems with clips taking a long time to populate on the timeline or any of that, so perhaps the RAID card helps there.
All this aside, I've already decided to upgrade my RAID for another reason. Right now, my backup is performed via an eSATA-connected external drive through a PCI eSATA card. After every edit session, I dump everything on the RAID onto the external drive, and it goes much faster than the old FW800 transfer used to. I'm about to replace my Apple RAID card with an Areca card and set up a 4-bay RAID 3 via an SAS connection. This will allow for excellent data throughput while offering more security than my current RAID 0 / manual backup system, and free up the internal drives for backups, exports and render files.
I believe in hardware RAID, but I'm not as knowledgeable as Harm and others are about it. I had my Mac built to order with the Apple RAID card, so I have no experience using Premiere with a software RAID. Due to my smooth experience using it, I think it was worth it, but plenty of people say the Apple RAID card is rubbish, and to go with Areca or Atto cards. I didn't know about them until after I built my system, and even though it will cost a couple thousand to upgrade my RAID from this point, I expect to have an even better system than I already have.
I hope this helps, and feel free to ask any questions I didn't address.

My hardware RAID 1 only showing up in disk utility and not finder.

Last week I finally was able to take my early 2011 iMac in to have my Seagate 1TB hard drive replaced for the recall.
Late 2010 model iMac
OS X 10.6.8
OWC Mercury Elite Pro 4TB x 4TB Hardware RAID
When I took it in the RAID 1 was working just fine. When I finally got the iMac back and booted everything up the RAID 1 was getting the dialog box that read "The disk you inserted was not readable by this computer."
I have tried going into disk utility to see if I can verify the disk and then saw it is coming up as two different volumes... Along with those two different volumes, I can not go to click verify as it is greyed out.
I contacted OWC and they said they have never heard of this and had two solutions, to try a software like diskwarrior, or if that didnt work I can take the drives out and try another external dock to see if it is the RAID hardware.
If anyone has any ideas as to what could help with this situation that would be great as I was under the impression (and told by a number of other people) that having a RAID 1 as my backup was good and should not need anything else. I just want to be able to get all the data off then I will rebuild it or send it into OWC.
Thanks!!!!

So a fault in the Hardware Raid controller could make it not read properly? I am planning on having a good backup set up after this!
As for the screenshot, the original was not set up with the SoftRaid. When I got the computer back I installed that to see if that may pick it up and make it at least readable to save the data on it. The two in question are the highlighted 4TB drives, which befor also read as one drive as it was set up in the OWC enclosure as a hardware raid.

Solaris 10 X86 - Hardware RAID - SMC/SVM question...

I have gotten back into Sun Solaris System Administration after a five year hiatus... My skills are a little rusty and some of the tools have changed, so here is are my questions...
I have installed Solaris 10 release 1/06 on a Dell 1850 with an attached PowrVault 220v connected to a Perc 4 Di controller. The RAID is configured via BIOS interface to my liking, Solaris is installed and see's all my partitions which I created during install.
For testing purposes, the servers internal disk is used for the OS, the PowerVault is split into 2 RAID's - one is a mirror, one is a stripe...
The question is; do I manage the RAID using Sun Management Console and the tools OR do I use SMC?
When I launch SMC and go into Enhanced Storage... I do not see any RAID's... If I select "Disks" I do see them, but when I select them, it wants to run "FDISK" on them... now this is OK since they are blank but I want to ensure I am not doing sometinhg I should not be concerned with...
If the PERC controller is controlling the RAID, what do I need SMC for?

You can use SMC for other purposes but it won't help your with RAID.
Sol 10 1/06 has raidctl which handles LSI1030 and LSI1064 RAID�enabled controllers (from raidctl(1M)).
Some of the PERCs (most?) are LSI but I don't know if they are chipsets used by your PoweEdge (I doubt it).
Generally you can break it down like this for x86:
If you are using hardware RAID with Solaris 10 x86 you have to use pre-Solaris (i.e. on the RAID controller) managment or hope that the manufacturer of the device has a Solaris managment agent/interface (good luck).
The only exception to this that I know of is the RAID that comes with V20z, V40z, X4100, X4200.
Otherwise you will want to go with SVM or VxVM and manage RAID within Solaris (software RAID).
SMC etc are only going to show you stuff if SVM is involved and VxVM has its own interface, otherwise the disks are controlled by PERC and just hanging out as far as Solaris is concerned.
Hope this helps.

Systemd-fsck complains that my hardware raid is in use and fail init

Hi all,
I have a hardware raid of two sdd drives. It seems to be properly recongnized everywhere and I can mount it manually and use it without any problem. The issue is that when I add it to the /etc/fstab My system do not start anymore cleanly.
I get the following error( part of the journalctl messages) :
Jan 12 17:16:21 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd[1]: Found device /dev/md126p1.
Jan 12 17:16:21 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd[1]: Starting File System Check on /dev/md126p1...
Jan 12 17:16:21 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd-fsck[523]: /dev/md126p1 is in use. <--------------------- THIS ERROR
Jan 12 17:16:21 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd-fsck[523]: e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting.<----------- THIS ERROR
Jan 12 17:16:21 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd-fsck[523]: fsck failed with error code 8.
Jan 12 17:16:21 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd-fsck[523]: Ignoring error.
Jan 12 17:16:22 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd[1]: Started File System Check on /dev/md126p1.
Jan 12 17:16:22 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd[1]: Mounting /home1...
Jan 12 17:16:22 biophys02.phys.tut.fi mount[530]: mount: /dev/md126p1 is already mounted or /home1 busy
Jan 12 17:16:22 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd[1]: home1.mount mount process exited, code=exited status=32
Jan 12 17:16:22 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd[1]: Failed to mount /home1.
Jan 12 17:16:22 biophys02.phys.tut.fi systemd[1]: Dependency failed for Local File Systems.
Does anybody undersand what is going on. Who is mounting the /dev/md126p1 previous the systemd-fsck. This is my /etc/fstab:
# /etc/fstab: static file system information
# <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>
# /dev/sda1
UUID=4d9f4374-fe4e-4606-8ee9-53bc410b74b9 / ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 1
#home raid 0
/dev/md126p1 /home1 ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 1
The issue is that after the error I'm droped to the emergency mode console and just pressing cantrol+D to continues boots the system and the mount point seems okay. This is the output of 'system show home1.mount':
Id=home1.mount
Names=home1.mount
Requires=systemd-journald.socket [email protected] -.mount
Wants=local-fs-pre.target
BindsTo=dev-md126p1.device
RequiredBy=local-fs.target
WantedBy=dev-md126p1.device
Conflicts=umount.target
Before=umount.target local-fs.target
After=local-fs-pre.target systemd-journald.socket dev-md126p1.device [email protected] -.mount
Description=/home1
LoadState=loaded
ActiveState=active
SubState=mounted
FragmentPath=/run/systemd/generator/home1.mount
SourcePath=/etc/fstab
InactiveExitTimestamp=Sat, 2013-01-12 17:18:27 EET
InactiveExitTimestampMonotonic=130570087
ActiveEnterTimestamp=Sat, 2013-01-12 17:18:27 EET
ActiveEnterTimestampMonotonic=130631572
ActiveExitTimestampMonotonic=0
InactiveEnterTimestamp=Sat, 2013-01-12 17:16:22 EET
InactiveEnterTimestampMonotonic=4976341
CanStart=yes
CanStop=yes
CanReload=yes
CanIsolate=no
StopWhenUnneeded=no
RefuseManualStart=no
RefuseManualStop=no
AllowIsolate=no
DefaultDependencies=no
OnFailureIsolate=no
IgnoreOnIsolate=yes
IgnoreOnSnapshot=no
DefaultControlGroup=name=systemd:/system/home1.mount
ControlGroup=cpu:/system/home1.mount name=systemd:/system/home1.mount
NeedDaemonReload=no
JobTimeoutUSec=0
ConditionTimestamp=Sat, 2013-01-12 17:18:27 EET
ConditionTimestampMonotonic=130543582
ConditionResult=yes
Where=/home1
What=/dev/md126p1
Options=rw,relatime,rw,stripe=64,data=ordered
Type=ext4
TimeoutUSec=1min 30s
ExecMount={ path=/bin/mount ; argv[]=/bin/mount /dev/md126p1 /home1 -t ext4 -o rw,relatime,data=ordered ; ignore_errors=no ; start_time=[Sat, 2013-01-12 17:18:27 EET] ; stop_time=[Sat, 2013-
ControlPID=0
DirectoryMode=0755
Result=success
UMask=0022
LimitCPU=18446744073709551615
LimitFSIZE=18446744073709551615
LimitDATA=18446744073709551615
LimitSTACK=18446744073709551615
LimitCORE=18446744073709551615
LimitRSS=18446744073709551615
LimitNOFILE=4096
LimitAS=18446744073709551615
LimitNPROC=1031306
LimitMEMLOCK=65536
LimitLOCKS=18446744073709551615
LimitSIGPENDING=1031306
LimitMSGQUEUE=819200
LimitNICE=0
LimitRTPRIO=0
LimitRTTIME=18446744073709551615
OOMScoreAdjust=0
Nice=0
IOScheduling=0
CPUSchedulingPolicy=0
CPUSchedulingPriority=0
TimerSlackNSec=50000
CPUSchedulingResetOnFork=no
NonBlocking=no
StandardInput=null
StandardOutput=journal
StandardError=inherit
TTYReset=no
TTYVHangup=no
TTYVTDisallocate=no
SyslogPriority=30
SyslogLevelPrefix=yes
SecureBits=0
CapabilityBoundingSet=18446744073709551615
MountFlags=0
PrivateTmp=no
PrivateNetwork=no
SameProcessGroup=yes
ControlGroupModify=no
ControlGroupPersistent=no
IgnoreSIGPIPE=yes
NoNewPrivileges=no
KillMode=control-group
KillSignal=15
SendSIGKILL=yes
Last edited by hseara (2013-01-13 19:31:00)

Hi Hatter, I'm a little confused about your statement not to use raid right now. I'm new to the Mac, awaiting the imminent delivery of my first Mac Pro Quad core with 1tb RAID10 setup. As far as I know, it's software raid, not the raid card (pricey!). My past understanding about raid10 on any system is that it offers you the best combination for speed and safety (backups) since the drives are a striped and mirrored, one drive dies, quick replacement and you're up and running a ton quicker than if you had gone RAID5 (20 mins writes per 5G data?)Or were you suggesting not to do raid with the raid card..?
I do plan to use an external drive for archival backups of settings, setups etc, because as we all know, if the best fool proof plans can be kicked in the knees by Murhpy.
My rig is destined to be my video editing machine so the combo of Quad core, 4G+ memory and Raid10 should make this quite the machine.. but I'm curious why you wouldn't suggest raid..
And if you could explain this one: I see in the forums a lot of people are running Bootcamp Parralels(sp) which I assume is what you use to run mulitple OS on your Mac systems so that you can run MacOS and Windblows on the same machine.. but why is everyone leaning towards Vista when thems of us on Windblows are trying to avoid it like the plague? I've already dumped Vista from two PCs and installed XP for a quicker less bloated PC. Is vista the only MSOS that will co-exist with Mac systems? Just curious..
Thanks in advance.. Good Holidays

Raid - Hardware or not ?

I am trying to configure a Mac Pro system, and I am wondering if the RAID hardware is worth the £500 ish cost (UK) - I have seen little in the way of comparisons between using the software RAID and the hardware approach.
I think what I want to do is to have a mirrored configuration, with striping over that, over a 4 disk system.
Can anyone point me in the direction of any benchmarking that would help me decide ?

Are you sure you didn't see any threads, links, or articles?
Did you look at Barefeats and AMUG yet?
How about within these:
http://discussions.apple.com/search.jspa?objID=c194&search=Go&q=hardware+RAID
You really can't do that with Apple software RAID. Easy to do with Apple RAID, or you could use RAID5.
http://www.apple.com/support/macpro/
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306231
http://www.barefeats.com/hard101.html
http://www.barefeats.com/harper13.html
Highpoint RocketRAID 3522:
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/highpoint/3522/
http://www.barefeats.com/hard93.html

Hardware Raid 1 with 890GXM-G54

I have just built a new system with Win 7 Pro and the 890GXM-G65. I have a SSD for the boot drive, I'm using ACHI for the SDD. Trying to get two identical HDDs setup in hardware RAID 1 for data storage. I have loaded the AMD RAID drivers from the MSI site. I setup the array from the BIOS by switching out the ACHI option to RAID. I switched back to ACHI so the system would boot off the SSD.
In Win7 Pro, I formatted the drives and indicated a mirror. Am I only getting a software non-bootable RAID solution? I would like to use a hardware RAID if at all possible.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
drob9876

Quote
I switched back to ACHI so the system would boot off the SSD.
When you switch back to AHCI, the controller is no longer in RAID Mode...
Quote
I would like to use a hardware RAID if at all possible.
Well, first of all, 99% of all chipset integrated RAID Suppport solution are soft-RAIDs and no true hardware RAID Solutions. In any case, your controller needs to remain in RAID mode to properly support the volume your created.

Solaris Volume Manager or Hardware RAID?

Hi - before I build some new Solaris servers I'd like thoughts on the following please. I've previously built our Sun servers using SVM to mirror disks and one of the reasons is when I O/S patch the server I always split the mirrors beforehand and in the event of a failure I can just boot from the untouched mirror - this method has saved my bacon on numerous occasions. However we have just got some T4-1 servers that have hardware RAID and although I like this as it moves away from SVM / software RAID and to hardware RAID I'm now thinking that I will no longer have this "backout plan" in the event of issues with the O/S updates or otherwise however unlikely.
Can anyone please tell me if I have any other options?
Thanks - Julian.

Thanks - just going through the 300 page ZFS admin guide now. I want to ditch SVM as it's clunky and not very friendly whenever we have a disk failure or need to O/S patch as mentioned. One thing I have just read from the ZFS admin guide is that:
"As described in “ZFS Pooled Storage” on page 51, ZFS eliminates the need for a separate volume
manager. ZFS operates on raw devices, so it is possible to create a storage pool comprised of
logical volumes, either software or hardware. This configuration is not recommended, as ZFS
works best when it uses raw physical devices. Using logical volumes might sacrifice
performance, reliability, or both, and should be avoided."
So looks like I need to destroy my hardware RAID as well and just let ZFS manage it all. I'll try that, amend my JET template and kick of an install and see what it looks like.
Thanks again - Julian.

Premiere Pro CS4 Unusable With Hardware RAID 0

Greetings, This is a mysterious problem I seem to be having, let me tell my tale...
I was using a software RAID0 while editing with Premiere. Even using HD clips, it was very fast! The RAID was only to serve up the footage. Scratch disk and OS disks are on separate drives.
We then upgraded to a Hardware RAID card (3ware) and migrated the data from the old to new drives, everything going fine. Finally get around to opening permiere and the project used to take 2 minutes or so to open, now takes an excruiciating 10-15 minutes! Plus the timeline that I was able to scrub through at a decent speed is basically unusable. I cannot play clips in the timeline either unless I render the preview, where on the software RAID I could play unrendered timelines with no stutters.
Went back to the software raid just to check, and it performed just as fast as before.
Of course I assumed it was a hardware issue. So I contacted 3Ware support and basically they were stumped. Then I moved onto running a whole slew of tests from HDtune on the RAID array. I was getting around 290MBps and very nice random I/O speeds, write speeds were great too. Weird. I could also open up any of my source clips in Quicktime and they would play perfect, and i could seek anywhere in the clip with no hesitation.
Still not satisified, I opened up about 250 clips in Avid MC5, (using AMA linking to make sure it's not some kind of codec thing) and made a lot of short cuts in the timeline. And lo and behold, it is playing like it is a rendered clip, and I can scrub through the timeline perfectly.
This weird HDD activity was then confirmed using a disk monitor. Take a look at the graph: http://www.bubble-engine.com/HDtune.jpg
The low evenly space out bars are activity from using Premiere Pro, when the timeline is unusable. The big solid areas are me using Avid. You can see for some mysterious reason that Premiere isn't accessing the drive properly. But again, on the software RAID Premiere behaves properly.....
Any Ideas?? This is one of the weirdest tech support things I've ever encountered...

when I click the record button, the screen goes to a blue screen with Playing on video hardware
This is normal for HDV.
How do I also get the Scene Detect to work?
With HDV?
Upgrade to CS5.

Can I make a hardware raid with the on board Marvell SE9128 chip on p67a-gd65?

Hi,
as you all know the RAID 0/1/10/5/JBOD with the p67 chipset are pure software raids or "fake" raids. I saw some sata-raid pcie 2.0 x1 cards on the sell which have the Marvell SE9128 chip. So my question is: Can I make a hardware raid with the onboard Marvell SE9128 chip on the p67a-gd65?
Thanks
--pepe

Quote from: Stu on 06-November-11, 02:31:26
Hardware RAID explained:
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/conf/ctrlHardware-c.html
What do you want to say with this? I know what's the difference between a software (fake) and hardware raid? Your post doesn't answer the question. The p67-chipset has integrated software raid. The marvell se9128 is also found on some hardware raid cards. That's why I'm still wondering if it is for a hardware raid on this board or not.

Software Raid - HardWare Raid

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for