Hello all, I'm a bit new to the RAID thing, and just bought an EPoX 8k9A motherboard. I connected 2 HDs, each to a different RAID IDE connector, and set up a RAID-0 configuration over the two 60GB disks. I then tried to do some installs. Windows 98 (games, honestly, just games!:) fdisk only recognizes it as an 51 GB setup (haven't gone beyond that), and although SuSE 8.1 recognizes the raid configuration correctly (121 GB), it fails when trying to create and setup the partitions. When not in RAID configuration (desperate attempt last night) both disks can be fdisked and formatted without any trouble, but as RAID they are not very cooperative. Does anyone have any idea what might be the problem? Any information I need to add to make an answer possible? Regards, Pieter Hulshoff
I then tried to do some installs. Windows 98 (games, honestly, just games!:) fdisk only recognizes it as an 51 GB setup (haven't gone beyond that), and although SuSE 8.1 recognizes the raid configuration correctly (121 GB), it fails when trying to create and setup the partitions.
When not in RAID configuration (desperate attempt last night) both disks can be fdisked and formatted without any trouble, but as RAID they are not very cooperative.
Slight update on this matter: Windows '98 problems seem to be related to the fdisk. It appears this fdisk only allows disks upto 68 GB. I tried a new version, which seems to work upto 110 GB. Perhaps there's one that _will_ work. Under Linux I cannot partition the drives, not even when I don't set up a RAID configuration. Apparently this only works under Windows fdisk. I wonder if Linux just does not detect the RAID controller, and in stead tries to access the disks through the normal IDE controller. I noticed that the disknames when not being used as RAID are /dev/hda and /dev/hdc... Any thoughts? Regards, Pieter Hulshoff
* Pieter Hulshoff (phulshof@xs4all.nl) [030118 11:53]: ::> I then tried to do some installs. Windows 98 (games, honestly, just ::> games!:) fdisk only recognizes it as an 51 GB setup (haven't gone beyond ::> that), and although SuSE 8.1 recognizes the raid configuration correctly ::> (121 GB), it fails when trying to create and setup the partitions. ::> ::> When not in RAID configuration (desperate attempt last night) both disks ::> can be fdisked and formatted without any trouble, but as RAID they are not ::> very cooperative. :: ::Slight update on this matter: :: ::Windows '98 problems seem to be related to the fdisk. It appears this fdisk ::only allows disks upto 68 GB. I tried a new version, which seems to work upto ::110 GB. Perhaps there's one that _will_ work. :: ::Under Linux I cannot partition the drives, not even when I don't set up a RAID ::configuration. Apparently this only works under Windows fdisk. I wonder if ::Linux just does not detect the RAID controller, and in stead tries to access ::the disks through the normal IDE controller. I noticed that the disknames ::when not being used as RAID are /dev/hda and /dev/hdc... Not sure if this will work, but you could try putting both hd's on the same controller and moving your CDROM to master on the secondary controller. Give it a try...nothing to lose. :) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I'll tell you what you should see.
Not sure if this will work, but you could try putting both hd's on the same controller and moving your CDROM to master on the secondary controller. Give it a try...nothing to lose. :)
Actually, my DVD and CD burner are on 1 cable on the 1st IDE connector (I was running out of cables:). The 2nd IDE connector isn't used. The 2 HDs are connected to the two RAID connectors. I also have 2 serial ATA connectors on my motherboard which are not used, and disabled in the BIOS. If I'm connecting both disks to the same RAID connector, doesn't that negate the speed increase of using RAID? Regards, Pieter
participants (2)
-
Ben Rosenberg -
Pieter Hulshoff