Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
ZaPbUzZ

windows 98se on 2 disk hardware raid 0

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi.

About my old Abit VP6.

I am trying to set up a RAID 0 by motherboard bios to run windows 98se. (highpoint bios)

The motherboard has 2 ATA100 RAID ports and i have attached primary mode disks to each of them.

Motherboards RAID configuration in it bios does sets it up AS RAID 0 and marks one of the two disks with (boot) label.

Now, if i try to boot from cdrom connected to one of the  non RAID dual ide port into dos to fdisk, fdisk doesn't see the disks as over 32gb.

if i boot into windows millennium dos fdisk sees both disks as 1 single disk and partitions 82gb.

Note this is a verified raid 0 2 x 40gb disk set up. (identical disks)

After i let fdisk successfully format to 82gb i reboot and attempt to format it sees 32gb capacity (millennium dos)

what do i do to overcome this i need help with please.

Since its a dual ide port RAID that supports up to 4 disks should they be in primary and secondary on 1 cable for 2 disks?

even though I want raid 0 lol

or even let thie bios try boot HDD0 (RAID boot address) before it tries CDROM boot?

 

Edited by ZaPbUzZ
additional information spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

reconfigured drives to one ide port didn't fix problem. In that configuration the capacity was reported differently.

I even changed over the DVD drive with a cdrom drive that didn't do anything.

So, i went for all the High Point HTP370 IDE Controller drivers and i got nothing that worked under xp so i dunno how i'm gonna format this b***h from there but i'm gonna try windows 2000 now BOO HOO! I know this system is best for windows 2000 just i have an activated windows xp pro key! silly me I actually got windows 7 x86 too its retail this machine is so damn tricked in options lol.

there is some cheap boot enable-able UDMA ATA 133 Controller PCI addons on eBay but they're only 33mb/s burst rate faster and i need some slots for good stuff.. why fix it it ain't broken just i'm not good fixing RETARDED LOL oh please internet stop rewriting history!

And here i was gonna be mister smarty RAID Sstripe windows 98se.

I think i'll try format fat32 under windows 2000 if it will load the correct driver hmph

Least till my p4 is built up from its bones (soon i hope)

Anyhow I did learn all the High Point HTP370 IDE Controller drivers are the same borked batch all copied from each other so someone please upload its original CDROM to archive.org ok? plz? i'm practically groveling for an xp driver ty for reading.

Edited by ZaPbUzZ
grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under windows 2000 with working driver raid 0 is 2 disks joined together but not striped.

I mean, its just one disk equaling two disk capacity.

Weird I thought it'd be 1 disk capacity with 1 hidden for  striping.

It does however say in windows 2000 signature required but that means it won't stripe without windows 

software raid. That is just disappointing. I bet windows 98 wouldn't know what a signature software raid disk is about too.

Thus Also the requirement of a windows driver to turn on signature soft raid on its likely not going to want to install windows 2000 on RAID 0 however I may try to with driverpacks integrated windows 2000.

So at the end of all the discoveries  It would be best used in windows as a non booting large data file storage array.

Given that info I would most likely be happier with a SATA II controller and just 1 SATA II disk would both be faster than a RAID 0 ATA133 stripe and eliminate PATA cables I hate them especially those yellow cheap ones that break easily.

I never used RAID before so I am a novice but I am considering aquiring a pci UDMA ATA133 RAID card as they are reported to fully support dos and windows 9x booting.

I have a PCI SATA II controller but it doesn't have a bios menu so thats just good enough for non boot support of disks as well.

I could get a pci ATA133 Conroller so in near future the disks installed now will run at full speed ata133 instead of ata100

Does anyone know of SATA II PCI cards that can show a RAID stripe menu without windows on post boot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. :no:

It is pretty much binary.

Something is either RAID 0 or is it not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

1 hour ago, ZaPbUzZ said:

Under windows 2000 with working driver raid 0 is 2 disks joined together but not striped.

How (EXACTLY) do you know they are not striped?

1 hour ago, ZaPbUzZ said:

I mean, its just one disk equaling two disk capacity.

Sure, that is what a RAID 0 should appear to the user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_0

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/7/2020 at 11:13 PM, jaclaz said:

No. :no:

It is pretty much binary.

Something is either RAID 0 or is it not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

How (EXACTLY) do you know they are not striped?

Sure, that is what a RAID 0 should appear to the user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_0

jaclaz

 

i apologize that i said windows 2000 but i actually mean windows 98se. Under windows 2000 i got to the point of set raid 0, boot into 2000 install raid driver but didn't initialize the disk signature as i knew it wouldn't load a signature blah blah in 98se. I have 98se running now and in raid 0 its just the capacity of 2 disks joined into one. So Windows 9x cannot stripe and defaults to RAID 1 even set to RAID 0. What I am going to do is remove the disks from raid replace them with a couple of 16gb CF cards and just use that on the RAID adapter to to run the memory swapping in windows 2000, PCI SATA II card will give me the ability of hardware level massive capacity over ATA100 anyhow.  My SATA II card has windows 2000 support. Running windows 98se is cool with a single Pentium 3 it feels like a Pentium 4 probably that its got memory page tech in the VIA chipset and 2GB single chip side pc133 RAM runs beautifully thanks to the work of R. LOEW. I am preparing to benchmark this on a single cpu in windows 98se then I will do same with 2 cpu's with windows 2000. Windows 98se swap file I switch off since I have 2gb ram. Windows 2000 will have a 16gb max swapfile over a CF card RAID 0 for cosmetic appeal of flashing CF card to IDE adapter lights lol but maybe it'll use it.

 

 

Edited by ZaPbUzZ
grammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wow. My Gigacube Radeon 9200 Game Buster AGP card and my yamaha ymf724 pci audio hardware acceleration support is very limited.  I cannot get hardware drivers signed for any version of direct x under windows 9x. Thats sad because it means these vintage parts lasted because they relied on the pc cpu to accelerate with emulated support stressing the cpu than it should. I am going to try windows 98 first edition if its not gonna do magic there its windows 2000 or xp.

 

Edited by ZaPbUzZ
comments correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Unsigned drivers are not necessary. When you go to install the driver there should be an advanced option which will allow settings of warn about unsigned drivers and always allow unsigned drivers. This is the case with WinME.

In DirectX diagnostic tool do not have the 'Check for WHQL digital signatures' box ticked.

You need to restart with Fdisk after partitioning before formatting with Win9x. ( in-case you didn't ).

Edited by Goodmaneuver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/8/2020 at 8:37 PM, ZaPbUzZ said:

I have 98se running now and in raid 0 its just the capacity of 2 disks joined into one. So Windows 9x cannot stripe and defaults to RAID 1 even set to RAID 0. 

Again, NO. :no:

A RAID 1 is a "plain" mirroring, the two disks appear as a single disk, with the capacity of one of the two (the smallest one in case of different sized disk).

A RAID 0 is a (striped) set of two disks that appear to the user as a single disk double the size.

You have NOT checked in any sensible way whether the set is a striped set or a (hypothetical) concatenated one, but a RAID 0 will appear to the user EXACTLY as "just the capacity of two disks joined into one".

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Again, NO. :no:

A RAID 1 is a "plain" mirroring, the two disks appear as a single disk, with the capacity of one of the two (the smallest one in case of different sized disk).

A RAID 0 is a (striped) set of two disks that appear to the user as a single disk double the size.

You have NOT checked in any sensible way whether the set is a striped set or a (hypothetical) concatenated one, but a RAID 0 will appear to the user EXACTLY as "just the capacity of two disks joined into one".

jaclaz

oh thank you i am educated cheers mate! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

I did the benchmark in windows 98 I got 62mb/s I guess thats ok with ATA100 . (in windows)

Cluster size was set to 32kb in BIOS and used fdisk / format from the windows millennium setup disc than windows 98se disc as it reported bigger capacity so I went with that.

I have seen since there are further developed versions of those programs but hey this is a windows 2000 pc I'm running the R.A.I.D. from windows 2000 now.

Striped NTFS volume runs at 92mb/s set up within windows 2000 64kb clusters.

Be damned if I rely on R.A.I.D. now there is S.A.T.A. and that being said I am  packing my VP6 away carefully for my dual boot windows 98se / windows xp machine project starts today. 

I intend to do detailed written reviews of both machines but I do not see a place for that sort of thing on this forum or is there?

Thanks for reading :)

Edited by ZaPbUzZ
Punctuation & spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ZaPbUzZ said:

Cluster size was set to 32kb in BIOS and used fdisk / format from the windows millennium setup disc than windows 98se disc as it reported bigger capacity so I went with that.

And NO (again).

Cluster size is set nowhere "in BIOS", it is one of the parameters of the file system, cluster size is a documented parameter and MS has a KB on its defaults (that shouldn't be changed unless there is some reason) for NT based systems:

 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/140365/default-cluster-size-for-ntfs-fat-and-exfat

Win9x/Me format can and will use 32K sector clusters on "large" volumes (>32 GB), similar to NT 3.51 in the above.

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jaclaz said:

And NO (again).

Cluster size is set nowhere "in BIOS", it is one of the parameters of the file system, cluster size is a documented parameter and MS has a KB on its defaults (that shouldn't be changed unless there is some reason) for NT based systems:

 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/140365/default-cluster-size-for-ntfs-fat-and-exfat

Win9x/Me format can and will use 32K sector clusters on "large" volumes (>32 GB), similar to NT 3.51 in the above.

jaclaz

 

It was set in bios to be comparable with windows 98se

I did later delete that array for windows 2000 to set up within it its own array after I apologize for my apparent lack of information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, ZaPbUzZ said:

It was set in bios to be comparable with windows 98se

No, it wasn't, not Cluster Size, not in BIOS.

The above sentence (presumably aimed to explain what you meant) makes no sense whatsoever, and in the following the only thing I can understand is "I apologize for my apparent lack of information":

50 minutes ago, ZaPbUzZ said:

I did later delete that array for windows 2000 to set up within it its own array after I apologize for my apparent lack of information

There is no apparent lack of information in your posts, you simply state things that are not accurate, probably it is only a naming issue, you call things with NOT their names.

It is perfectly fine of course, but if your intention is to share your experiences (and expect readers to understand what you report) you need to be accurate and use the names of things as they are used by all the rest of the people, particularly if you want to be effective/concise.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...