Not WinXP per se, but the D: drive. I use it for various non-critical temporary backups, pst-files, VM:s, ISO images and various other junk. Raid0 is good and fast, but I'd prefer raid5 to get at least some protection. It's a good trade off speed vs protection IMHO. -- /Sorin >-----Original Message----- >From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:windows2000- >bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phillip Newberry >Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:49 PM >To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [windows2000] Re: Raid5 on WinXP > >First thing that comes to mind...is why would anyone put Windows XP... on RAID 5. > > > >Phil Newberry >Network Engineer >MCSE, MCP+IIS, CNA, CCNA, CET > >Your destiny is a direct result of your effort. > >--- On Tue, 6/16/09, Berny Stapleton <berny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Berny Stapleton <berny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [windows2000] Re: Raid5 on WinXP > To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 10:43 AM > > > Use Azureus to download Linux and use Linux disk management. >Aside from that, go out spend the money and buy an Adaptec or highpoint RAID >controller and be done with it. > > > 2009/6/16 Sorin Srbu <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ><http://us.mc336.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Situation: Have 5x 160GB hard drives currently in a raid0 >configuration, and > getting occasional errors with Azureus. Motherboard has >six SATA-connectors > and a built-in raid chip from Silicon Image able to handle >max four disks. > Mobo also has a Nvraid-chip, max four disks here too. >But one can only use > either the Silicon Image chip *or* the Nvraid, which limits >me to a four-disk > raid array at the max. > > Solution (or so I though): Deleting the raid0 array and let >WinXP handle a > software raid5 array with five disks. > > New situation. WinXP doesn't allow for a software raid5 >array... WinXP is > basically limited to raid0 and jbod only. Only Windows >2000 Server and up does > raid5 out of the box. 8-/ > > New solution: Checking for SATA raid controllers with >more than four > connectors. > > New situation: SATA raid controllers with more than four >connectors are hugely > expensive! Therefore this is a no-go for now. > > Guys, are there any other solutions I might look into that >aren't too pricey? > Like preferably within the ?100 range? And the week has >just about started... > 8-} > > -- > BW, > Sorin > ----------------------------------------------------------- > # Sorin Srbu [Sysadmin, Systems Engineer] > # Dept of Medicinal Chemistry, Phone: +46 (0)18- >4714482 >3 signals> GSM > # Div of Org Pharm Chem, Mobile: +46 (0)701- >718023 > # Box 574, Uppsala University, Fax: +46 (0)18-4714482 > # SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden Visit: BMC, Husargatan >3, D5:512b > # Web: http://www.orgfarm.uu.se ><http://www.orgfarm.uu.se/> > ----------------------------------------------------------- > # () ASCII ribbon campaign - Against html E-mail > # /\ > # > # MotD follows: > # My computer NEVER loc > > > > >