- OverclockersClub Forums
- → r00ter4u's Content
There have been 21 items by r00ter4u (Search limited from 20-March 16)
you included BOTH drivers correct?
If so, I have no other ideas....other than to buy a floppy drive. I wasted like 20 cd's trying to get this to work. Then I started using a cd-rw, but the speed was slower. All together made about 25 slipstreamed disks that didn't work with the raid drivers. I tested a few of them with using the floppy to install the drivers, and everything was fine. I even tried just slipstreaming the raid drivers, with and w/o tweeks, with and w/o SP2, and still nothing. But others have had it work np. Who knows. GL.
so its probably the raid drivers? i'm not trying to install windows on my raid setup tho. also why do you ask about the cluster? wouldn't 4k be slower?
This isn't new!
Many have had this problem, including me. I still just use the floppy to load the drivers. I think you can create one at dfi.com using the new drivers. I made one myself, just replacing the files on the disk that came with the board, with the new ones in 6.66. Also, what cluster are you using? Because if it's anything other than 4k, other things need done....let me know.
i havn't found anyone on forums with the same problem. maybe i'm not looking deep enough. i'm using the Optimal settings and its Stripped. i'm oinly going to be using the raid setup as storage. i don't have a floppy drive. so i just integrate with nlite
if you plan on putting your new highspeed raid drives as your seocndary(ie D,E,F.....and so on)
then ya your fine. but whats the point. you want your raid array as your main(C Drive). thats whats gonna improve overall speed of your system for loading. and to have your OS put onto your raid array your gonna need to do it from scratch. sorry but its a necisary evil.
right now. My main OS is on the 160gb Drive which is basically empty. i'll be putting the RAID setup for storage mostly. which is why i have the 300gb HDD. but that filled up quickly. so i figure if i have 1TB of space in RAID. it'll move Nice n Fast for Storage. i can't RAID my current hdd's cuz 1 is ATA150(seagate) and the other is ATA100(WD).
Ask and you shall recieve:
Its easy as pie. SATA150, SATA 3.0Gb/s, it all works in raid-0. If you want a cheap but good SATA3.0Gb/s,
I got two of thoose in RAID-0 no probs. NV raid is damn simple, that guide is damn easy, rock on dude. Nothing to fear.
this guide covers if ur doing a clean install. is there any way i can install these drives w/o having to do a clean install?
also anyone know the difference between the Diamond Max 10 and the Diamond Max Plus 10 Drives?
i'v always wanted to run RAID 0. but i'v never done it before. i just need some info on what i should look for or if someone can walk me thru on how to do RAID 0. i don't know if i need anything extra or if the hdd's need to be a certain kind or something.
Wow, with that ram you won't be able to get any higher than 230 (maybe 240 maxish). If you are going to overclock and use more than one stick make sure they are the exact same models. Also, if you are using 4 sticks you won't be able to get higher. Usually 2 GB (2x1GB sticks) or 1 GB (2x512MB sticks) is the best thing for overclocking. Anything else and you will have a lot of trouble.
well i can take the 2x 512 sticks out. 1gb of ram won't kill me. i think
Are you running all that together ? That alone might cause problems..
You should read the overclocking guide in my sig..
i don't understand how that could be a problem. usually this computer runs alot of graphics apps so i need the extra ram for those apps.
the FSB is stable at 230 but unstable any higher. sorry. made a mistake previously :/ but it is stable at 230
i tried reading the guide. and its taking me a while to fully understand what some of it means.
bah. 230 doesn't work either. ran prime95 and it BSOD on me.
A signed 32 bit integer cannot represent values bigger than 2147483647 (2 gigabytes - 1).
Somebody could have written that code assuming there will never be a machine with more than 2 GB.
Usually such code would wrap around and get nonsense out, though.
nope. ppl with the same code have been able to display more then 2gb with the same code.
The 2 GB is most likely the virtual memory that a default Windows userland process can see (unless you shift the username/kernel barrier), not physical memory.
i'm pretty sure it isn't the Virtual Mem cuz look.. (posting stats from MIRC script)
Memory Usage: (Usage: 0/2048MB (0.00%)) Â¤ (----------) Â¤ Virtual Memory: (Usage: 53/2048MB (2.6%)) Â¤ (----------) Â¤ Page File: (Usage: 0/0MB (0%)) Â¤ (----------)
and when i use task manager to see how much i'm using its currently at 336MB. Total Physical Memory 3144112K
Windows whitepaper for the 2006 "Vista" release which is in Beta 1, will be addressing the issue of using 4Gb of RAM or greater. At this time it is again a "Beta 1 Release", and nothing has been put in stone. We will know more next Summer when Beta 2 is released.
the PDC version is 5219. its not exactly Beta 2 but the Pre-Beta. but thats just off topic..
After a bit of research it seems that the issue is actually caused by Windows Xp SP2. After an upgrade to SP2 Physical Address Mapping is enabled and the max that Windows reports is 2.75Gb with this m/board. :-(
actually. my windows does show the 3gb of ram tha ti have installed. but if any of you are familiar with mirc. a script based command in mirc only shows 2gb. i have no idea why. CPUz shows 3gb
won't boot to windows or won't post and show bios?
Clear CMOS if screen is blank and pull battery as THunDA suggests
i cleared cmos. still didn't work. it wouldn't POST but it can show bios. also the copmuter is not OCed