Incorrectly HD/RAID Configured XPS

Question

I just received my new XPS yesterday and was thrilled-a major investment for me in state of the art hardware. My delight was shortlived. I spent hours migrating all my data and getting things set up only to discover that my computer had been configured with system, boot  and all pre-installed software on the 250mb second drive and that my  2X74 RAID configured primary drives were unused. I'm amazed that this kind of mistake could be made. After hours of technical support on the phone last night I was told that my only choice is to reconfigure the boot sequence, completely re-install all of the system and pre-installed applications and then add my data back. I can no longer migrate it so this will be a long and tedious task. All of this work is me trying to fix a mistake that I didn't make. Is there another way to solve this that might be easier?

ejn63 · Answer

It's not a mistake. Microsoft itself does not recommend using a RAID 0 array as the boot drive for an operating system. The lack of redundancy exposes you to twice the risk of data loss should a drive fail (lose either drive, lose the array). Recovering data from a failed RAID0 array is very, very difficult.

RAID 0 provides no performance advantage for a desktop system. That's been proven time and time again.

You're better off leaving it as Dell shipped it.

Message Edited by ejn63 on 09-30-2004 10:07 PM

icenine · Answer

Why do they sell RAID hard drives? Based on what you're saying I'd be better off with 2X250s-more space less money. Also, why does RAID only appear in the primary hard drive category on DEll site(what I ordered) and not in the backup which I ordered so that I'd be prepared if either of the 2 Raid drives failed.

ejn63 · Answer

RAID comes in multple varieties. You CAN safely install Windows to a RAID5 partition - that includes not only data striping for performance, but also parity, so that if one drive fails, you don't lose the entire array.

You can also safely use a RAID1 array as a boot drive (mirrored drives). It's striping without parity (RAID0) that is the danger zone.

icenine · Answer

That's interesting. All the other gaming system manufacturer's install the OS to their RAID 0 array, with recognition that it is for speed, and comprimises data safety. That's what I bought my machine to do - play games.

My decision to get this configuration was based on the information on the Dell site - that RAID 0 greatly improves gaming performance.

ejn63 · Answer

Many feel it's more hype and bragging rights than performance reality. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11

eagleye49 · Answer

I had purchased a new XPS Gen 3 about 6 weeks ago. The OS was loaded to the back-up drive. Dell XPS Tech support indicated that this was indeed an error and talked me through a re-partition with loading the OS on the 2X74Gb. (10K) RAID  0 array.... the next day my efforts culminated in the black screen of death. I sent the system back and re-ordered... the next system was also mis-configured. I appreciated that there is an enhanced risk of meltdown ( roughly twice?) if one's OS in on a RAID 0 array, but that's why God made back-ups. Without using the RAID Array as the boot drive, the speed advantage-- which is quite real when manipulating large files- like video-- is lost.A second call to XPS support resulted in a promise that a bulletin would be issued to assemblers, but I see it didn't result in any changes yet. Is every XPS Gen III with RAID mis-configured?

Shadow5 · Answer

@eagleye49 wrote:
Is every XPS Gen III with RAID mis-configured?

Mine was. Right out of the box I had to reformat and re-install everything to set it up as intended. My RAID 0 is my boot drive and my secondary 400 GB drive is for storing my backup images of my RAID. RAID 0 is no more risky than any other configuration, if you keep proper backups. Amazing what daily drive images can do for backup.

eagleye49 · Answer

The big question is: when will Dell begin to configure the XPS Gen 3 with RAID appropriately? I'd love to reorder, but my e-mails to Dell heve been met with blank cyber-expressions. Has anyone with a mis-configured system actually talked or corresponded with anyone at Dell who recognizes the potential magnitude of this problem? I suspect that most systems are happily in use with owners who have not even recognized they have lost the speed advantage for which they paid so dearly.

icenine · Answer

This whole incident has been very disappointing. Lacking  technical proficiency, I hired someone to assist me with the transition from my old to new machine. Dell's error-not shipping me what I ordered based on their recommendation and what they committed to-somehow became my problem to fix. The cost of additional technician time, and my time and aggravation was  a significant expense to me. I remain surprised that Dell hasn't in some way offered to compensate us for fixing their mistake. This seems a significant departure from their reputation for quality and excellence in customer service.

eagleye49 · Answer

I had similar feelings. I spent a conservatively estimated 15-20 hours in an effort to rectify things. I was offered a $75  gift certificate- better than nothing, but if it was not for Dell's reasonably priced top-shelf hardware, I'd bag it! I most certainly would not order an extended warranty...

icenine · Answer

My costs were significantly higher and nothing was offered. I did buy the extended, evenings and weekends package. I hoped that it would insure me against these sorts of problems. My expectation, which seems reasonable to me, was that the warranty would add to Dell's obligation to have someone come and fix their mistake. They told me the warranty didn't apply. My paid-by-me technician spent several hours getting things set up before he discovered Dell's mistake. He then spent several hours on the phone working with Dell technical support before they acknowledged that what they proposed wasn't going to work and we'd need to start from scratch. It was now 10:00 PM and the technician had to return two days later to start all over again. I still hope that Dell will make this right but there's been no effort from them to do that.

Dim_8400 · Answer

ejn63,

Thanks for the link to the analysis of RAID-0.

Having read all the hype, I was convinced that RAID-0 would provide strong HD performance results on a PC. Not true as it turns out. For anyone else who has this impression, have a look. The article: "RAID-0: Are two drives better than one?"

1st page of article: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101

Summary of article: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11

The article is objective and is technically very solid. Gamers and casual PC users who think that RAID-0 is the answer need to read this.

Shadow5 · Answer

The performance gains of RAID 0 is something that can be disputed both for and against. On my own system I've benchmarked the following throughputs with three identical drives:

With benchmark software the average transfer rate of my RAID 0 is 80.5 MB/sec, for my single backup drive it is 57.9 MB/sec.

Despite the negative hype being posted by a single site, I'll keep my RAID 0; with proper daily backups it's data reliability is no less than a single drive system with the same backup routine. I could run a RAID 1 by sacrificing half of my disk storage, but with daily backups, nothing I'm running is that critical. The real performance gains are enough for me.

Jason_Ariz · Answer

If you read the technical article (mentioned above), at the very beginning you will find the statement,

"..The real world often differs greatly from the realm of synthetic disk benchmarks.."

This is the whole point of the finding. The real world is what matters. Benchmarks can say whatever they want. It means nothing if there is no significant real world performance increase.

I have tried numerous Raid0 configurations. To this day, I have not determined a real world, perceptible difference vs a single drive.

Shadow5 · Answer

@Jason_Ariz wrote:

If you read the technical article (mentioned above), at the very beginning you will find the statement,

"..The real world often differs greatly from the realm of synthetic disk benchmarks.."

This is the whole point of the finding. The real world is what matters. Benchmarks can say whatever they want. It means nothing if there is no significant real world performance increase.

On my system I have noticed a difference between my RAID and my non-raid drives. My RAID drives are much faster in the real world performance that I use them for, which is why I posted my results. Having an article tell me what I'm supposed to expect and experiencing it for myself are two different things. I just disagree, thats all.

Storage, Drives & Media

Incorrectly HD/RAID Configured XPS

Was this post helpful?