Avoiding disaster when switching from RAID to AHCI on a volume mounted array

[AdamK47]

I recently setup my Haswell-E system. This system includes four 1TB Samsung EVO drives in RAID-0 volume mounted to a directory created on my system drive, a 256GB Samsung 850 Pro. The array was created in the Intel RAID BIOS after enabling RAID operation on SATA ports 0-5. It took 8 hours to transfer 3.5TB to the array from a backup HDD.

I decided to play around with the Gigabyte X99 BIOS to tweak the system. One of the things I did was a BIOS update, which resets settings to default. This sets SATA ports 0-5 back to AHCI. I thought it would be fine to boot off of the sytem drive at default settings and configure the ports to RAID mode later. I was wrong. For some reason Windows automatically configured a single 1TB EVO drive to be volume mounted to that directory. I thought that was odd. After rebooting the system and configuring the ports back to RAID, I discovered to my horror that the array was no longer operational. Apparently Windows had written something to that single drive to volume mount it. I then spent the next 8 hours restoring the backup again.

Why and how would Windows even do this? Is there some way to prevent Windows from doing this again?

Since discovering what transpired I've been disabling those ports alltogether if I'm tweaking setting in the BIOS. Only to enable the ports again for RAID once I have everything configured the way I want.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I recently setup my Haswell-E system. This system includes four 1TB Samsung EVO drives in RAID-0 volume mounted to a directory created on my system drive, a 256GB Samsung 850 Pro. The array was created in the Intel RAID BIOS after enabling RAID operation on SATA ports 0-5. It took 8 hours to transfer 3.5TB to the array from a backup HDD.

I decided to play around with the Gigabyte X99 BIOS to tweak the system. One of the things I did was a BIOS update, which resets settings to default. This sets SATA ports 0-5 back to AHCI. I thought it would be fine to boot off of the sytem drive at default settings and configure the ports to RAID mode later. I was wrong. For some reason Windows automatically configured a single 1TB EVO drive to be volume mounted to that directory. I thought that was odd. After rebooting the system and configuring the ports back to RAID, I discovered to my horror that the array was no longer operational. Apparently Windows had written something to that single drive to volume mount it. I then spent the next 8 hours restoring the backup again.

Why and how would Windows even do this? Is there some way to prevent Windows from doing this again?

Since discovering what transpired I've been disabling those ports alltogether if I'm tweaking setting in the BIOS. Only to enable the ports again for RAID once I have everything configured the way I want.

Not familiar (yet) with the X99 BIOS, but I'm thinking there shouldn't be anything different from earlier Intel chipsets and SATA configurations. So I'm assuming that your SSD boot drive was still in "RAID-mode" even if it's not part of an array.

I can't be sure what happened to your RAID array. I'm fairly sure I'd "flip-flopped" in the BIOS reset between AHCI and RAID, but I'd entered BIOS immediately to manually change the BIOS. It never caused me a problem. Of course, I was using a PCI-E 3Ware card, so . . . there would be a difference in how the RAID was managed and configured, versus Intel's onboard controller and IRST.

You might want to insert your Windows install disc and try the "repair" option on the SSD alone. The same thing -- in that regard -- happened to me, and that procedure fixed it.

Otherwise, I'm short on more advice here . .

 

[Cerb]

The best thing you can do without hardware changes is to get rid of the directory (use a drive letter, like normal), and then be careful. Don't go tweaking anything in the BIOS, once you have a running system.

Otherwise, get a hardware RAID controller, preferably LSI (the card will be unaffected by mobo-level changes); or, depending on OS, use Windows' own RAID 0. Intel RAID is software RAID, Windows can quasi-understand the disk metadata, and weird things sometimes happen.

 

[AdamK47]

X99 has 10 SATA ports. 6 of them are separate from the other 4, which are sSATA. I have my OS SSD on one of the sSATA ports and the four 1TB SSDs on the other group of SATA ports. The two groups of SATA ports can be configured independently.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5126#sp


I'm not sure how running Windows repair is going to prevent Windows from volume mounting a separate disk partition.

It's impossible for me to run a hardware RAID controller. I wouldn't want to if I could.

I suppose I just have to be quick about it on BIOS resets to prevent Windows from loading in AHCI on ports 0-5.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

X99 has 10 SATA ports. 6 of them are separate from the other 4, which are sSATA. I have my OS SSD on one of the sSATA ports and the four 1TB SSDs on the other group of SATA ports. The two groups of SATA ports can be configured independently.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5126#sp


I'm not sure how running Windows repair is going to prevent Windows from volume mounting a separate disk partition.

It's impossible for me to run a hardware RAID controller. I wouldn't want to if I could.

I suppose I just have to be quick about it on BIOS resets to prevent Windows from loading in AHCI on ports 0-5.

I think I was making a distinction between your boot SSD and the array. If you were using the different controller(s) as you say, then I understand better now and the "repair" idea wouldn't apply. At least -- I don't think it would. Now looking closer, I'm concluding you didn't have trouble with the single boot disk, and I see what you'd done with the directory-link to the array.

so no -- the "repair" option doesn't apply. As for the option for a hardware controller -- that's your judgment, and there must be a reason for it, as with "no available slots" etc. Besides -- those things cost money.

Too many words already, but if Cerb didn't nail it, your own last sentence contains the best advice. Seriously.

Cerb's point about applying "KISS" and using a drive label also makes sense, but I'd been thinking of using your own idea. But only with single physical drives -- one-to-one. I wouldn't doubt the OPTION of the link to a RAID volume, but then I think Cerb hit that nail . . . too. . . .

 

[AdamK47]

Changing the volume mount to a drive letter will require reinstalling literally hundreds of games. I actually prefer having my collection volume mounted to C: \Games

If I ever decide to go crazy (or crazier) in the future, I could have the system and games all on one giant RAID-0 partition without the need to reinstall anything. Right now I like the idea of having a system drive and a data array.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Changing the volume mount to a drive letter will require reinstalling literally hundreds of games. I actually prefer having my collection volume mounted to C: \Games

If I ever decide to go crazy (or crazier) in the future, I could have the system and games all on one giant RAID-0 partition without the need to reinstall anything. Right now I like the idea of having a system drive and a data array.

You obviously have "a lot of games" taking up space, so your solution is perfectly logical. I don't see why you can't pursue the original idea. You just need to be more careful -- if it was a matter of entering BIOS before Windows had its chance to screw things up.

And incidentally. It also makes perfect sense to separate the boot drive from everything else. On a system like mine, I wouldn't distinguish between "system" and "programs." I can see it from your perspective, though. Frankly, after my Sammy 840Pro was half full, I added an MX100 with another drive letter so I can use for additional program files. Already, I had about 78 GB of a flight sim program that doesn't install under the usual "Program Files" directory, and can be "moved around." As I add more stuff, I will change the configuration -- much like yours, I'm hoping.

 

[Cerb]

It's impossible for me to run a hardware RAID controller. I wouldn't want to if I could.

You may not want to, but do you really have 4 video cards installed, or 3 video cards and one other card?

 

[AdamK47]

You may not want to, but do you really have 4 video cards installed, or 3 video cards and one other card?

 

[Cerb]

You win. Here's a random adorable photo from imgur (in short supply, with all the commentary on the fappening). Must go repost it in Shorty's OT thread, now...

 

[AdamK47]

Yes, that helps resolve the issue. Thanks.

 

[AdamK47]

Found a potential fix by disabling automount.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753703.aspx

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Hmm, I have had good luck with Intel's Storage array for RAID. I experimented with removing n-1 disks from the array and then destroying the array itself. While I was warned about the potential loss of data stored in the array I, in fact, lost nothing.

Upon successfully completing that experimented, I removed the disk and reinstalled the n-1 and brought the array back up. I wiped the one disk and reinserted it and the Intel software rebuilt the array perfectly.

Now this was under both XPpro and W7pro and I do not know what your volume was like compared to mine, but something sounds dubious. Mind you I also did this under traditional mechanical drives and not solid state drives.

 

[Cerb]

OP had RAID, and then lost RAID. Windows was not on the RAID. It booted up, saw metadata it thought it knew what to do with, and/or detected the wrong disk as that mount point, and writing to it made the RAID break on the drives themselves.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

OP had RAID, and then lost RAID. Windows was not on the RAID. It booted up, saw metadata it thought it knew what to do with, and/or detected the wrong disk as that mount point, and writing to it made the RAID break on the drives themselves.

Sounds about right.

This is repeating what I'd said before. It's fine if someone wants to implement RAID on a workstation. I've done it many times, and I've spent more than three Franklins on hardware controller cards -- twice: A Highpoint card intended for IDE/ATA drives, and a 3Ware (LSI now?) -- I think it was a 9650SE. I'd done it first for speed, and then for redundancy and speed (RAID5). I've used the RAID option with motherboard controllers several times. Truth is, I never (personally) lost an array.

But we have SSDs now. Although folks are RAIDing the SSDs (and I thought the OP had four SSDs in RAID0 ?) I don't see the point of it -- for the reason that initiated this thread. Maybe -- RAID1 would still make sense. But there are so many backup options available, it's just another level of complexity that I can do without. It doesn't "SEEM" complex, but then -- look what happened to the OP? Chances are, this sort of thing is unlikely to happen if you prepare yourself for BIOS resets and catch the boot sequence to divert to BIOS and change things back the way they were. I'd always done that, but it's easy to make a mistake.

 

[ratjacket]

You win. Here's a random adorable photo from imgur (in short supply, with all the commentary on the fappening). Must go repost it in Shorty's OT thread, now...

Is he going to wring all their necks :ninja:

 

[Essence_of_War]

S
But we have SSDs now. Although folks are RAIDing the SSDs (and I thought the OP had four SSDs in RAID0 ?) I don't see the point of it -- for the reason that initiated this thread. Maybe -- RAID1 would still make sense. But there are so many backup options available, it's just another level of complexity that I can do without. It doesn't "SEEM" complex, but then -- look what happened to the OP? Chances are, this sort of thing is unlikely to happen if you prepare yourself for BIOS resets and catch the boot sequence to divert to BIOS and change things back the way they were. I'd always done that, but it's easy to make a mistake.

OP is raid0ing 4x1TB ssds, my guess is that they have multiple TB of games. You can't get single ssds in capacities over 1TB (at least not for sensible prices)

 

[BonzaiDuck]

OP is raid0ing 4x1TB ssds, my guess is that they have multiple TB of games. You can't get single ssds in capacities over 1TB (at least not for sensible prices)

True, but there are other options -- either JBOD or a drive-pool software solution. IF something goes wrong with a disk in RAID0 -- we all know how far south that goes. One could argue that there is a much smaller probability of failure for an SSD than an electro-mechanical drive.

Another option might be a high-capacity hard disk with a RAM-cache program.

Maybe his choice there -- 4 SSD RAID0 -- is the best. Can't say. And really -- his problem was an accident: forgetting to hit the Delete key before Windows began booting.

I'm only guessing that the TRIM implementation for an array like that has been solved and put to rest.

 

[AdamK47]

My previous motherboard, an ASRock X79 Extreme11, had a hardware RAID controller integrated (LSI). I was running 8X 512GB SSDs in RAID-0. Bought them before 1TB SSDs were available. Now that I'm on a different motherboard, I opted to switch to the 1TB drives using the Intel controller. My objective is high capacity with SSD speeds.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

My previous motherboard, an ASRock X79 Extreme11, had a hardware RAID controller integrated (LSI). I was running 8X 512GB SSDs in RAID-0. Bought them before 1TB SSDs were available. Now that I'm on a different motherboard, I opted to switch to the 1TB drives using the Intel controller. My objective is high capacity with SSD speeds.

It's a perfectly valid choice. If I had that many games, I"d have to rethink my storage subsystem. For captured media or DVR's, I can archive all that stuff to my server, which has a huge amount of capacity for it.

I'm hoping you validated with "TRIMCHECK" that TRIM is operating on those SSDs? That would be my only other misgiving, but there's enough info here and there that Intel had resolved any lack of TRIM for RAID. I'd just need to go back and review to assure myself.