Nero + RAID 0 in WinXP data...

[Bires]

I recently reinstalled the whole kitnkabootle, and this gave me the opprotunity to test the theory that Nero's ASPI layer fouls up RAID 0 arrays in WinXP.

Here's the data from my system (Sandra Pro) (2x40G ATA100 in a RAID 0 Array with 32K stripes) Running Norton Virus Scan, Atguard, and MSN Messenger to simulate real operating environments:

W/o Nero:
c: 16M partition (Os) : 32954 MB/s
d: 2M partition (pagefile) : 31958 MB/s

With Nero v 5.5.10:
c: 16M partition (Os) : 32922 MB/s
d: 2M partition (pagefile) : 32467 MB/s

It appears that Nero does NOT affect RAID 0 performance, at least not on my array. YMMV.

[PrObLy]

Those are interesting results Bires. I'm glad some more people have taken notice of this possible conflict. Could it be possible that it may only have effect on certain Raid Controllers in the Raid-0 array? Such as a Promise raid controller vs a Highpoint. Unfortunately when I had to reformat my raid array a few weeks ago I failed to run the tests that you did, but strangely, I do remember I was able to file index in Sandra Pro at 40,000 beforehand and now I'm at nearly the exact results as you with about 33,000. I also noticed a significant drop in PCmark 2002 scores, from a high of 1550 to now about 1000-1100. Since I installed many programs I cannot pinpoint Nero as being the culprit or if maybe the performance drop was because I was filling more space on the drives. ::shrugs:: Good work with the tests and if anyone else has to reformat their Raid-0 array anytime soon, please run some tests of your own.

[Bires]

Before I installed OfficeXP and its media content (>50,000 small clipart files) my drives benched near 38,000 (on a clean, new install.)

I'm fairly relieved to learn that I can use Nero without problems...I'm not a big fan of Roxio.

BTW: This is on an on-board Promise ATA-133 RAID controller.