<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///D:%5Cuserdata%5CFITZHE%7E1%5Ctemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01% 5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> Naaa, the best I could get was half way through memtest86+, test 4 @ 3.99GHz. I think 3.6GHz is it, infact I may drop to 3.4GHz as I am still not 100% stable on 3.6Ghz.

I have run a bit short of time, so I will jabber ya if I run into problems with 3.4GHz, that's if your around.. Thanks for all da help LSDMEASAP!!! Best help I ever received over a forum!!! Peace out!

P.S. 32K block size gave me best performance in my RAID0, still only round 175MBs on average with 4x80GB, 8mb cache. I tried with three disks, instead of four, thinking there may be a sweat spot or something... but naa, four drives at 32K seems best.. I have not tried 16K, but from your comments that is probably to small for daily use... If anyone else reads this, just get 2 x whatever drives, with higher cache.... I recon the cache is doing it for ya, lsdmeasap. Anyway, thanks again man ! Later.
<o:p> </o:p>