AOA Forums AOA Forums AOA Forums Folding For Team 45 AOA Files Home Front Page Become an AOA Subscriber! UserCP Calendar Memberlist FAQ Search Forum Home


Go Back   AOA Forums > Hardware > EPoX MotherBoards

EPoX MotherBoards EPoX Intel and AMD Motherboards.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 7th July, 2004, 06:12 PM
BrainPimp's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: N'awlins
Posts: 24

8kda3+ Raid 5 or not

I have seen multiple different spec sheets for the 8KDA3+. Many specify raid 5 throught eh SATA 3114 controller, many do not. I am trying to get a clear picture if it does.

If so I have 4 X 200GB SATA drives i'll be ordering immediately.

Any help would be appreciated.

FYI
http://www.epox.org/products/mainboa...a3/index.shtml
This says yes.

http://www.epox.com/USA/product.asp?id=EP-8KDA3plus
This does not list it.


I'm so confused "sob"
__________________
"Nookie'' ... It's like christmas but your naked.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 7th July, 2004, 07:23 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Any particular reason you want RAID5?
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 7th July, 2004, 08:23 PM
BrainPimp's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: N'awlins
Posts: 24

Yes

It would be very nice to have a redundant, speedy hd space for all my business info. It would also make my level of concern regarding the safety of my data less. Should also improve speed.

Raid 0 is out.
Raid 1 is expensive and greatly reduces space.
Raid 5 is safe and fast and listed as a benefit of this board on some sites.
__________________
"Nookie'' ... It's like christmas but your naked.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 09:31 AM
kai-o-saft's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: July 2004
Posts: 1

...asked Epox support in germany the same question. Answer is they are waiting for SIL to release proper BIOS/drivers. I wonder what the performance of a RAID-5-Array will be since the SIL 3114 has no xtra RAM . Anyway, found an interesting article at Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20040625/
__________________
What are you waiting for? Christmas?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 10:34 AM
jnansley's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 888

I have asked similar questions on this board and never received a reply.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 11:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2004
Posts: 2

I also asked the same Question....

the answer: It is a SOFT-Raid5..... whatever that means...

Importend for me is, that i could BOOT from Raid5 !!!

On Siliconimage there is NO Information about Raid 5 !!

The sil3114 has only Raid 0 1 and 0+1
http://www.siliconimage.com/products/sii3114.asp

The sil3124 has Raid5 but is for PCI-X
http://www.siliconimage.com/products/sii3124.asp

Let's wait what the meaning of "Soft-Raid" is........

I think that the main-CPU (Athlon64) has to manage the Raid-Operations...
I hope it is as fast as Raid 0 !!??
__________________

Last edited by NF3-250GB-FAN; 8th July, 2004 at 11:23 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 12:15 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

The RAID5 is done in software. Most cheap RAID adapters use the CPU to do the RAID calculations, as it reduces the cost of the adapter. (IE, the Adapter doesn't need it's own CPU, RAID engine, firmware or RAM).

If you're looking for speed, you don't want to be considering RAID 5. Due to the extra overhead of calculating parity and then striping across all drives, RAID5's write speeds are pretty poor. RAID5 however, is a good compromise between storage space (IE, you only lose one HDD's worth of space), speed and redundancy (IE, it will survive a disk failure)
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 01:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2004
Posts: 2

OK. SoftRaid5 is not as good as Hardware-Raid5 with Extra CPU and RAM.

BUT:

1) Is ist as fast as Raid0 ?? or faster ?
2) Is it as secure as Raid 1 ? I think so.....
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 03:10 PM
BrainPimp's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: N'awlins
Posts: 24

Exactly why I want it.

Some speed.
Greater safety.
Fewer backups.

4 SATA striped have to be quick.
__________________
"Nookie'' ... It's like christmas but your naked.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 04:22 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainPimp
Greater safety.
Fewer backups.
Whoa, hold on here! RAID5 is NOT a replacement for backups in any way, shape or form. You still need to backup RAID5 exactly the same way you backup a single disk.

Why? RAID5 can't protect against user stupidity such as over-writing or deleting an important document, or accidently formatting the wrong drive. RAID5 can't protect against a virus/trojan doing damage to files that are on the system. RAID5 can't protect against an application (or the OS) going off on it's own and trashing things.

RAID5 is simply designed to provide business continuity in the case of a disk failure. Nothing else. You still need to backup the information just as often.
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 04:26 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by NF3-250GB-FAN
1) Is ist as fast as Raid0 ?? or faster ?
2) Is it as secure as Raid 1 ? I think so.....
It is slower than RAID0, especially on writes where it's significantly slower. If you have a 4 disk RAID5 setup and a 4 disk RAID1 setup, then the RAID1 setup can withstand two disk failures, verses RAID5's one disk failure. That means it's marginally less secure than RAID1.


If you're thinking about using high performance SATA drives (such as WD's Raptor series) be aware that just two SATA disks can saturate the PCI bus. Putting four on the PCI bus, and you'll get no speed increase over two, because a) the PCI bus is already saturated; and b) there's no decrease in access time.
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 06:49 PM
Gizmo's Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
BassTeroids Champion, Global Player Champion, Aim & Fire Champion, Puzzle Maniax Champion, Othello Champion, Canyon Glider Champion, Unicycle Challenge Champion, YetiSports 9: Final Spit Champion, Zed Champion
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Webb City, Mo
Posts: 16,178
Send a message via ICQ to Gizmo Send a message via AIM to Gizmo Send a message via MSN to Gizmo Send a message via Yahoo to Gizmo Send a message via Skype™ to Gizmo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Áedán
It is slower than RAID0, especially on writes where it's significantly slower. If you have a 4 disk RAID5 setup and a 4 disk RAID1 setup, then the RAID1 setup can withstand two disk failures, verses RAID5's one disk failure. That means it's marginally less secure than RAID1.


If you're thinking about using high performance SATA drives (such as WD's Raptor series) be aware that just two SATA disks can saturate the PCI bus. Putting four on the PCI bus, and you'll get no speed increase over two, because a) the PCI bus is already saturated; and b) there's no decrease in access time.
Technically, a 4-disk RAID1 setup is either a RAID1 with two spares, or two RAID1s. If you have a two disk failure in a RAID1, you're dead in the water, just the same as RAID 5. From that standpoint, RAID1 is no better or worse than RAID5 with a similar spare configuration.

As for performance, all the theory says that RAID5 has worse performance that RAID0 or RAID1 for writing, and is better than RAID1 for reading. In actual practice, it has been my experience that the difference in performance between RAID1 and RAID5 is about the same for writing, with RAID 5 being slightly better on reading. Bear in mind, however, that this is in a server class environment, using dedicated SCSI controllers with dedicated hardware and cache.

As for the SATA data throughput, that is true of PCI implementations. However, I not so sure that it is true of internal chipset implementations where the controller has access to the full chipset bandwidth (like Intel's 875 and 865 chipsets or nVidia's MCP-1000).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 06:58 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo
Technically, a 4-disk RAID1 setup is either a RAID1 with two spares, or two RAID1s. If you have a two disk failure in a RAID1, you're dead in the water, just the same as RAID 5.
I should have referred to it as RAID10, as that's the most intelligent way of implementing 4 disk RAID1 array.
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 07:23 PM
Gizmo's Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
BassTeroids Champion, Global Player Champion, Aim & Fire Champion, Puzzle Maniax Champion, Othello Champion, Canyon Glider Champion, Unicycle Challenge Champion, YetiSports 9: Final Spit Champion, Zed Champion
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Webb City, Mo
Posts: 16,178
Send a message via ICQ to Gizmo Send a message via AIM to Gizmo Send a message via MSN to Gizmo Send a message via Yahoo to Gizmo Send a message via Skype™ to Gizmo

Ah. But then you have a RAID10 array, not a 4-disk RAID1 array. Theoretically, a RAID 10 array could tolerate up to three drive failures. Anyway, we are arguing semantics.

Edit: Oops. RAID10 can only tolerate two failures. I wasn't thinking too clearly.

Last edited by Gizmo; 9th July, 2004 at 03:36 AM. Reason: Brain Fart
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 09:42 PM
BrainPimp's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: N'awlins
Posts: 24

Are you trying to be difficult?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Áedán
Whoa, hold on here! RAID5 is NOT a replacement for backups in any way, shape or form. You still need to backup RAID5 exactly the same way you backup a single disk.

Why? RAID5 can't protect against user stupidity such as over-writing or deleting an important document, or accidently formatting the wrong drive. RAID5 can't protect against a virus/trojan doing damage to files that are on the system. RAID5 can't protect against an application (or the OS) going off on it's own and trashing things.

RAID5 is simply designed to provide business continuity in the case of a disk failure. Nothing else. You still need to backup the information just as often.
I never said no backups. What I don't have to do is worry as much if I am late getting a backup done because I have the system doing it. There is not as much risk because a drive failure now means I have to go to the last backup and restore. With raid 5, I am still up and running and need to replace the bad one. It is also a more than gentle reminder that I better do my latest backup right NOW.

Raid doesn't protect against stupidity. This is my computer. Did you just call me stupid? "grin" I do keep multiple copies of highly valuable data. With that said, raid 5 damn sure doesn't hurt my chances of keeping now does it.

It won't save me from virii or trojans. Nope that is what the other software is for.

What it will do is keep my system up and running even in the case of a HD failure. It will also supply additionall read speed at the loss of some write speed. I'm fine with that. It will give me redundancy without a 50% space loss.
__________________
"Nookie'' ... It's like christmas but your naked.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 8th July, 2004, 11:19 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

That's cool. There's a number of people out there who assume, since the RAID array will survive a disk failure, they no longer need to back anything up. It's obviously untrue, but some people still seem to believe it.
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Maxtor OneTouch III Turbo Edition 1TB RAID 0/RAID 1 Got EpOx General Hardware Discussion 1 18th June, 2006 08:39 PM
8KDA3+ Anyone tried running two RAID 0 arrays? burton EPoX MotherBoards 1 9th August, 2004 11:24 PM
8KDA3+ NV SATA RAID Setup ehsu EPoX MotherBoards 3 3rd July, 2004 11:56 AM
4pca3+ serial raid and raid at the same time ckngai EPoX MotherBoards 5 5th April, 2004 03:13 PM
Can you have 2 RAID 1 arrays in a 4 channel RAID card??? JayJay General Hardware Discussion 1 6th April, 2003 08:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 AM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums
Don't Click Here Don't Click Here Either

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0