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 > General Hardware Discussion

General Hardware Discussion Hard drives, CD, DVD Monitors, All hardware questions not better served by our other Topics


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 28th April, 2005, 10:18 PM
barneygumble742's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: June 2003
Posts: 397
Send a message via AIM to barneygumble742 Send a message via Yahoo to barneygumble742

raid pci card

hi...let's say i have a storage system with a 80 gig hd for the OS and 4x250 gigs on a sata 150 controller on the pci bus. it's not pci-X, just regular old pci, 32-bit. i heard that the pci cards actually minimize the bandwidth because of its limitations. yet so many systems have sata controllers on the pci bus. i also heard that having the raid on the mobo itself is better but the maximum devices on most mobos is like 2. so what's the bandwidth on the above mentioned system with the sata 150 pci controller?
__________________
Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz
GTX 260
2GB RAM
32in + 24in LCD
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 28th April, 2005, 11:20 PM
GrahamGarside's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4,572

well a new sata hardrive will have a read rate of about 65mb/s maybe more. Standard pci has a max of 133mb/s, so two drives striped would easily reach that, and thats without other things going on over the bus. Onboard additional sata chips which use the pci bus have the same limitation.

The sata ports on the southbridge/chipset won't have this limitation, but as you said most only have 2 sata channels native to the board, other than nforce and I think i9XX
__________________
"Well yes but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wod on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands."

Tobias Fünke, M.D.

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 29th April, 2005, 06:23 PM
barneygumble742's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: June 2003
Posts: 397
Send a message via AIM to barneygumble742 Send a message via Yahoo to barneygumble742

so getting a 5-channel controller card won't increase my performance?

or more specifically, where can i see the huge performance increase if i get a 5-channel controller card?

the main difference i heard between onboard vs pci is that with the onboard, the main cpu is being used which slows overall performance. correct?
__________________
Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz
GTX 260
2GB RAM
32in + 24in LCD
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 29th April, 2005, 06:29 PM
GrahamGarside's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4,572

Yeah the main cpu will be taxed about 5-10% during heavy load, where as a good onboard controller will have it's own processing unit and additional cache.
You won't see a huge increase in performance really though, not for single user stuff, as most software is optimised to minimise disk writes during operation anyway, of course if you have background programs running that write to disk this will be more transparrent.
Until the first pci-e cards come along there is little gain to be had from having more than 2 drives striped other than the fact that 60-70mb/s is usually their peak read rate and their slowest is uaually around 40mb/s, so more than 2 striped would give a consant peak rate
__________________
"Well yes but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wod on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands."

Tobias Fünke, M.D.

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 29th April, 2005, 06:48 PM
dolanenwindrift's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: February 2003
Posts: 499

Honestly if you have 4 or more drives, skip striping entirely and go for a RAID 5 setup. There are ways to set up RAID 5 withing XP if your controller doesn't support it directly, and believe me if you looses a drive you will be very happy you had redundancy. Lessee that's basically 4 X 250GB or roughly a Terrabyte? That's a lot of data to loose in one shot.
__________________
Dolanen

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 29th April, 2005, 06:57 PM
GrahamGarside's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4,572

Thats the other good thing about controller cards, hardware raid 5 mode, you will notice a fair drop in performance using a cheap card or software to do it.
__________________
"Well yes but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wod on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands."

Tobias Fünke, M.D.

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 30th April, 2005, 09:54 AM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Hardware RAID 5 is typically slightly slower than software RAID 5. Why? Well, the usual hardware used on a RAID 5 card is a 100MHz processor. Compare that to the main CPU which is sitting there with GHz worth of speed, and you can quickly see why.

Additionally, most hardware RAID 5 cards have cache memory onboard (If it doesn't, it's probably not doing anything much in hardware). Whilst this sounds good in theory, you have to realise it's on the wrong side of the PCI bus to have much of an impact. Data that is cached on the RAID 5 card has to go across the 133Mbyte/sec PCI bus. Data that is cached in main memory only has to go across a 1+Gbyte/sec memory bus.

On the other hand, RAID 5 hardware tends to be a bit more reliable, as the RAID 5 control is seperated from the main system. One thing to bear in mind is that typically RAID 5 doesn't offer great performance. RAID0 and RAID1 offer far higher performance levels than RAID 5 does.
__________________
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 30th April, 2005, 07:00 PM
barneygumble742's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: June 2003
Posts: 397
Send a message via AIM to barneygumble742 Send a message via Yahoo to barneygumble742

so for a storage (1Tb) pc on a home lan, getting a controller card is definitely worth it? to save myself from the hassle of lower performance and maintenance? the data will be read/written via 802.11g and 10/100mbps lines and i shouldn't see a huge drop in reaction times?

i was told that the max bandwidth i can get out of the pci bus is 33mb/sec thus that might not be a wise idea.

thanks.
__________________
Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz
GTX 260
2GB RAM
32in + 24in LCD
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 1st May, 2005, 12:43 AM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

The PCI bus is capable of 133Mbyte/sec maximum theoretical bandwidth. Depending on the platform, it translates to either ~90Mbyte/sec or ~120Mbyte/sec.

If you're accessing the data via 802.11g, then you've got a maximum bandwidth of about 6Mbyte/sec. If you're using 100M ethernet, you have a maximum bandwidth of about 11Mbyte/sec. Neither of those two are going to push a PCI adapter hard!

Proper hardware RAID controller cards are not cheap however. The basic rule of thumb is that if the card doesn't take some kind of memory (like SIMM or DIMM), it's probably not a hardware RAID controller, just a glorified IDE interface. Hardware RAID does not get you higher performance - software RAID is slightly faster than hardware RAID.

Either way around, bear in mind that companies like Sun and Veritas have been using software RAID for years without any issues.
__________________
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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 15th May, 2005, 03:22 PM
amarkarian's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 48

I was thinking of installing this Ultra ATA 133/100 IDE RAID PCI Controller Card for two 20 gig hard drives on a home built server. My motherboard has no built in raid controller, two questions, Is this a good Idea? And Is all i have to do is plug it in and it works or is it more complicated?
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 15th May, 2005, 03:33 PM
MONKEYMAN's Avatar
Member
5 Card Draw Champion, Tomb Digger Champion, Alpha Force Champion, Autobahn Champion, Big Bird Hunting Champion, Mumu Champion, Attack of the Tweety Zombies Champion
 
Join Date: January 2005
Location: DORSET, UK
Posts: 2,170

I have done it on an nforce2 board and it worked very well, seek times were unaffected and write times had little improvement but reads were a bit faster, I got 88mb/s with 2x80gb 8mb cache drives, you will need to reinstall your os from scratch and use the raid bios to set up the array, you will also need to install the drivers when installing your os.
__________________
AM2 X2 4000
2GB DDR2
NVIDIA 6150 ONBOARD!

Join our F@H team today.. http://www.team45.info/
Are you a subscriber? No? well then, why not....
Subscribe to AOA for a better experience and faster downloads!
How to unlock and overclock your Nvidia 6800
BIOS Volt-mod your 7800gt

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 15th May, 2005, 04:39 PM
amarkarian's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 48

Sry to sound so stupid but what exactly is the raid bios display, i am going to install readhat linux, is it different using that os?
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 15th May, 2005, 04:52 PM
MONKEYMAN's Avatar
Member
5 Card Draw Champion, Tomb Digger Champion, Alpha Force Champion, Autobahn Champion, Big Bird Hunting Champion, Mumu Champion, Attack of the Tweety Zombies Champion
 
Join Date: January 2005
Location: DORSET, UK
Posts: 2,170

not a clue on that one im afraid, the raid bios screen will show after your post screen when you turn your pc on.
__________________
AM2 X2 4000
2GB DDR2
NVIDIA 6150 ONBOARD!

Join our F@H team today.. http://www.team45.info/
Are you a subscriber? No? well then, why not....
Subscribe to AOA for a better experience and faster downloads!
How to unlock and overclock your Nvidia 6800
BIOS Volt-mod your 7800gt

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 15th May, 2005, 08:42 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Unless you're using a fully hardware RAID card, it's best not to use the RAID supplied on the card. This is because the Linux drivers don't support the software RAID that the cards do.

There's a lot of information on the net on how to set up RAID using Linux's LVM or similar, which doesn't need a software RAID controller to work (and will work with the cheap cards/onboard 'RAID' adapters)
__________________
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
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 3rd June, 2005, 01:23 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London, England
Posts: 31

Raid?

What are Raid drivers, what do they drive? large HDDs?
im new to this jargon btw so dont mock

from an extrmely confused newbie
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 3rd June, 2005, 01:38 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

RAID is a technology that's been around for a while, but originally was designed for big servers. To give you context, it stands for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". Basically, it's a way of talking to disks that combines them into one disk. Many RAID configurations are actually redundant, in that a hard disk can fail and the system carries on working.

Common RAID "levels" are:
RAID0: Two or more disks combined into a single 'volume'. No redundancy, but you get all your space. Hence 2x 80Gb disks give 160Gb of space.
RAID1: Two or other even number of drives combined into a single 'volume'. Drives are in 'mirrored' sets, so there's always two copies, but you only get half your space
RAID5: A complex system that requires at least 3 drives, and splits data and error correction across the drives. Any one drive can fail, and the system will be ok. You get the space of all but one drive.
__________________
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
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 4th June, 2005, 05:02 PM
Member
 
Join Date: June 2005
Location: southernmost tip of northern hemispere
Posts: 11

2nd post here after lurking for months....does the third drive in a raid5 array also have to be equal size? Or should it be twice the size? offhand i would guess that if the first two, (say 80 g) drives are striped (into a 160), that third drive, to mirror the whole first pair, *should* be a 160 gig. Or is my cursory understanding impaired somehow? I'm also assuming that your raid card MUST officially support raid 5, or you are SOL, and furthermore, to avoid the master/slave slowdown (no concurrent read/writes on same channel) that one really requires a four channel...Thx for edifying me......
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 6th June, 2005, 09:03 PM
gedon's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: November 2004
Posts: 446

@krazefinn
what i know about raid 5 is that all drives should have the same size and one of your 3 or 8 or 12 disk can fail without loosing data.

i'm still searching for some benchmarks with a raid0 and a raid5(4HDDs) setup

i'm not shure if i upgrade my sys or not. what i see is that speed goes down when 3 or more read/write accesses running.

has raid 5(4hdd@pci) a constant datarate?
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 6th June, 2005, 09:07 PM
GrahamGarside's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4,572

Raid 5 needs all the disks to be the same just like 0 and 1, it uses checksums so that when a drive fails, even though a third of the data is gone (in a 3 disk setup) it can calculate the missing data from what left
__________________
"Well yes but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wod on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands."

Tobias Fünke, M.D.

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 6th June, 2005, 09:13 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 krazefinn
2nd post here after lurking for months....does the third drive in a raid5 array also have to be equal size? Or should it be twice the size? offhand i would guess that if the first two, (say 80 g) drives are striped (into a 160), that third drive, to mirror the whole first pair, *should* be a 160 gig. Or is my cursory understanding impaired somehow? I'm also assuming that your raid card MUST officially support raid 5, or you are SOL, and furthermore, to avoid the master/slave slowdown (no concurrent read/writes on same channel) that one really requires a four channel...Thx for edifying me......
Sorry for not responding before now.

Eh, no. Err..yes. Umm.......what? Sorry, your question has really confused me.

In general, all drives in a RAID should be the same size, so if you currently have two drives that are 80G in a RAID0 or a RAID1, and you add a third drive, it should also be 80G. However, if you are adding the drive to an existing RAID1, then you will only be able to add the drive as a 'hot-spare', because RAID1 only works with 2 drives. For RAID0, depending on the controller, you may be able to build the drive into the array and expand the array, or you may have to flush all the data on the drives and reinitialize the array in the new configuration.

Not that I said 'in general'. If you have two 80G drives in a RAID and you can't get another 80G drive, but you do have a 160G drive, you can put the larger drive into the array, but you will only be able to use 80G of the storage space on the drive, unless your controller allows 'spanning' of dissimilar drives. I have only ever seen this done with a RAID0 configuration. Because of the way RAID works, I would be HIGHLY surprised if you could do it in any of the truly redundant modes (like RAID1 or RAID5).
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
Moving from onboard raid to a raid pci card Jamey1010 EPoX MotherBoards 6 5th March, 2004 07:07 AM
Can you have 2 RAID 1 arrays in a 4 channel RAID card??? JayJay General Hardware Discussion 1 6th April, 2003 08:23 PM
8rda+ and pci raid card? nucl3arboNg AMD Motherboards & CPUs 7 3rd January, 2003 09:40 AM
8RDA+ and PCI Raid Card... erik21d EPoX MotherBoards 2 5th December, 2002 02:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:29 AM.


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

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0