Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 21

Thread: Sata Raid5!

  1. #1
    Throbbing Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotlandshire
    Posts
    626
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked
    9 times in 8 posts
    • 8bit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z170A-G43 PLUS
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-6700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x Kingston HyperX Fury Black (8GB)
      • Storage:
      • 1x Crucial MX100 512GB, 1x Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB (WD1001FALS)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire AMD R9 390 Nitro
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM650x
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide Air 540
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 29UM67 29", 21:9, 2560x1080
      • Internet:
      • PlusNet Fibre

    Sata Raid5!

    not content to do what everyone else is doing I'm thinking of starting a collection of raptors and eventually getting a SATA RAID controller which will do RAID 5. There are cards on the market that have RAID5 implemented in hardware, just need to find the cash for one.

    In any case, what I wanted to know was is there any real point in doing RAID5 for a machine mainly used for gaming and music production and does anyone have any good or bad experiences with a controller card? was looking at the adaptec 2410SA if i can get one off ebay...


    "shiro" - Windows 10 Home x64 :: Intel i7-6700K :: Corsair Hydro H90 :: MSI Z170A-G43 Plus :: 2x 8GB Kingston HyperX :: Sapphire R9 390 Nitro :: Crucial MX100 (512GB) :: WD Caviar Black (1TB) :: Lite-On BD-ROM :: Corsair Carbide Air 540 (white) :: LG 29UM67 21:9 2560x1080 :: Logitech G5 :: Func KB-460 ::

  2. #2
    Prize winning member. rajagra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,023
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    The thing about RAID5 is it's slow for writing. To get round that you really need an array controller with its own CPU and plenty of cache memory (battery-backed if possible.)
    The 2410SA looks good, especially if you have PCI-X slots, but isn't battery-backed.
    DFI LanParty UT NF4 SLI-D; AMD64 3500+ Winchester ;
    2x XFX 6600GT ; Corsair XMS3200XLPRO TWINX 1GB;
    Dell 2405FPW TFT.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,898
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    179 times in 134 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Do you really high very high reliability? If not RAID1 or RAID0 (or even 0+1) is probably more useful for you.

  4. #4
    Vive le pants! directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI X99A Gaming 7
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 5280k
      • Memory:
      • 32GiB ADATA DDR4
      • Storage:
      • Corsair Neutron XT 960GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G Twin Frozr 5
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX860i
      • Case:
      • NZXT H440
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 17.10, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2713HM
      • Internet:
      • FIOS
    3ware 9000 series.

    LSI MegaRAID.

    take your pick.

  5. #5
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    14,269
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked
    829 times in 469 posts
    • Steve's system
      • CPU:
      • Intel i3-350M 2.27GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GiB Crucial DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 320GB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD3000
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 11.10
    I have a Silicon Image SATA 5 card and have 256MiB write cache on it.

    It's only partially hardware accellerated though, which means getting it work in Linux isn't fun, and that performance isn't quite as good as full hardware solutions. Stick with directhex's suggestions tbh.
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Leicestershire
    Posts
    1,211
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked
    31 times in 30 posts
    • madman045's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P9X79 Pro
      • CPU:
      • I7-3820
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • Not enough!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • HD7970
      • PSU:
      • 850w Corsair
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide 300R
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 Ultimate X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2713HM & 2007WFP
      • Internet:
      • Plusnet FTTC - 30mbit/7mbit
    ive been looking at raid 5 sata cards, does anyone know what brand of cards dell use? A certain auction site have been selling 6 port sata raid cards with 64mb onboard for around £100 which is a cheaper way to start your array.

    But as already said, PCI-X is the best way for performance.

  7. #7
    Vive le pants! directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI X99A Gaming 7
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 5280k
      • Memory:
      • 32GiB ADATA DDR4
      • Storage:
      • Corsair Neutron XT 960GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G Twin Frozr 5
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX860i
      • Case:
      • NZXT H440
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 17.10, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2713HM
      • Internet:
      • FIOS
    Quote Originally Posted by madman045
    ive been looking at raid 5 sata cards, does anyone know what brand of cards dell use? A certain auction site have been selling 6 port sata raid cards with 64mb onboard for around £100 which is a cheaper way to start your array.

    But as already said, PCI-X is the best way for performance.
    dell PERC cards are rebranded LSI MegaRAID

  8. #8
    YUKIKAZE arthurleung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    88 times in 83 posts
    • arthurleung's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5E (Rampage Formula 0902)
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 3.6Ghz 1.2V
      • Memory:
      • A-Data DDR2-800 2x2GB CL4
      • Storage:
      • 4x1TB WD1000FYPS @ RAID5 3Ware 9500S-8 / 3x 1TB Samsung Ecogreen F2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GeCube HD4870 512MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair VX450
      • Case:
      • Antec P180
      • Operating System:
      • Windows Server 2008 Standard
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp 2709W + 2001FP
      • Internet:
      • Be*Unlimited 20Mbps
    RAID5 will defeat the point of getting a Raptor (since hardware raid can't pump out that much data anyway.

    If you really need speed you can do 0+1. RAID5 read at the speed of RAID0, but write at speed of around 1~3 harddrives depends on what processor it use.

    If you are recording multi-channels uncompressed PCM audio, 406KB/s per channel per 96Khz 32bit audio, 7 channels would make 2.8MB/s. A 7200.8 could random write at 2.8MB/s without any problem. Even if you're going to transcode 2 7200.8 with disk1 being source and disk2 being destination that is good enough.

    If you're going for gaming, RAID5 is not going to have a lot of difference from using single drives.
    1. You'll be capped by PCi Bandwidth which is 133MB/s.
    2. If you are using a server motherboard you won't be playing games on it anyway.
    3. PCI Express RAID cards cost ALOT. an Areca (the only PCIe card) cost at least 400 pounds, you're looking at AT LEAST 50 POUNDS per PORT. You could get an extra harddrive for RAID1 with that kind of price.
    4. I know H8DCE and K8WE are good for gaming, but I doubt you have a pair of 252 on hand, judging from your question.

    adaptec 2410SA is a VERY ANCIENT card. As I said before, your RAID0+1 rw speed / RAID5 read speed will be capped at 133M/s max. The onboard processor won't write faster than the speed of 2 raptors (AFAIK it can only write at around 100M/s)

    If you want faster gaming, get yourself a 15KRPM harddrive. The PCI bus limits how fast your game data will load. If a raptor is not good enough for you, anything higher than a RAID0 will not give any improvement. Getting a (or a pair of) newest gen 15K (even a 36G will do) will be a way better idea than getting extra raptors.
    Workstation 1: Intel i7 950 @ 3.8Ghz / X58 / 12GB DDR3-1600 / HD4870 512MB / Antec P180
    Workstation 2: Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.6Ghz / X38 / 4GB DDR2-800 / 8400GS 512MB / Open Air
    Workstation 3: Intel Xeon X3350 @ 3.2Ghz / P35 / 4GB DDR2-800 / HD4770 512MB / Shuttle SP35P2
    HTPC: AMD Athlon X4 620 @ 2.6Ghz / 780G / 4GB DDR2-1000 / Antec Mini P180 White
    Mobile Workstation: Intel C2D T8300 @ 2.4Ghz / GM965 / 3GB DDR2-667 / DELL Inspiron 1525 / 6+6+9 Cell Battery

    Display (Monitor): DELL Ultrasharp 2709W + DELL Ultrasharp 2001FP
    Display (Projector): Epson TW-3500 1080p
    Speakers: Creative Megaworks THX550 5.1
    Headphones: Etymotic hf2 / Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro

    Storage: 8x2TB Hitachi @ DELL PERC 6/i RAID6 / 13TB Non-RAID Across 12 HDDs
    Consoles: PS3 Slim 120GB / Xbox 360 Arcade 20GB / PS2

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • oralpain's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI "Blood Iron" P35-T2RL
      • CPU:
      • Intel Pentium E2140 @ 400x8 (3.2GHz), 1.375v
      • Memory:
      • Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 CL4 @ 500MHz (DDR 1000), 4-4-4-12-T2, 2.3v
      • Storage:
      • 2x Seagate ST3250410AS
      • Graphics card(s):
      • NVIDIA 8800GTS (G92) 512 @ 783MHz core, 1836MHz shader, 1053Mhz memory, stock cooling 70% fan speed
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic SS-500GB
      • Case:
      • Antec P182, with some small modifications
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS VW222U
      • Internet:
      • Time Warner "Road Runner" Cable - 16 megabit downstream, 1 megabit upstream
    I prefer raid 1+0 (not 0+1). I haven't tried raid 5 as write speeds would be too slow for what I would use it for.

  10. #10
    Prize winning member. rajagra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,023
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain
    I prefer raid 1+0 (not 0+1).
    I've never understood why these are treated differently. The layout of data is exactly the same, whether you stripe a set of mirrors, or mirror a set of stripes!

    Surely a half-way decent controller would get the same performance and redundancy out of both options?
    DFI LanParty UT NF4 SLI-D; AMD64 3500+ Winchester ;
    2x XFX 6600GT ; Corsair XMS3200XLPRO TWINX 1GB;
    Dell 2405FPW TFT.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,898
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    179 times in 134 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    No, they are not the same, see here: http://www.ofb.net/~jheiss/raid10/
    1+0 is better.

    Hmm just noticed the maths on that pages is wrong. He says it's (n/2 - 1)/(n - 1) for a second drive to kill the system in RAID 0+1, it's actually (n/2) / (n - 1).
    Last edited by Butcher; 22-06-2005 at 09:49 PM.

  12. #12
    Prize winning member. rajagra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,023
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Yes, the data layout is EXACTLY the same.
    See below, where Dx means Data chunk x.
    Code:
    RAID 1+0. A stripe of mirrors:
    (  D1  )        (  D2  )        (  D3  )
    (  |   )        (  |   )        (  |   )
    (mirror)-stripe-(mirror)-stripe-(mirror)
    (  |   )        (  |   )        (  |   )
    (  D1  )        (  D2  )        (  D3  )
    Code:
    RAID 0+1. A mirror of stripes:
    (D1-stripe-D2-stripe-D3)
               |
             mirror
               |
    (D1-stripe-D2-stripe-D3)
    Imagine the top D1 and the bottom D2 are broken.
    RAID1+0 can still read data.
    RAID0+1 can't read data (officially.)

    What I'm saying is, both have exactly the same data layout, with exactly the same failures. If I was writing the firmware for an array controller, I would make damn sure it could read data whenever possible, not when the technical definitions say you are "allowed" to see data.

    (Cheers for the hint below Kez )
    Last edited by rajagra; 22-06-2005 at 10:16 PM.
    DFI LanParty UT NF4 SLI-D; AMD64 3500+ Winchester ;
    2x XFX 6600GT ; Corsair XMS3200XLPRO TWINX 1GB;
    Dell 2405FPW TFT.

  13. #13
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    14,269
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked
    829 times in 469 posts
    • Steve's system
      • CPU:
      • Intel i3-350M 2.27GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GiB Crucial DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 320GB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD3000
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 11.10
    Quote Originally Posted by rajagra
    I did a nice table, but this forum removes spaces so it messes it up.
    Use the [code] tag.
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,898
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    179 times in 134 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Quote Originally Posted by rajagra
    Yes, the data layout is EXACTLY the same.
    See below, where Dx means Data chunk x.
    Code:
    RAID 1+0. A stripe of mirrors:
    (  D1  )        (  D2  )        (  D3  )
    (  |   )        (  |   )        (  |   )
    (mirror)-stripe-(mirror)-stripe-(mirror)
    (  |   )        (  |   )        (  |   )
    (  D1  )        (  D2  )        (  D3  )
    Code:
    RAID 0+1. A mirror of stripes:
    (D1-stripe-D2-stripe-D3)
               |
             mirror
               |
    (D1-stripe-D2-stripe-D3)
    Imagine the top D1 and the bottom D2 are broken.
    RAID1+0 can still read data.
    RAID0+1 can't read data (officially.)

    What I'm saying is, both have exactly the same data layout, with exactly the same failures. If I was writing the firmware for an array controller, I would make damn sure it could read data whenever possible, not when the technical definitions say you are "allowed" to see data.

    (Cheers for the hint below Kez )
    What you're saying is you'd always implement 1+0.
    Generally 0+1 is only used if your controller doesn't support 1+0 (which is usually for cost reasons). Performance will be equivalent in both setups so there's no reason not to use 1+0 unless the controller lacks support.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • oralpain's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI "Blood Iron" P35-T2RL
      • CPU:
      • Intel Pentium E2140 @ 400x8 (3.2GHz), 1.375v
      • Memory:
      • Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 CL4 @ 500MHz (DDR 1000), 4-4-4-12-T2, 2.3v
      • Storage:
      • 2x Seagate ST3250410AS
      • Graphics card(s):
      • NVIDIA 8800GTS (G92) 512 @ 783MHz core, 1836MHz shader, 1053Mhz memory, stock cooling 70% fan speed
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic SS-500GB
      • Case:
      • Antec P182, with some small modifications
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS VW222U
      • Internet:
      • Time Warner "Road Runner" Cable - 16 megabit downstream, 1 megabit upstream
    Speed is identical. 1+0 is a bit more redundant and easier to rebuild.

  16. #16
    Throbbing Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotlandshire
    Posts
    626
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked
    9 times in 8 posts
    • 8bit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z170A-G43 PLUS
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-6700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x Kingston HyperX Fury Black (8GB)
      • Storage:
      • 1x Crucial MX100 512GB, 1x Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB (WD1001FALS)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire AMD R9 390 Nitro
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM650x
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide Air 540
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 29UM67 29", 21:9, 2560x1080
      • Internet:
      • PlusNet Fibre
    OMFG what have i done i've created a monster...

    erm right i was thinking raid5 would give the best performance but the PCI bus caps what it will give me at a point where it's not worth the extra over using even RAID0 on the onboard Promise RAID controller on my Asus A8V mobo is that right?

    I ordered a 74Gb Raptor today, i'll price a single 15krpm drive if i can find a SATA one at that price, is that possible and if so who makes a 15k SATA unit? will that not require SATA300 to work at optimum rates?


    "shiro" - Windows 10 Home x64 :: Intel i7-6700K :: Corsair Hydro H90 :: MSI Z170A-G43 Plus :: 2x 8GB Kingston HyperX :: Sapphire R9 390 Nitro :: Crucial MX100 (512GB) :: WD Caviar Black (1TB) :: Lite-On BD-ROM :: Corsair Carbide Air 540 (white) :: LG 29UM67 21:9 2560x1080 :: Logitech G5 :: Func KB-460 ::

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 14-11-2011, 09:17 AM
  2. WD Raptor SATA power connector
    By Taz in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-05-2005, 11:56 AM
  3. Highpoint 1640 SATA RAID5 controller
    By skattrd in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-03-2005, 07:45 PM
  4. Possible SATA drive?
    By Nick in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 22-03-2004, 03:51 PM
  5. Samsung SATA drives: True SATA?
    By eldren in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 23-12-2003, 02:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •