Printable View
i responded mockingly? look whos responding mockinglyQuote:
Originally Posted by Serra
i took it as excuses: you only got 2 drives, cpu clock too high.. wtf!
superior hardware? qx6700 @ 3.6? u sure ur on the right forum? thats like garbage here now..
objective test? the raid0 results ive posted are objective for crying out loud.. i certainly didnt makeem up subjectively!!!
raid1 seek time you want? i got a couple of free raptors.. will post hdtach/hdtune on that
If a QX6700 @ 3.6 is garbage here, I might as well head over to Toms where I belong with my low clocking, high-heat Q6600 :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
I wasn't trying to imply that *your* test wasn't objective - I was trying to say that I thought it was an objective test that you could perform, seeing as I lack the ability to test against your results.
I would appreciate posting those. Would it be possible to test with cache enabled and disabled too, by any chance? Just to see what level they effect the results to?
Edit: I'll tell you what. I'll check how much room I have left on my external backup drive (a mere 80GB thing) and see if it would be possible to put drive images of both my raptors on it. The Linux partition's small, but I'm not sure how compressible VM files are on my Windows one so we'll have to see. *If* I have the space I'll bring out an old TX2300 (the only software-driven add-on card I have left) and test them out again in a secondary PC. I believe it's a PCI card though, so we'll probably see some bottlenecking at ~120MB/s... but that's about the best I can do. Actually, I may be able to do some onboard testing with my P5K Deluxe too, just as a baseline reference.
if you are just farting around with a 2x raid0 i dont think most would bother with an add on raid card.
farting around with 4-8 drives is something else.
so, a 3 disk raid0 will work ok with onboard? ie it will show some benefit over 2xraid0 onboard will it not?
also, will onboard raid0 crap out at 4 disks?
Napalm the gentleman has acted accordingly as we all should so please provide a little courtesy sirQuote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
ICH8/9R are identical in terms of SATA RAID, and its by far the best software RAID solution available. still.... between 3 and 4 drives its performance degrades significantly. max performance you'll see with software RAID is going to be 3 drives. some people will say you can see gains with 4 drives but in my experience i have not. 3x raptors in RAID0 on pretty much any raid controller are gonig to fly, with an areca or 3ware you'll see large performance gains though, and with 4+ drives they will leave any software controller in the dust.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
@Serra
I was originally responding to your headline argument in bold about hardware !> onboard for RAID0 or RAID1, which you then qualified later as meaning hardware-only, not software-controlled RAID cards. So some of your rebuttals are misplaced by assuming I was talking about hardware-only RAID, which I wasn't. For my own purposes, because I only need a RAID1 and a small RAID0, I am indeed looking at the cheap 4-port 1430SA from Adaptec right now. But if I wanted to add a RAID card with more than 4 ports for future expandability, then such a simple software-controlled card wouldn't be an option, I think.
The implication here (for any n00b reading) is that the hardware is limited where the software isn't, somehow. Clearly that's nonsense, as the hardware is being controlled by firmware on-card containing the seek algorithms that in the software-controlled card are part of the Windows driver instead. So there is a small if negligible CPU offload, and card firmware is upgradeable in just the same way as the driver, allowing new and better algorithms to be added. I'd be extremely surprised if your elevator algorithm was not therefore implemented in a much more expensive card. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Serra
At the same time, with 4+ drives, your odds of experiencing a failure get quite high, and that alone makes it worth getting a controller which can handle RAID-5/6 appropriately.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] itznfb
Yes, I had been talking about pure hardware solutions earlier, sorry for any confusion there. As far as it goes, I'm not saying that hardware cards *couldn't* do it - but, for unknown reasons, they don't seem to implement all the advantages that they have open to them (keeping in mind we're only talking about RAID-1, there is nothing you can do for RAID-0).Quote:
The implication here (for any n00b reading) is that the hardware is limited where the software isn't, somehow. Clearly that's nonsense, as the hardware is being controlled by firmware on-card containing the seek algorithms that in the software-controlled card are part of the Windows driver instead. So there is a small if negligible CPU offload, and card firmware is upgradeable in just the same way as the driver, allowing new and better algorithms to be added. I'd be extremely surprised if your elevator algorithm was not therefore implemented in a much more expensive card. :shrug:
This topic died out a long time ago here, but iirc we had decided that it was based on usage models. For example, while one model may be best for single users with only a few tasks going at the same time, it may not be best for environments with hundreds of users making different requests. While some optimizations could surely be added... they just aren't. With software-based controllers on the other hand, they pretty much have to be for just a few requests at a time just by the market they're in, and so can operate differently.
well... high end cards don't use this algorithm because they use better, more efficient ones. saying that a crappy 70$ software raid card is better in any way shape or form than high end hardware raid cards is just ridiculous. its hard to debate with someone who says something like this just because they're obviously under some false delusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB
I JUST recently went through that same ordeal between my Raptors(raid 0) and an abit quad GT p965 mobo and my asus maximus formula. On the quad GT, I was NOT able to overclock while I had a raid going. It would lead to all sorts of issues and blue screens and freezes. After multiple RMA's to the board AND the hard drives, I gave in and bought the maximus. A few months go by and then WHAM i get the dreaded iastor errors in my system log. I try every trick on the internet to get them to play right. Could NEVER figure it out after months of reformats and installs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serra
I finally had enough and I purchased 2 seagate 250gb drives. No problems whatsoever since. So I have TONS of proof and if you jsut do a google search for IASTOR errors LOTS of issues will come up. Intel even came out and acknowledged there was a problem, but everyone played the blame game and no one owned up and fixed the issues. So other than the COUNTLESS postings on sites such as this and asus' own forums, what proof do you need? I'm happy to provide whatever I can. I'll try to get a screen shot the next time my system freezes with my raptors :p:
EDIT: I have a link for you straight from intel about the problem that their solution DID NOT fix.
http://www.intel.com/support/chipset.../cs-025783.htm
And another from XS http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=163183
i believe the point was if you are using raid0/1 for 2/3 disks that a software raid card from promise(highpoint) would provide comparable performance to a hardware raid card ($300-500)Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] itznfb
and i have found that true with a $30 Bytec(sil3125r) esata pcix1 card for most intents and purposes
you want a valid debate then explain what algorithms are being used by hardware raid0/1?
u must be the party pooper :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftex
hes passionate about nonraid im passionate about raid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serra
2x 74GB raptors @ raid1 on the hpt rocket 3510
write back
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6...itebackal5.jpg
none
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2...id1noneka2.jpg
write back
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6...raid1wbke6.jpg
none
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/4...id1nonefn0.jpg
To the world in general: As to the people who don't believe my statements, are there any responses yet to VirtualRain's review? If you see any flaws in it which I may have missed, I would like to know. It's one of the primary reviews that I do base my opinion on (as well as my own experiences), and I think this is a good place to discuss it.
@Napalm: Can you post results of just the single drives on the Areca as well, for comparison please? With luck I should be able to do a couple quick software tests tomorrow.
Oh come on! I can guarantee you it is much easier to write a software algorithm than it is to make one for a firmware release. "high end cards use better, more efficient ones" indeed! Do you think that any of these companies hold patents on the algorithms or something? In fact, I would be willing to bet money that none of the companies that produce the high-end cards have ever made any of the algorithms themselves, rather taking them from research institutions and whatnot. They may have tweaked them for their own hardware compatibility, but don't believe that just because they sell the hardware they were clever enough to figure out the best ways to make it work.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] itznfb
You didn't believe in the elevator algorithm when I told you about it and how it's included as standard in even the cheapest software cards, yet *I'm* the one who is just blindly following marketing? You better start naming some algorithms or commands you can pull off with your chip that my software either:
- Can't do,
- Can't do in a timely manner, or;
- Requires too many CPU resources to pull off
Keeping in mind we are talking about RAID-0 (for which there are no optimizations) and RAID-1 (for which there are, the only two ones of note being the elevator seek - which I don't believe an Areca can do - or shortest seek first - which I also don't believe they do [though I'm not 100%]).
ok, first of all these companies aren't writing RAID algorithms. i'm losing faith in the fact that you have any idea what you're talking about at all. i never said i didn't believe in the elevator algorithm. i said i believed it was a promise tech term that referred to a proprietary data handling scheme. these companies don't write algorithms, they write software/firmware that executes them. hardware raid cards execute a raid algorithm on their own processor, software/onboard raid cards execute them via CPU. hence the heavy resource utilization on the system. saying that a hardware card can't execute these algorithms just exemplifies the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. if they aren't capable of executing a raid algorithm then they aren't capable of raid period. most hardware raid cards use a shortest seek first which is a simpler higher performance algorithm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serra
your arguments are getting a little ridiculous :shakes:
i am using onboard raid right now and have no problems. been over a year and never had my raid fail. id say there are alot of myths and legends and BS associated with raid. look at the latest news section and how it leaves out various controllers. it doesnt even compare onboard or software raid or anything. id really like to see a legitimate test. until then seems to me its alot of speculatign and not much proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] itznfb
you are adamant that Raid0 is using some form of algorithm?
I prefer reasonable to ridiculous, but thats a personal preference,
As well I would like to develop a better understanding and therefore resort to reading and writing within these forums,
If I or anyone else has offended you by our ignorance. I sincerely hope that you can accept my humble apologies,
Please take time and explain to me what is required to do Raid0 whether it be software or hardware Raid?
As a reference 2 to 3 disks only to be fair, because we do not want the issue of scaling to be a determining factor,
Thanks in advance
Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
well noted, i love passion to (prefer it with a hot young chick - but i'll keep that a secret)
p.s.
I refer to Serra as a value investor - you may not agree with his style but he sure knows how to get a bang for his buck
that card has low cpu usage - better then my adaptecQuote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
this is the newer generation of cards from hpt - how long have you had it? and what do you feel are its strong points?
well takenQuote:
Originally Posted by swiftex
300$ controller is performance bang for my buck - not a bad investment vs 1200$ i paid for the qx6700 which im giving away
since about two months ago..Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftex
800mhz iop341/256MB ddr2 cache and most importantly no compability issues on the mobos/hdd ive tested it on
1x raptor on the areca 1210Quote:
Originally Posted by Serra
enabled
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1...enabledfk9.jpg
disabled
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/585...isabledqr9.jpg
enabled
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3...enabledxu9.jpg
disabled
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/2...isabledhb2.jpg
well guys i gotta go get passionate about/for/to my woman.. :D
Losing so many Raptors in a row, I'm just not a expensive storage guy. By expensive I mean anything more than necessary for general use.
But I can definitely vouch for onboards killing HDD, I've just had 2 die in a row, whilst tested perfect by diagnostic utility 8-9 hours before, no overheating, perfect PSU outputs, no dropping or movement - only thing I did to trigger it is attach a PATA along with with SATA, P35 chipset. Straight on boot and ever since, the drive is not picked up in BIOS on 5 systems and just keeps making recycling clunk sounds with ROM unknown.
Lost a full drive of vital info 20 minutes before scheduled backup, really not happy. So I connect another new one just to check my prediction that its SATA and PATA together which causes it.... Yeah after 6 more hours, first try with both of them and the new HDD is again dead! :mad:
Very strange why or how its happening, I'm not even running overclocked.
Only way I can justify those add-ons is professional use and for that we use RAID level-5EE rather RAID level-0/1 and other setups, and only with 4-16 drives.
stay with us.... he's arguing with about about RAID1 "algorithms" that's what i responded to. if you're not going to pay attention then stfu. i knew one of you without an argument in this matter were going to try and pull this out as me referring to raid 0. i could have quoted you before you said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftex
how sincere. people that are here to learn don't come in here and spout off factless dribble and then argue with everyone that knows they are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftex
you too, are ridiculous
lol. you're kidding right? oh my leet software raid is so much more hax! but don't compare it to anything that is better! cuz then it might look like what it really is.. a pile of worthless crapQuote:
Originally Posted by swiftex
Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] itznfb
well said, I find that conforting
lol, what is your purpose of trying to defend software RAID? seriously. yes, it has its place in the world. is it better than any decent hardware based RAID card... no. absolutely not. so why say that it is?Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftex
1, hardware cards are faster
2, hardware cards are more reliable
3, hardware cards are more expandable
4, hardware cards scale with its only limit being the bus its attached to
software RAID solutions have 1 benefit and 1 benefit only. cost.
conforting? is that a typo? or did you just start making up words to go along with your made up argument?
comforting was the word, slip of the finger - you know it does point up as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] itznfb
nonetheless,
QUOTE = ""yes, it has its place in the world""
Thank you very much - point acknowledged
nothing more - nothing less