NO, and that's why some of us wish to have drives that work like they are supposed to on it, and not add another piece of hardware just for Raid0, to compensate for bad products:)
Printable View
so the only disadvantage with intel raid is no cache and uses cpu for raid processing?
There is cache on the Intel RAID also. It just uses the System RAM instead of the card RAM. This is actually faster cache as no PCI-e device can transfer to memory faster than a memory copy can :D (and if the driver can do some MDL optimizations, there is no need for a copy even)
CPU usage is no concern really today. The reliability of integrated solutions isn't noteworthy, though I have never had problems with them, several members have reported dropped arrays.
Areca is worse for me though in every regard except number of ports :(
I've been using R0 via the ICHxR controllers for many years with 2-3 HDDs/SSDs and NEVER had a single drop, ever. Probably 10-15 different mobos, multiple systems, multiple different drives (mostly Raptors, VRaptors and SSDs.
ICH has been 100% reliable for me.
For 4 x X25-E 64G in Raid 0, I suppose we need a dedicated raid card?
If I were building a system _today_ I would use 3-4 x25-e's on ich10. Unless you have some specific need for higher sequentials the ich10r is a beast.
The 9260+key is great but for most everything other than a few niche cases (and synthetic benchmarks) the ich10r+some intel slcs will give you an extreme high end storage subsystem.
The 1880 may change things, however what info has leaked out isn't mind blowing.
If you're like me you want all your apps to open instantly, and they will, an increased as ssd score won't open anything any faster. :)
+1 with Mr mbreslin - all true