which RAID setup for work PC

Hello all,

my work are done mostly from work and i used to use my notebook for that, till i decided lately to build a nice PC and use it for Work and some gaming during my free time

Since my budget will be mostly spent on the cpu + mobi + vga, i am going to use a bunch of HDD i already own, they are 4 x 500GB Blue WD

i am planning to use the 3 x Blue 500GB HDD in a RAID array for the OS ( windows 7 or XP 32bit ) + the work software and documents or anything else i care about, which all of them won't exceed 150GB in total by any mean
the remaining 1 x Blue 500GB i will use it for installing games and downloads folder, the kind of data that i don't care about them very much.

i was going to buy a SB based system with the Asus P67 Sabertooth mobo but after reading about the SATA issue in SB based mobo, i am not sure what to do, whether to buy a SB system or buy an AMD system, then an idea came up to my mind, why not buy a RAID card, to be able to move the HDD RAID setup to any mobo , in case something went wrong in the mobo , and also this will let me enjoy the perfromance of the SB and that cause i can't wait till Q2 for a B3 mobo, and here in Egypt we are not sure if they will accept replcaing the B2 mobos with B3 or not

So is the Area 1210 card is a good solution along with a RAID5 on the 3 HDD, or there is something better i can do, i can buy 2 more 500GB hard but the area card seems to have only 4 sata ports, or there is a better controller i the same range price of the area ( less than 300$ ) or shall i look for RAID0+1


Sorry for the long thread and thanks in advance for your help

dont buy Areca 1210 - too old & over-priced imo

what RAID level are u planning on using for the 3x blues?

I was going to recommend a 9211 which goes for $180 last time i checked but seems it uses up alot of resources and Cant raid certain raids IIRC, I'd recommend the 9240 hands down as it lets you change stripe size and performs just under the 9260.. Heres some benches..
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...9536&Itemid=47

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

dont buy Areca 1210 - too old & over-priced imo

what RAID level are u planning on using for the 3x blues?

---

i was thinking about RAID5, since it give some performance boast and a good recovery level
i was thinking about RAID0+1 but this will mean that the extra fifth hard to be used for downloads and gaming will be using the onboard SATA port on the mobo , so i am forced to use port 0 or port 1 or the marvel chipset, is this ok ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

I was going to recommend a 9211 which goes for $180 last time i checked but seems it uses up alot of resources and Cant raid certain raids IIRC, I'd recommend the 9240 hands down as it lets you change stripe size and performs just under the 9260.. Heres some benches..
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...9536&Itemid=47

---

the 9240-4i seems a very good product, and its price is much better than 1210 beside it support raid 10 :clap:

will look more for reviews about this card and its compatibility with the new Intel P67 mobos

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

i was thinking about RAID5, since it give some performance boast and a good recovery level
i was thinking about RAID0+1 but this will mean that the extra fifth hard to be used for downloads and gaming will be using the onboard SATA port on the mobo , so i am forced to use port 0 or port 1 or the marvel chipset, is this ok ?



the 9240-4i seems a very good product, and its price is much better than 1210 beside it support raid 10 :clap:

will look more for reviews about this card and its compatibility with the new Intel P67 mobos

thanks

---

It's a awesome card.. Im pretty sure you can purchase the fastpath key also which helps latency and increases IOPS :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

It's a awesome card.. Im pretty sure you can purchase the fastpath key also which helps latency and increases IOPS :up:

---

apparently fastpath key only gives noticable performance boosts with 4+ SSDs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

i was thinking about RAID5, since it give some performance boast and a good recovery level
i was thinking about RAID0+1 but this will mean that the extra fifth hard to be used for downloads and gaming will be using the onboard SATA port on the mobo , so i am forced to use port 0 or port 1 or the marvel chipset, is this ok ?



the 9240-4i seems a very good product, and its price is much better than 1210 beside it support raid 10 :clap:

will look more for reviews about this card and its compatibility with the new Intel P67 mobos

thanks

---

yeah the 9240-4i has better XOR.. but no cache :-/

with RAID 0+1 u need a min of 4 HDDs, so with current broken chipset p67 mobos, this would force u to use the broken SATA ports - not good

if u dont do RAID5, dont get a controller - RAID 0, 1, & 0+1 are simple enough for Intel onboard (tho u'll have to wait for the fixed revision chipset mobos)

i just found a card named Highpoint RocketRAID 2720, which they claim it has performance higher by 95% than LSI

its price is good and it has 8 ports

and yes i am thinking about RAID5 or even Raid10 nothing else for a good performance boast while using the HDD not a SSD and still has a good recovery ability

regarding the Intel SB issue, can i use the Sta port from the Marvel chipset for the extra HDD. this won't affect the Intel one , will it ?

Good to see you're on here asking questions, given your location!

I would honestly look for something NOT P67 based, and look at using maybe just onboard. Something like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131658
Supports 6Gbps ports AND has RAID support for 0/1/5/10. Granted it's a "gaming" board, but honestly it's whatever what work you decide to do with it.

thanks for your suggestion

But, Sandy Bridge has better performance than the previous generation beside i concluded from my readings that software Raid5 and Raid10 is not a good solution at all, also using the Card, i can change the motherboard and still use the RAID array on a new one without loosing data

That board is a hardware RAID, but your other reasons are logical.

i didn't know that

thanks for the info

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WangChung

That board is a hardware RAID, but your other reasons are logical.

---

completely utterly incorrect :down::shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

i just found a card named Highpoint RocketRAID 2720, which they claim it has performance higher by 95% than LSI

its price is good and it has 8 ports

and yes i am thinking about RAID5 or even Raid10 nothing else for a good performance boast while using the HDD not a SSD and still has a good recovery ability

regarding the Intel SB issue, can i use the Sta port from the Marvel chipset for the extra HDD. this won't affect the Intel one , will it ?

---

I'd stay away from Highpoint :yepp:

never thought buying a RAID card would be that hard

what is your suggestion tiro_uspsss ?
what about raidCard for SATA only ??? since there is now way i will use SAS drives in this machine , any good solution

my plans are to use RAID 5 or RAID10 if possible on a 4 HDD setup, no plans for SSD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

never thought buying a RAID card would be that hard

what is your suggestion tiro_uspsss ?
what about raidCard for SATA only ??? since there is now way i will use SAS drives in this machine , any good solution

my plans are to use RAID 5 or RAID10 if possible on a 4 HDD setup, no plans for SSD

---

stick to that LSI mentioned earlier - its good balance $/performance/capabilities :yepp: :up:

won't the no cache issue be a bad idea with a Raid made using HDD not SSD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

won't the no cache issue be a bad idea with a Raid made using HDD not SSD

---

the no cache may affect RAID5 performance.. dunno about 01/10.. either way, the onboard intel doesnt have cache either.. if u want cache, u'll need to spend more.. whats ur budget?

my budget limited to 300$

if no cache affect RAID5 then it might also do so to RAID10, u think the performance difference between the LSI card and the intel justify the extra cost paid for the LSI ?? i am looking for reviews but can't find any good ones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

my budget limited to 300$

if no cache affect RAID5 then it might also do so to RAID10, u think the performance difference between the LSI card and the intel justify the extra cost paid for the LSI ?? i am looking for reviews but can't find any good ones

---

I dont know if there will be a performance diff LSI vs Intel @ RAID 10
but RAID5, the LSI will own the intel big time :fact:

here is a possible solution:

go to ebay for PERC5i or PERC6i

both cards do the RAID level(s) u want.
the PERC6i even does RAID6
both cards are a lil old, but will still be far better than onboard intel in RAID5 (in fact, the PERC5i has same XOR as the areca 1210)
both cards have cache - the 6i has 256MB, the 5i has a upgradable RAM DIMM, so u can choose between 256 or 512MB cache! :)
& both cards are under USD$200 on ebay :) :up:

here is a good thread on 5i/6i (with benchmarks):

http://www.overclock.net/raid-contro...card-tips.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

completely utterly incorrect :down::shakes:

---

Explain...? (Preferably w/o the snarky emoticons)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WangChung

Explain...? (Preferably w/o the snarky emoticons)

---

Intel ICH10R =! true hardware RAID :rolleyes:

it's common it's knowledge :up:

No cache isnt a big loss, Still will yield way better performance over intel raid setup wether it be hardware or software raid.. You can go for the 9211 but i believe doesnt support raid 10 or raid 5, cant quite remember tbh.. 9240 would be your best bet with a FP key.. @ tiro im quite sure it increases IOPS mate, seen a thread a while back from one of the ssd gurus..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

No cache isnt a big loss, Still will yield way better performance over intel raid setup wether it be hardware or software raid.. You can go for the 9211 but i believe doesnt support raid 10 or raid 5, cant quite remember tbh.. 9240 would be your best bet with a FP key.. @ tiro im quite sure it increases IOPS mate, seen a thread a while back from one of the ssd gurus..

---

yep, agree - & one of those ssd gurus also said it's only really needed / useful with 4 or more ssds :up:

well if thats the case, add 1 more blue then u have 4 :D

You guys are recommending some pricey options for a simple HDD Raid. This thread makes sense if he was looking for a raid card for some C300s or something, but it makes no sense for HDDs. There will basically be zero differences between cheapo hardware options and something high end like 9260 with FP key because 3 HDDs will not stress anything on either setup. The differences of 0.1ms in access times hardly matter when we are talking about the 10ms HDDs have and any Raid card can do the <300MB/s his HDDs are capable of.

Hell, I would stay with onboard for a simple HDD raid, but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

Intel ICH10R =! true hardware RAID :rolleyes:

it's common it's knowledge :up:

---

Guess w/o the "snarky emoticons" was inconceivable... Since you've neither explained nor provided proof, your argument is still null. And I've searched, I see no mention that the ICH10R is software RAID. Want to try again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WangChung

Guess w/o the "snarky emoticons" was inconceivable... Since you've neither explained nor provided proof, your argument is still null. And I've searched, I see no mention that the ICH10R is software RAID. Want to try again?

---

so lemme get this straight, u dunno the difference, but provide an answer? real smart.. reeeeal smart... you are supposed to do it in this order: LEARN then SHARE - not the other way around, cause what ends up happening is u share DISinformation

on a true hardware RAID card, the XOR takes care of parity calculations, so cpu cycles are freed up

this is not so with ICH10R, as the CPU does everything

comprendae?

oh & these go out to u (build a bridge):

:) :( :D :confused: ;) :p: :rolleyes: :cool: :mad: :eek: :rofl: :yepp: :ROTF: :clap: :down: :welcome: :shocked: :shrug: :yawn: :lol: :rotf: :doh: :help: :hehe: :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

You guys are recommending some pricey options for a simple HDD Raid. This thread makes sense if he was looking for a raid card for some C300s or something, but it makes no sense for HDDs. There will basically be zero differences between cheapo hardware options and something high end like 9260 with FP key because 3 HDDs will not stress anything on either setup. The differences of 0.1ms in access times hardly matter when we are talking about the 10ms HDDs have and any Raid card can do the <300MB/s his HDDs are capable of.

Hell, I would stay with onboard for a simple HDD raid, but that's just me.

---

even for RAID5? :confused:

thats why I've been saying 'no' to fp key :rolleyes:

well he wanted a raid card, so i suggested the best price/performance raid card in that price range...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

well he wanted a raid card, so i suggested the best price/performance raid card in that price range...

---

I agree, thats why I still say get a true hardware RAID card if he's doing RAID5 :up:

:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WangChung

Guess w/o the "snarky emoticons" was inconceivable... Since you've neither explained nor provided proof, your argument is still null. And I've searched, I see no mention that the ICH10R is software RAID. Want to try again?

---

why the hate?
google for it... there is plenty of info on it.

any type of raid built into the motherboard is considered sofware raid.
it also uses your cpu.
hardware raid uses a separate piece of hardware, a raid controller, with its own cpu.

you can kind of think of it as integrated graphics vs a dedicated graphics cared.
integrated is not too fast, with some motherboards it accesses your system ram. dedicated is much faster, has its own ram.

I ran Raid 5 with 4 raptors for about a year on ICH9 and I had no problem... Performance was as it was to be expected.

I am not attacking anyone, I just don't see the point for HDDs. If the OP feels strongly about the Sandy Bridge Sata port scares, then I would get some very cheap ($100) RAID card and call it a day. The performance of a RAID card is not something that you need to take very seriously for only 3 HDDs because there won't be much difference in either case.

edit: for ex. look at this cheapo highpoint card go:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816115050
$80

Capable of 300+mb/s in Raid 5...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...nt,2101-9.html

All the OP needs.

edit2: Buy a cheap raid card for $100 and use the other $200 on an SSD! You would be infinitely better off than with a $300 Raid card for your HDDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

I ran Raid 5 with 4 raptors for about a year on ICH9 and I had no problem... Performance was as it was to be expected.

I am not attacking anyone, I just don't see the point for HDDs. If the OP feels strongly about the Sandy Bridge Sata port scares, then I would get some very cheap ($100) RAID card and call it a day. The performance of a RAID card is not something that you need to take very seriously for only 3 HDDs because there won't be much difference in either case.

edit: for ex. look at this cheapo highpoint card go:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816115050
$80

Capable of 300+mb/s in Raid 5...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...nt,2101-9.html

All the OP needs.

---

RAID5... PERC5i vs ICH9R, 3x 1st gen Raptors:

Quote:

---

Generalized Results
RAID5 write speeds went from 55MB/s to 121MB/s.
RAID5 read speeds remain about the same but much more consistent.

RAID0 write speeds went from 165MB/s to 180MB/s but less consistent.
RAID 0 read speed went from 162MB/s to 182MB/s and MUCH more consistent.

CPU usage was greatly reduced and access time generally only slightly improved.

---

from here:

http://www.overclock.net/raid-contro...card-tips.html

:welcome:

Yes, that is exactly what would happen on ICH. Read speeds would be pretty much the max they can be and writes will be approximately equal to the writes of a single drive. The performance can be near maxed out with a cheap raidcard (like the highpoint I linked). There would not be much difference between cheap hard raid and expensive hard raid for 3 HDDs. An SSD for that extra $200 would bring a lot more joy.

Just my 2c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

here is a possible solution:

go to ebay for PERC5i or PERC6i

both cards do the RAID level(s) u want.
the PERC6i even does RAID6
both cards are a lil old, but will still be far better than onboard intel in RAID5 (in fact, the PERC5i has same XOR as the areca 1210)
both cards have cache - the 6i has 256MB, the 5i has a upgradable RAM DIMM, so u can choose between 256 or 512MB cache! :)
& both cards are under USD$200 on ebay :) :up:

---

well unfortunately ebay is not possible for me since i am from Egypt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

No cache isnt a big loss, Still will yield way better performance over intel raid setup wether it be hardware or software raid.. You can go for the 9211 but i believe doesnt support raid 10 or raid 5, cant quite remember tbh.. 9240 would be your best bet with a FP key.. @ tiro im quite sure it increases IOPS mate, seen a thread a while back from one of the ssd gurus..

---

seems the 9240 will be the best option, and i can buy this FP key in case i will upgrade to SSD in the future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

You guys are recommending some pricey options for a simple HDD Raid. This thread makes sense if he was looking for a raid card for some C300s or something, but it makes no sense for HDDs. There will basically be zero differences between cheapo hardware options and something high end like 9260 with FP key because 3 HDDs will not stress anything on either setup. The differences of 0.1ms in access times hardly matter when we are talking about the 10ms HDDs have and any Raid card can do the <300MB/s his HDDs are capable of.

Hell, I would stay with onboard for a simple HDD raid, but that's just me.

---

well , i will explain why i need a raid card, i am forced to build a PC now and i can't think for a person who won't buy a Sandy bridge based system, i am located in Egypt so have the board replaced after the B3 chipset r out is not a certain thing and also i want a raid setup that in case the mobo dies it will still work n another system since this raid setup will contain my OS and my work program and files

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

well unfortunately ebay is not possible for me since i am from Egypt




seems the 9240 will be the best option, and i can buy this FP key in case i will upgrade to SSD in the future




well , i will explain why i need a raid card, i am forced to build a PC now and i can't think for a person who won't buy a Sandy bridge based system, i am located in Egypt so have the board replaced after the B3 chipset r out is not a certain thing and also i want a raid setup that in case the mobo dies it will still work n another system since this raid setup will contain my OS and my work program and files

---

which 9240 are u going to get - 4i or 8i? :)

i just found a LSI 9260 for 308$ on amazon, i think this is a good deal right ??

http://www.amazon.com/SAS9260-4I-Rai...6804398&sr=8-2

i will be buying from amazon since it accept my International CC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

i just found a LSI 9260 for 308$ on amazon, i think this is a good deal right ??

http://www.amazon.com/SAS9260-4I-Rai...6804398&sr=8-2

i will be buying from amazon since it accept my International CC

---

yeah not bad.. does more RAID levels.. has cache.. how many ports do u need/want - 4 or 8?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

which 9240 are u going to get - 4i or 8i? :)

---

mostly the 4i, does it differ in performance >?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

mostly the 4i, does it differ in performance >?

---

Nope not at all, just more ports.. IIRC its like this
4i- 1 fan out and connectors= 4 drives
8i= 2 fan out and connectors=8 drives :up:

i think i am going to order the 9260-4i


Thanks all for the support

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripken204

why the hate?
google for it... there is plenty of info on it.

any type of raid built into the motherboard is considered sofware raid.
it also uses your cpu.
hardware raid uses a separate piece of hardware, a raid controller, with its own cpu.

you can kind of think of it as integrated graphics vs a dedicated graphics cared.
integrated is not too fast, with some motherboards it accesses your system ram. dedicated is much faster, has its own ram.

---

No hate here. I made a statement, the poster made a very generalized argument that I was 100% wrong. I asked for evidence backing his claim, to which he has still not provided and sidestepped by making a strawman argument against my alleged lack of general knowledge.

It's not my burden to back my statement when he's the one making the counter claim. I asked him to prove it, he didn't or won't. I appreciate knowledge when it's provided, and I'm not looking to be spoon fed.
I can appreciate being wrong, but back it up with fact of HOW I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WangChung

I can appreciate being wrong, but back it up with fact of HOW I'm wrong.

---

They have, already.

They see me trolling they hatin!

believe me i dont want to get involved in this one bit. but for the sake of sharing knowledge i will post this. please dont drag me into any fistfights LOL

Quote:

---

Software RAID implementations are now provided by many operating systems.

---

^^^you boot into the OS before the array is usable. that is how you know you are using soft raid.

Quote:

---

Hardware RAID controllers use different, proprietary disk layouts, so it is not usually possible to span controllers from different manufacturers. They do not require processor resources, the BIOS can boot from them, and tighter integration with the device driver may offer better error handling.

---

^^^^^must have dedicated processor

Quote:

---

These controllers are described by their manufacturers as RAID controllers, and it is rarely made clear to purchasers that the burden of RAID processing is borne by the host computer's central processing unit, not the RAID controller itself, thus introducing the aforementioned CPU overhead from which hardware controllers don't suffer. Firmware controllers often can only use certain types of hard drives in their RAID arrays (e.g. SATA for Intel Matrix RAID), as there is neither SCSI nor PATA support in modern Intel ICH southbridges; however, motherboard makers implement RAID controllers outside of the southbridge on some motherboards. Before their introduction, a "RAID controller" implied that the controller did the processing, and the new type has become known by some as "fake RAID" even though the RAID itself is implemented correctly

---

^^^FIRMWARE/DRIVER raid is actually the correct term for onboard raid. in nerd circles, referred to as "fake raid"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Software-based_RAID

And for the record, i agree with One Hertz totally. use your onboard raid solution, and use the savings to buy an SSD.

thanks for the clarification

After reading this post ==> RAID Controller & HD question

and knowing tht we have only WD hdd here in Egypt

i can't decide what to do now

my plans was to get the 9260 and use a 4 x 500GB Blue WD in Raid10 (not 0+1), but now knowing that Cavier is a very bad idea for RAID. i don't know what to do

Buy 2 x Intel x25-m 80GB or Vertex 2 80GB and use them in Raid 1 using the Marvel Sata ports on the mobo , any other thoughts ?

Quote:

---

Buy 2 x Intel x25-m 80GB

---

or C300 would be a good choice as well. the intels are the gold standard for reliability, but the C300 will outperform, and is also gaining a good reputation for reliability. jsut not as time-tested as the intels. stay away from the SandForce drives for a raid 1 setup. you will be doing tons of writes, and its rated write speeds are only with compressed data. not sure how that would pan out in a raid 1....

so raid 1 on marvel sata port is a good choice , isn't it ?

and do you think the C300 64GB will be enough for a windows 7 + around 5 GB of work files ??

or shall i get the 128GB and do a daily or weekly backup from the SSD to a normal HDD ?? i guess this is much cheaper and easier beside i will benefit from trim

I would get a 80-120GB SSD and use a single large 1-2TB HD for everything else. With SSD's there is zero reason to use HDDs as your main OS drive even in raid. They feel so slow compared to a trim supported SSD

speed is not my main concern, data availability is, that is why i wanted a raid card with 4 HDD, then now thinking about 1 SSD card, and daily backup to a HDD card, the backup process will be mostly reading from SSD not writing on it so ti won't affect its lifespan much , right ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFrOuT

speed is not my main concern, data availability is, that is why i wanted a raid card with 4 HDD, then now thinking about 1 SSD card, and daily backup to a HDD card, the backup process will be mostly reading from SSD not writing on it so ti won't affect its lifespan much , right ?

---

Correct. then I would raid 1 with just 2 drives, plus backups

64gb should be more then enough for a OS, single drive for backup/data ..

guys,

i found the two listed below here in egypt, any of them ca work fine in a raid array ??

Seagate 7200.12 1TB
Samsung Sp F HD754JJ 750GB

Yes sarf your absoulately fine, only hdd's i know of which have raid issues are the WD blacks and the WD greens..

Thank you very much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vengance_01

Correct. then I would raid 1 with just 2 drives, plus backups

---

Agreed.

RAID 1 vs RAID 5 will all give you the reliability you are after. Since speed isn't a concern for you then RAID 10 is out of the question since you should not wish to spend the money on twice as many disks. It's generally accepted that RAID 5 will give you better read performance, while RAID 1 is typically better for writes. What I like about RAID 5 is that it has built in load balancing and can get quite fast with more than 3 drives. What I like about RAID 1 is that it is a somewhat more simple setup, and therefore a little easier to replace/identify a bad disk. :up:

Meh I really don't like Raid 5. with 4 drives I guess one could fail and he would be okay, but I still think a 120GB Intel G2 with a Raid 1 setup with 1 or 2 TB HDs plus a third 2TB drive for backups. :up:

This might be old news, but I've been running three WD 1.5TB Blacks in RAID5 off the Intel controller for about 3 months now and haven't had any issues. I've been very happy with the performance. Running with a P6X58D, i7 930, 12GB of Corsair, intel 160gb etc. If you're just after mass storage and speed isn't a huge deal then I think the on-board controller is just fine.