which RAID setup for work PC

[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.

[WangChung]

Intel ICH10R =! true hardware RAID

it's common it's knowledge

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?

[tiro_uspsss]

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):

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?

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

[Johnny87au]

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

[tiro_uspsss]

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

[ripken204]

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.

[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.

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.

[tiro_uspsss]

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:

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

[One_Hertz]

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.

[Okda]

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

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

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

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

[tiro_uspsss]

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?

[Okda]

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

[tiro_uspsss]

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?

[Okda]

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

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

[Johnny87au]

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

[Okda]

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


Thanks all for the support

[WangChung]

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.

[Dragoonseal]

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

They have, already.

[Johnny87au]

They see me trolling they hatin!

[Computurd]

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

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.

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

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.

[Okda]

thanks for the clarification

[Okda]

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 ?

[Computurd]

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....

[Okda]

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

[vengance_01]

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