Not enough Sata ports - can RST be doubled up or advice on a RAID card?

Stilez

Honorable
Jul 2, 2013
4
0
10,510
I have a Z68 based motherboard with RST 12.6.x orom+driver, 4 x SATA2, 2 x SATA3 Intel ports. I use RAID 1 (in addition to backups) as an extra safeguard against sudden HD failure. It's soft raid, not Adaptec or LSI, but it's good reassurance that sudden disk death won't be too disruptive. Trouble is, I'm out of ports, and I'd like to check what people reckon.

  • Old setup (just updating): twin 1TB, twin 2TB (heavy VM use), OS SSD, and an old Vertex 3 60GB SSD used for acceleration under Intel RST. 20GB of the Vertex 3 is set aside to cache/accelerate the 2TB array, and 40GB presented as a fast temp disk to the user.

    New setup: twin 1TB, twin 2TB, and twin Samsung 840 Pro 512 GB (yay! Proper SSDs!). The RAID SSD will take over the OS and a lot of the heavy load of the 2 TB drives so it should make a big improvement. Problem is, I'm all out of Intel SATA ports, I can't also add a caching SSD for the 2 TB as before.
What I'd like is to use 40GB on or both of the new Samsungs as cache to speed up the 2TB and treat the remaining 2 x 472GB storage space on the Samsungs as a 472 GB RAID1 array.

Sadly, rumour says Intel RST can't raid the left-over storage space of SSDs used for caching (although it can present them as usable drives).

The alternative is a 4 port PCIe RAID card that allows my SSD drive to cache an array on its other ports, but I'm really low on cash (the Samsungs really pushed my budget to a limit) and I can't afford the high quality Adaptecs and LSIs that you normally think of with RAID. It probably risks loss of data not yet cached to SSD (cached data would usually write back on reboot), if need be, but if that happens it's often minor and tolerable (non production data-only use) as the SSD won't be a bottleneck, and I'd have that issue anyway with RST. I don't think I can afford what I ideally need, right now, which is X79+ and UPS or battery backed RAID.

Bearing in mind budget pressures what are some good ideas forum users have? :)
 
The value of raid-1 and it's variants like raid-5 is that you can recover from a drive failure quickly. It is for servers that can not tolerate any interruption.
Modern hard drives have a advertised mean time to failure on the order of 500,000+ hours. That is something like 50 years. SSD's are similar.
With raid-1 you are protecting yourself from specifically a hard drive failure. Not from other failures such as viruses, operator error, raid controller failure,
malware, fire, theft, etc.
For that, you need external backup. If you have external backup, and can tolerate some recovery time, you do not need raid-1
And... You might forget about raid-0 too.
Raid-0 has been over hyped as a performance enhancer.
Sequential benchmarks do look wonderful, but the real world does not seem to deliver the indicated performance benefits for most
desktop users. The reason is, that sequential benchmarks are coded for maximum overlapped I/O rates.
It depends on reading a stripe of data simultaneously from each raid-0 member, and that is rarely what we do.
The OS does mostly small random reads and writes, so raid-0 is of little use there.
There are some apps that will benefit. They are characterized by reading large files in a sequential overlapped manner.
 

Stilez

Honorable
Jul 2, 2013
4
0
10,510
Thanks geofelt. A bunch of that is general RAID background though, and doesn't really answer the question I have. I'm using RAID1 specifically to mitigate HD failure (as I said, and you describe). I'm not using RAID1 for performance and RAID0 isn't in use, and it's pretty clear in the OP that I'm not expecting mirroring to magically prevent viruses or operator error, so I'm not sure why you discussed them at length. Also MTBF is a poor measure of risk of disk loss (*cough*early OCZ SSD*cough*) and not relevant to the question.

Maybe you skimmed the question and thought I was discussing RAID0 or magical all-issues-data-protection, it's not a 'blame' thing, RAID ignorance is common and you might have answered automatically. Dunno? :) The reply was pretty much all off topic of the OP.
 
To tell you the truth, I have answered these questions so many times that I prepared some text that I reuse.
Your mention of twin ssd's suggested you might be considering raid-0.

But, since you are on a budget, consider if better backup might better address your protection requirements.
There seems to be no way to eliminate any single point of failure. Operator error if nothing else.
If you have a sufficient recovery time window, and little need for up to the second recovery, go with good quality single parts and a good external backup system.

There are services that you can use to back up updates real time to a cloud.
 

Stilez

Honorable
Jul 2, 2013
4
0
10,510
Yeah. RAID threads can get that way a lot. Here, RAID0's nowhere in the picture and I have general backups already in hand. Let's try again :)

This is all about that (as well as normal backups :) ) I use 100% RAID1 specifically to save time if I get a disk failure (which happens about once a year on average: 6+ disks, avg life 3-8 years, 1 per year is not unreasonable to plan for). So far it's been easy because RST handles both RAID1 and SSD caching, so I can get decent data speeds from my 2TB HD mirror and almost no data loss on system or HD failure, but I'm now adding 2 top end SSDs and I'm physically out of SATA ports. So I can't add the 2TB caching SSD to the onboard ports, and after pushing the boat for the twin Samsungs, cash is too tight for the usual ideal PCIe solution (which would probably be hardware RAID supporting SSD caching + battery with Adaptec/LSI). So the OP wasn't about choosing RAID or types of backup, it was about getting caching (and keeping raid1active) on my 2TB array given I'm out of ports - can I use Intel RST somehow to do it, or if not, what cards/ideas would help given my limited resources.
 

Stilez

Honorable
Jul 2, 2013
4
0
10,510
Slot yes (only using one video card :) ), cash resources no. Sadly I had to push the cash hard to get the SSDs sorted out, almost nothing left for a decent RAID card like that, although it's the right kind of choice. The issue is that Z68 has 6 SATA ports, the new twin SSDs will take up 2 ports leaving 4 ports for a the 2 mirrored pairs - but I need to slap SSD cache on one of them as well. So I really need 7 RST ports = problem :-( I'm wondering if there is a way to use any of the mirrored SATA SSDs to achieve that within RST, or else the cheapest way or some workaround.

Possible solutions I've thought about include a decent HW raid card (although not all support using an attached SSD as cache, and some use custom disk layouts even in RAID1 which means the disk isn't portable to other manufacturer's SATA hardware so I'm pretty cautious), moving just one mirrorred pair to a card and using a freed-up slot for onboard SSD caching, and perhaps long term getting a newer platform with the extra facilities needed.

Like I commented, I'm not going to use anything except RAID1, nor am I using RAID1 for magical data saving powers it doesn't have :) I have periodic backups in place for other kinds of issue. This is about only 2 things, speeding up one mirrored pair with SSD caching, on a system that has RST but only 6 ports and needs to handle 3 mirrored pairs.. while allowing for my lack of ready cash for a good RAID card ...... which probably means either RST/config workarounds that aren't perfect but might do the job, or extremely cheap and limited feature but halfway decent ultra-cheap RAID cards (contradiction?) that aren't complete crap. I'm interested in ideas on these as I don't know enough to choose well within my very tight limits.
 

TRENDING THREADS