Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (
More info?)
Thanks for your informative reply.
However, I am still unsure if the Intel Matrix RAID as on the P5GD1 will do
true RAID 0+1 on 4 SATA drives?
I understand that RAID 5 is better, but also cannot locate a PCI-E SATA
RAID card in Australia; if I could suggestions are it would be quite pricey.
I may have to consider standard ATA instead of SATA, and use the onboard
ITE 8212F controller. Unfortunately I gather that ATA is not as efficient
as SATA.....
Thanks again.
"m.marien" <mm AT RiverCityCanada DOT com> wrote in message
news:10mteq1p595ldd1@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mr Mister" <mister@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:416eb0a3@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
>>I am a bit confused with this new Intel Matrix RAID stuff; can someone
>>please clarify if I can use 4 SATA drives to have a true RAID 0+1
>>(striping with mirror) array on the Asus P5GD1 or P5GD2 ? If not, isn't a
>>2 drive Intel Matrix a bit of a herring?
>>
>> I am setting up a CAD server to serve large files to 20 users, by the
>> way.
>>
>> Also, will 2 Gb RAM be better than 1 Gb on a file server? Is DDR2 Worth
>> it for this application?
>>
>> Thank you kind people.
>>
>
> RAID0 is for speed and RAID1 for redundancy but IMHO if you have more then
> 2 drives then RAID5 is a better solution. It uses striping for speed plus
> has redundancy at a cost of (n-1)/n*size where n is the number of drives.
> So if you have 4x20GB drives RAID5 will give you (4-1)/4*20GB = 60GB of
> space with data striped across all the drives. You can loose one drive and
> not loose any data. Depending on your system you can also add a spare so
> that one drive goes down, the spare will automatically replace it. RAID0+1
> on the other hand will only give you 40GB of redundant data and no spares.
>
> Since this is a server, both Windows servers and Linux (any distro) have
> software RAID5.
>
> As far as the RAM, it's a waste of money if the system doesn't use it.
> Unless you're going to run applications on the server, file sharing isn't
> going to use a lot of memory.
>
> If the system is going to be a file server, I'd spend the money on the
> drive subsystem. At least a RAID5 card with onboard cache and the ability
> to use spares. Your four drives would still get you 2x the capacity but
> with the ability to loose 2 drives and not loose data. Two drives down in
> a RAID0+1 and I think you're toast.
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram