Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SATA2 vs. SATA1

Tags:
  • Hard Drives
  • NAS / RAID
  • Storage
  • Product
Last response: in Storage
Share
March 25, 2006 1:28:00 AM

What do you guys think would be faster:

4 SATA2 or 5 SATA1 in RAID 0?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682... - that's the drive, thanks.

More about : sata2 sata1

March 25, 2006 6:31:22 AM

Depends on the controller.

On a single channel of SATA when the 4 HDDs are on a single port multiplier, the SATA2 drives will give you the higher throughput performance. The SATA 1 drives (won't matter 4 or 5) will be bottlenecked by the SATA1 spec bandwidth.

If there are multiple channels being utilized, either the performance will be the same. Any performance increase will be likely dedicated to the efficiency of the RAID controller.

Note that the failure risk of your RAID partition would be quadrupled or quintipled.
March 25, 2006 10:47:15 AM

It would be a software RAID 0 under Windows XP x64 using 2 Built-In Controllers, 4 on the SATA2 and 1 on the SATA1. I was thinking of getting 3 more and putting 4 on each controller, would that help performance if I had 8 SATA1 in Software RAID 0 over 2 controllers?
Related resources
March 25, 2006 8:36:40 PM

Ok here we go. Let's talk numbers.

SATA 2 spec calls for 300MB/s.
SATA 1 spec calls for 150MB/s.

Since its a software RAID, more than likely its using port multipliers.
Since you have 2 controllers (SATA2 hopefully), you probably have 8 SATA ports.

Which means if you RAID 0 4 HDD's, those 4 HDD's will have to share 300MB/s - considering that the HDD's are SATA2. That gives about 75MB/s bandwidth to each drive, which is about right. I think only raptors will hit 80ishMB/s.

Now HDD's typically can handle about 60-80MB/s of traffic (the highend being raptors).

Lets consider SATA 1. Not sure if you have a SATA 1 drive on the controller, if it will just throttle down the spec to 1 for that drive or for the whole controller.. Again, controller dependent, probably hard to find that info.

4 HDDs = 240MB/s-320MB/s. SATA 1 spec is 150MB/s. See the problem?
In short, SATA 1 cannot support more than 3 HDDs in a RAID 0 configuration. It can support it, but you won't be utilizing it very well.

If you insist on using SATA 1 drives, I'd just have 2 HDDs on 1 controller and the other 2 on the other controller. I would not go 8 HDDs in RAID 0.
If you wanna have more than 2-4 drives in a RAID, I'd say go RAID 5 or something. RAID 0 w/ 8 HDD's is asking for drive failure, IMO. Plus I think your software RAID will suck alot of processor cycles.
March 25, 2006 9:33:45 PM

Quote:
Ok here we go. Let's talk numbers.

SATA 2 spec calls for 300MB/s.
SATA 1 spec calls for 150MB/s.

Since its a software RAID, more than likely its using port multipliers.
Since you have 2 controllers (SATA2 hopefully), you probably have 8 SATA ports.

Which means if you RAID 0 4 HDD's, those 4 HDD's will have to share 300MB/s - considering that the HDD's are SATA2. That gives about 75MB/s bandwidth to each drive, which is about right. I think only raptors will hit 80ishMB/s.

Now HDD's typically can handle about 60-80MB/s of traffic (the highend being raptors).

Lets consider SATA 1. Not sure if you have a SATA 1 drive on the controller, if it will just throttle down the spec to 1 for that drive or for the whole controller.. Again, controller dependent, probably hard to find that info.

4 HDDs = 240MB/s-320MB/s. SATA 1 spec is 150MB/s. See the problem?
In short, SATA 1 cannot support more than 3 HDDs in a RAID 0 configuration. It can support it, but you won't be utilizing it very well.

If you insist on using SATA 1 drives, I'd just have 2 HDDs on 1 controller and the other 2 on the other controller. I would not go 8 HDDs in RAID 0.
If you wanna have more than 2-4 drives in a RAID, I'd say go RAID 5 or something. RAID 0 w/ 8 HDD's is asking for drive failure, IMO. Plus I think your software RAID will suck alot of processor cycles.


That's not true, because I have setup 2 SATA1 Software RAID 0's w/ 4 Drives and I get 200MB/s Read/Write sustained w/ 450MB/s Burst on SATA1. Can somebody else with knowledge please post so I can get a real answer, thanks.
March 25, 2006 9:38:43 PM

3-4 would be the "sweet spot". After that, the gains will get increasing smaller with each drive added. You also greatly increase the odds of losing your data should ANY of the drives fail in RAID 0. As I do, back up your data often. I actually use a seperate IDE drive to store the important things.

I have 3 of these in RAID 0 and they work very well. Just remember to D/L the Hitachi utility to set the drives to SATA II, mine came set to SATA I.
I thought the EVGA MB had a problem but it wasn't.
March 25, 2006 10:28:57 PM

Quote:
Ok here we go. Let's talk numbers.

SATA 2 spec calls for 300MB/s.
SATA 1 spec calls for 150MB/s.

Since its a software RAID, more than likely its using port multipliers.
Since you have 2 controllers (SATA2 hopefully), you probably have 8 SATA ports.

Which means if you RAID 0 4 HDD's, those 4 HDD's will have to share 300MB/s - considering that the HDD's are SATA2. That gives about 75MB/s bandwidth to each drive, which is about right. I think only raptors will hit 80ishMB/s.

Now HDD's typically can handle about 60-80MB/s of traffic (the highend being raptors).

Lets consider SATA 1. Not sure if you have a SATA 1 drive on the controller, if it will just throttle down the spec to 1 for that drive or for the whole controller.. Again, controller dependent, probably hard to find that info.

4 HDDs = 240MB/s-320MB/s. SATA 1 spec is 150MB/s. See the problem?
In short, SATA 1 cannot support more than 3 HDDs in a RAID 0 configuration. It can support it, but you won't be utilizing it very well.

If you insist on using SATA 1 drives, I'd just have 2 HDDs on 1 controller and the other 2 on the other controller. I would not go 8 HDDs in RAID 0.
If you wanna have more than 2-4 drives in a RAID, I'd say go RAID 5 or something. RAID 0 w/ 8 HDD's is asking for drive failure, IMO. Plus I think your software RAID will suck alot of processor cycles.


That's not true, because I have setup 2 SATA1 Software RAID 0's w/ 4 Drives and I get 200MB/s Read/Write sustained w/ 450MB/s Burst on SATA1. Can somebody else with knowledge please post so I can get a real answer, thanks.

Testy aren't we... He seemed to be giving you his opinion and did not claim to be an expert, and if you think you have so much more intelligent information why not explain it yourself?
It is dependent on the number or RAID channels you have on your board, if you have 4 SATA channels, than you theoretically could get up to 600MB/sec of bandwidth, but if 4 drives are running off of 2 channels then 300MB/sec would be the theoretical max transfer rate.
March 25, 2006 10:49:37 PM

So what you're saying is each channel (controller) is limited to 150MB/s...but I have built a server w/ 4 Raptor 74GB in RAID 0 on 1 channel (controller) with 200MB/s sustained read/write and over 400MB/s burst.
March 25, 2006 10:58:17 PM

Quote:
What do you guys think would be faster:

4 SATA2 or 5 SATA1 in RAID 0?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682... - that's the drive, thanks.


4x 160GB 7200.9 SATAII vs. 5x 150GB Raptor, both setup in RAID0.

Now I ask you, which one is faster?

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about using THAT drive. It would be 4 of those in RAID 0 on 1 SATA2 controller, vs. 5 of those, running @ SATA1 speed with 4 in 1 controller and the 5th in a 2nd in a Software RAID 0, I also want to know if you guys think 8 of them (4 in each controller running SATA1 SPEED) in RAID 0 Software would be alot faster than 4 or 5, or if any overhead would be too much. I know for a fact it is not each controller is limited to 150MB/s on SATA1, because I have 2 RAID arrays of 4 drives (1 hardware, 1 software) in RAID 0 that get 200MB/s and each are on SINGLE SATA1 CONTROLLERS.
March 26, 2006 12:04:33 AM

"That's not true, because I have setup 2 SATA1 Software RAID 0's w/ 4 Drives and I get 200MB/s Read/Write sustained w/ 450MB/s Burst on SATA1. Can somebody else with knowledge please post so I can get a real answer, thanks."
The Hitachi drives you have listed are what I have. With 3 in SATA II, burst a little over 336 MB/s and an average rate of 135.8 MB/s. You stated 4 in SATA I is how you achieved your benchmarks? What may I ask program are you using to test? Or, are you using a total of 8 drives to achieve this?
March 26, 2006 12:10:46 AM

Quote:
"That's not true, because I have setup 2 SATA1 Software RAID 0's w/ 4 Drives and I get 200MB/s Read/Write sustained w/ 450MB/s Burst on SATA1. Can somebody else with knowledge please post so I can get a real answer, thanks."
The Hitachi drives you have listed are what I have. With 3 in SATA II, burst a little over 336 MB/s and an average rate of 135.8 MB/s. You stated 4 in SATA I is how you achieved your benchmarks? What may I ask program are you using to test? Or, are you using a total of 8 drives to achieve this?


I didn't mean I used that drive, I used 2 different types:

Setup1:

4 WD 74GB Raptor in RAID 0 = ~200MB/s Read/Write

Setup2:

4 200GB (2 Maxtor/2 WD) SATA in RAID 0 = ~200MB/s Read/Write

A friend of mine has 2 of those drives (the hitachis) and he gets sequential 115MB/s under SATA2, so something is wrong if you're only getting 135MB/s using 3.
March 26, 2006 12:17:46 AM

Like I said, my ULi M1575 RAID controller averages 132MB/sec using only 2 Raptors
March 26, 2006 12:19:06 AM

Quote:
Like I said, my ULi M1575 RAID controller averages 132MB/sec using only 2 Raptors


I have 7 Raptors, each get ~70MB/s Read/Write, 2 get 137MB/s Read/Write, 4 get ~200MB/s Read/Write, so I would surmise that more would bring more performance.
March 26, 2006 12:22:33 AM

"A friend of mine has 2 of those drives (the hitachis) and he gets sequential 115MB/s under SATA2, so something is wrong if you're only getting 135MB/s using 3"

I ask again what are you testing with? According to Hitachi, I'm on par with the drives capabilities. Orginally, they were lower because they were set to SATA I. This is why I called Hitachi. Is your friend using software or hardware? I'm using the Nforce4 software RAID. Just because you're using more drives (as with SLI) doesn't mean you'll double or tripple your data rates.
March 26, 2006 12:24:58 AM

Quote:
"A friend of mine has 2 of those drives (the hitachis) and he gets sequential 115MB/s under SATA2, so something is wrong if you're only getting 135MB/s using 3"

I ask again what are you testing with? According to Hitachi, I'm on par with the drives capabilities. Orginally, they were lower because they were set to SATA I. This is why I called Hitachi. Is your friend using software or hardware? I'm using the Nforce4 software RAID. Just because you're using more drives (as with SLI) doesn't mean you'll double or tripple your data rates.


It's a Hardware RAID 0, it was tested using SANDRA 2005 benchmarks.

EDIT: All the SLI systems I've tested, have resulted in at LEAST 80% increase in performance.
March 26, 2006 12:25:50 AM

We can argue about this all night long. If you want to run that many drives, I'd suggest a high end hardware controller so you can maximize your drives capabilities. You are somewhat limited with a software solution and it starts eating into your CPU as well.
March 26, 2006 12:27:06 AM

Quote:
We can argue about this all night long. If you want to run that many drives, I'd suggest a high end hardware controller so you can maximize your drives capabilities. You are somewhat limited with a software solution and it starts eating into your CPU as well.


I'm not trying to f*cking argue, I want to know the answer to my question.
March 26, 2006 12:27:25 AM

"It's a Hardware RAID 0, it was tested using SANDRA 2005 benchmarks."

Now we're getting somewhere. Hardware is faster and more efficient than software RAID. Try using HD Tach, let me know the results.
March 26, 2006 12:28:06 AM

Quote:
We can argue about this all night long. If you want to run that many drives, I'd suggest a high end hardware controller so you can maximize your drives capabilities. You are somewhat limited with a software solution and it starts eating into your CPU as well.


I've done up to 6 drives in a RAID 5 software, it barely tapped the CPU but than again, it's Dual Opteron 64's and I have a 165 Opty OC'd.
March 26, 2006 12:30:30 AM

Well, the way I see it, you already know it all. I'm offiicially done with this thread. You know, disclosing what your hardware is up front does help. You are comparing hardware and software RAID, not a fair comparasin.
Good luck in your quest.
March 26, 2006 12:43:10 AM

Either will be "fast enough" I would suggest avoiding spreading it onto two seperate "controllers" however as that may slow performance more than the sata1 bandwidth would. (2 controllers on an nvraid equal 4 drives, use that and you'll be set) keep the 5th drive as backup as no RAID 0 is even remotely secure. Or get a Highpoint RAID 2320 and thow it into a 4x pci-e slot and be happy with 8 seperate controllers each with 300mb (only 1/4 of which is used anyway), then only the 1 gig pci-e bus limits you.
March 26, 2006 12:49:48 AM

Quote:
Either will be "fast enough" I would suggest avoiding spreading it onto two seperate "controllers" however as that may slow performance more than the sata1 bandwidth would. (2 controllers on an nvraid equal 4 drives, use that and you'll be set) keep the 5th drive as backup as no RAID 0 is even remotely secure. Or get a Highpoint RAID 2320 and thow it into a 4x pci-e slot and be happy with 8 seperate controllers each with 300mb (only 1/4 of which is used anyway), then only the 1 gig pci-e bus limits you.


I REALLY do not CARE about losing data, that is not even in my mind because I do not care, I want performance only. You're saying putting 4 drives on each channel (2 total) running SATA1 would be slower than 8 on 1 controller? That doesn't make sense to me, I would think it'd be the opposite.
March 26, 2006 12:53:52 AM

What if I put 4 SATA2 on the SATA2 controller, put 2 on a PCI=>SATA CONTROLLER, and 2 on a PCI-Ex4=>SATA controller in a RAID 0, that should increase performance.
March 26, 2006 12:55:06 AM

You said nothing about 8 in the original question, which I answered.

If you put 8 drives in your machine I will assume the following:

4 on nvraid(are you using nvidia?) All at sata2 specs, thus 2 per controller there.

4 on sata1 (I will assume sil 3112) All at sata1 specs, thus 4 per controller.

The first half will be faster than the second for more than obvious reasons. if you put all 8 in a software raid (bad idea for performance to begin with) you will have a "relativerly speaking" SLOW array because half of the read/write's will be coming off the SLOWER half. Since you can't tell the array to use the first half until it's full, a good portion of your throughput will be on the sata1 controller(s). Just use the 4 drives on the nvraid (again assuming that's what you use)

Edit: to your last post right before this, you are spreading a software raid across several different controlers, again things will average the speed of the slowest array, which ever that may be.
March 26, 2006 12:59:41 AM

Quote:
You said nothing about 8 in the original question, which I answered.

If you put 8 drives in your machine I will assume the following:

4 on nvraid(are you using nvidia?) All at sata2 specs, thus 2 per controller there.

4 on sata1 (I will assume sil 3112) All at sata1 specs, thus 4 per controller.

The first half will be faster than the second for more than obvious reasons. if you put all 8 in a software raid (bad idea for performance to begin with) you will have a "relativerly speaking" SLOW array because half of the read/write's will be coming off the SLOWER half. Since you can't tell the array to use the first half until it's full, a good portion of your throughput will be on the sata1 controller(s). Just use the 4 drives on the nvraid (again assuming that's what you use)

Edit: to your last post right before this, you are spreading a software raid across several different controlers, again things will average the speed of the slowest array, which ever that may be.


listen to what im saying:

There is 2 RAID CONTROLLERs, 1 SATA2 and 1 SATA1, the SATA2 will be dropped to SATA1 speeds (yes friend, THAT'S POSSIBLE!) so therefore, ther will be 2 SATA1 controllers w/ 4 ports each. I want to put 4 drives on each controller and put in a software RAID 0, a software RAID is less from a hardware, but not by the margin you're saying (I've done software vs. hardware).
March 26, 2006 1:21:10 AM

You have more money than brains...

March 26, 2006 1:45:06 AM

Then if your experience says that you won't be taking a performance hit (or at least a large one), go ahead and do it... You've answered your own question. ^^
March 26, 2006 2:07:37 AM

Quote:

listen to what im saying:

There is 2 RAID CONTROLLERs, 1 SATA2 and 1 SATA1, the SATA2 will be dropped to SATA1 speeds (yes friend, THAT'S POSSIBLE!) so therefore, ther will be 2 SATA1 controllers w/ 4 ports each. I want to put 4 drives on each controller and put in a software RAID 0, a software RAID is less from a hardware, but not by the margin you're saying (I've done software vs. hardware).


If you have hardware RAID controllers, then using a software RAID solution seems silly.
March 26, 2006 2:10:54 AM

software vs hardware depends on the rest of the system, specifically cpu, there can be a huge difference.

Now what I am saying and you seem to be misunderstanding is that some controllers on the mb actually have 2 inside them, each providing full speed, each port does NOT provide the full speed per drive, unless you have an addin controller with the same number of controllers as ports. If you are ONLY doing sata1, the controller with the least bandwidth (i.e. the controller that only has one controller to control all 4 ports) will be the speed the whole array works at. It doesn't matter if we're talking about sata1 or sata2, the same principle applies. Just plug the f*****s in and see what happens, change the raid0 to alll 8 then try 4, see which is faster.
March 26, 2006 2:12:16 AM

I assume he is saying that since he want 8 drives on the array and most built in raid controllers wont span controllers.
March 27, 2006 2:13:39 AM

Look, you came here asking for help. Its not our fault that you don't list what the heck you have. Yes, its possible that you could get that much bandwidth from SATA1. Why? Because it depends on your controller! [Read my first post on this thread]

I provided you with information on the spec and theoretical points. Go look it up if you want then you can tell me if I have 'knowledge'. I'd respect you if you just disagreed with me, but insulting my intelligence is a bit much.

Quote:

I know for a fact it is not each controller is limited to 150MB/s on SATA1, because I have 2 RAID arrays of 4 drives (1 hardware, 1 software) in RAID 0 that get 200MB/s and each are on SINGLE SATA1 CONTROLLERS.

Did you ever ever consider that your controller there has more than 1 SATA channel? Look up the chip. A channel is NOT the same as a controller.

*Edit fix quote.
March 27, 2006 3:09:53 AM

Here's the facts:

It's using those 80GB drives across 2 Controllers on This Motherboard. That board has the NVRAID and SIL 3114 RAID Controllers, the SIL is a 4-Port 4-Channel Controller (Each SATA drive has independent bandwidth). I'm not sure what the NVRAID is as I can't find info on it and I'm not sure if either SATA1 or 2 is on the SIL 3114 RAID Controller (won't matter to me though). I would surmise that the NVRAID has at least Dual-Channel and that means I will be able to have 6-Drives @ full 1.5Gbps Bandwidth and since each drive gets ~55MB/s, 8 on those 2 controllers in Software will give me full bandwidth.

I wasn't trying to insult anybody or their intelligence, I can be harsh sometimes but I'm just looking for an answer to my question, thanks those that are helping.
March 27, 2006 3:43:03 AM

I have observed that those that ask genuine questions in a reasonably respectful manner generally get the most helpful replies, but when you ask in a way laced with sarcasm initially, and follow up explanation with same, you get hit back harder.
Anyway, you have your answers now? Are you 8 drives configured and running?
March 27, 2006 3:50:46 AM

No, the drives will be here Tuesday and I ordered 5 of them, I asked this question to know whether or not it would be worth it to buy 3 more and run in an 8-Drive Array, a friend of mine has 2 and is buying 2 more so I will be able to test 8 across the 2 controllers, from what I can tell after reading about the information on the 2 RAID controllers, I should be able to get full 1.5Gbps Bandwidth per Drive according to the specifications on the 2 RAID Controllers. So I should be able to attain ~400MB/s on those drives (the 8 ) in RAID 0, I know the risk of DOA's and Failed RAID's, but that is not a concern of me.
March 27, 2006 3:52:33 AM

Post your bench results and final specs when done. It would be of interest to a few.
March 27, 2006 3:56:52 AM

I will, it's going to be of interest to me as well to see how much larger I can make this array before losing performance (It has PCIe x4, x1, and PCI for cards). If this was a regular board, and it had a Southbridge, I would be limited to 1.2GB/s (That's the normal bandwidth from SB=>NB) but since it's all in the NB, I'm limited just by HyperTransport now.
March 27, 2006 7:19:37 AM

Quote:
Here's the facts:

It's using those 80GB drives across 2 Controllers on This Motherboard. That board has the NVRAID and SIL 3114 RAID Controllers, the SIL is a 4-Port 4-Channel Controller (Each SATA drive has independent bandwidth). I'm not sure what the NVRAID is as I can't find info on it and I'm not sure if either SATA1 or 2 is on the SIL 3114 RAID Controller (won't matter to me though). I would surmise that the NVRAID has at least Dual-Channel and that means I will be able to have 6-Drives @ full 1.5Gbps Bandwidth and since each drive gets ~55MB/s, 8 on those 2 controllers in Software will give me full bandwidth.

I wasn't trying to insult anybody or their intelligence, I can be harsh sometimes but I'm just looking for an answer to my question, thanks those that are helping.


Amazing, those controllers have more than one channel. Funny how that makes everything I said before and your conclusions make sense now.

Anyways, all I ask is for you to think a little more and maybe reread any 'harsh' post before you actually post it. :) 

The Sil 3114 is 4 independent channels at 1.5Gbps max bandwidth:
http://www.siliconimage.com/products/product.aspx?id=28...
The picture also refers to motherboards and other embedded applications.
March 27, 2006 7:40:50 PM

That's the PCI card, I'm talking integrated SII 3114 on the Motherboard, which is 6Gbps Total, correct?

I got some records of the 4 Raptors in a RAID 0, it's a hardware RAID 0 on the ASUS K8N-DL. It has NVRAID and the same SII 3114. The drives are all on the SII 3114:

Buffered Read: 445MB/s
Buffered Write: 150MB/s
Sequential Read: 201MB/s
Sequental Write: 271MB/s
March 27, 2006 9:19:07 PM

Quote:
The picture also refers to motherboards and other embedded applications.

Yes, I know the html page is for the PCI card, but it is also for the motherboard embedded chips also. It says that on the page as well. Its the same chip, they just deliver it in different implementations...
Quote:
Applications: Add-in Cards, Embedded Applications, Host Bus Adapters, PC Motherboards, Server Motherboards, Storage Systems


4*1.5Gbps = 6Gbps. With overhead for SATA, its 150MB/s*4 = 600 MB/s.

Those are some pretty nice numbers! Awesome!
March 27, 2006 9:30:24 PM

From what I remember about SATA:

SATA 1 Specs:

1.5GHz is the Operating Frequency
1.5Gbps is the Bandwidth
It uses 8B/10B Encoding (That's the "overhead") which brings it down to 1.2Gbps
1.2Gbps / 8 = 150MB/s

Same for SATA2 but double it. With the 8 drives, I estimate about 400-
450MB/s Read/Write, which is still a far cry from the 600MB/s I am maxed to, which gives me headroom :) .

EDIT: I never knew about the ports and channels on RAID, thanks to the people who enlightened me, that is something very valuable to know, thanks!
March 29, 2006 12:28:52 AM

Okay, the 5 have arrived and I have some interesting information for those that wanted to know:

There are the 2 RAID's, the NVRAID and SiI 3114.

If I put 4 drives under the SiI 3114 and 1 on the NVRAID, than go into Windows XP x64 and run a Software RAID 0, I get:

130MB/s Read
124MB/s Write

If I do just the 4 on the SiI 3114, I get:

180MB/s Read
156MB/s Write

If I put 4 on NVRAID and 1 on SiI 3114, I get:

289MB/s Read
247MB/s Write
495MB/s Burst Read
330MB/s Burst Write

The latter one is what I am sticking to and it seems the SiI 3114 is not as good as NVRAID, at least for Software RAID. I could not get x64 drivers for the SiI 3114 Hardware RAID (even though on my mobo's website, they explicitly say use those ones) so I cannot test that, but I am happy with the 5 speeds.
April 4, 2006 6:40:54 AM

Quote:
No, the drives will be here Tuesday and I ordered 5 of them, I asked this question to know whether or not it would be worth it to buy 3 more and run in an 8-Drive Array, a friend of mine has 2 and is buying 2 more so I will be able to test 8 across the 2 controllers, from what I can tell after reading about the information on the 2 RAID controllers, I should be able to get full 1.5Gbps Bandwidth per Drive according to the specifications on the 2 RAID Controllers. So I should be able to attain ~400MB/s on those drives (the 8 ) in RAID 0, I know the risk of DOA's and Failed RAID's, but that is not a concern of me.



Hi Gurus

I need some help and hope some of you experts could help me.

I am a newbie who is trying to configure my own system.
I have a 865PE Neo2 Series motherboard that can be seen at the following link

http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=865...


The specs say it can take
1. Two ATA IDE's
2. 4 DIMMS DDR
3. Two SATA drives @ Serial ATA-150

I have connected to ATA drives in IDE1 and IDE2. I have a need to connect two more drives which I assume I can connect using the SATA 1 and SATA2 enclosures. Is that a right assumption?

Could i buy the hard drive listed here?
http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Western_Digital_Caviar_R...

appreciate some direction here.. as I said i am a newbie trying to build my own system.

thanks

kris
April 4, 2006 5:23:37 PM

To summarize, interface speed, be it 1.5 or 3.0 don't have anything to do with RAID. There is the drive that send data at about 60MB/s, the interface that can move it at up to 1.5 or 3.0 depending if it is SATA1 or II and then, the RAID controller.

The real question is which controller will be faster dealing with such RAID array. It is how fast the controller can merge data and send it to the system

All onboard RAID is software RAID. The CPU do assist the controller to stip the data. Real HW RAID has dedicated processor to offload the CPU from data management. that's why RAID card are much faster at dealing with the data. But, sadly, PCI card are limited to PCI speed... Happily PCI-X and PCI-e faster bus will give full credit to these card..
April 5, 2006 11:35:13 PM

Quote:
No, the drives will be here Tuesday and I ordered 5 of them, I asked this question to know whether or not it would be worth it to buy 3 more and run in an 8-Drive Array, a friend of mine has 2 and is buying 2 more so I will be able to test 8 across the 2 controllers, from what I can tell after reading about the information on the 2 RAID controllers, I should be able to get full 1.5Gbps Bandwidth per Drive according to the specifications on the 2 RAID Controllers. So I should be able to attain ~400MB/s on those drives (the 8 ) in RAID 0, I know the risk of DOA's and Failed RAID's, but that is not a concern of me.



Hi Gurus

I need some help and hope some of you experts could help me.

I am a newbie who is trying to configure my own system.
I have a 865PE Neo2 Series motherboard that can be seen at the following link

http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=865...


The specs say it can take
1. Two ATA IDE's
2. 4 DIMMS DDR
3. Two SATA drives @ Serial ATA-150

I have connected to ATA drives in IDE1 and IDE2. I have a need to connect two more drives which I assume I can connect using the SATA 1 and SATA2 enclosures. Is that a right assumption?

Could i buy the hard drive listed here?
http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Western_Digital_Caviar_R...

appreciate some direction here.. as I said i am a newbie trying to build my own system.

thanks

kris

any help for me?

thanks

kris
April 6, 2006 12:10:01 AM

I would assume that would work. If it didn't that would really suck for MSI to build something like that.

You might have to go into your BIOS and make sure the SATA controller is enabled.

In future, you should probably start a new thread. Its a different topic and different matter altogether. I only saw this because it shows up in my recently posted search. Probably would be best in the Storage or Homebuilt areas. Also, you'd get a faster response because more people would be aware of it.

:) 
April 6, 2006 2:31:59 AM

Quote:
I would assume that would work. If it didn't that would really suck for MSI to build something like that.

You might have to go into your BIOS and make sure the SATA controller is enabled.

In future, you should probably start a new thread. Its a different topic and different matter altogether. I only saw this because it shows up in my recently posted search. Probably would be best in the Storage or Homebuilt areas. Also, you'd get a faster response because more people would be aware of it.

:) 


thank you for your reply. I will try as suggested and if it does not work open a new thread.

kris
!