Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which RAID setup will be best? Check this out

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 17, 2006 1:12:51 AM

I have 4-ST39173LC (9.1 GB, 7200RPM SCSI HDD) possibly a 5th and have access to 3 different controllers

1. Adaptec AHA-3950U2b
2. Adaptec AHA-29160
3. Adaptec ASR-2200s/64 (Raid controller with 64MB Cache) This will cost me somewhere around $200

Naturally I want to raid and I also want security and speed. Which would be better. Yes I know the dedicated card whould really rock but on these drives and the small number will it be worth it.


The possibilities that I see are as follows
A) 2 stripped and 2 mirrored
B) 4 striped and 1 parity


The application is financial charts and switching from one bank of 6 lcd's of info and trading systems to another bank is where I find a time delay. I have gone from AGP and a quad PCI video card to PCI-Express and have relized some significant gains. (I had an A8n-SLI that was not being used) But I thing that the overwhelming speed of the Core Duo's and their price point is difficult to beat price performance wise.

I currently have an A64 3000+ but will be moving to a core duo as soon as I can get it . Probably a 6600

Also, What about XP's software raid?

Thanks

More about : raid setup check

July 17, 2006 1:29:42 PM

Ok,

Those drives are 80pin LVD Ultra2 Wide SCSI drives. The 2200s is a great raid card for servers with PCI-X supported system, which you dont have. But I think all adaptec cards that are PCI-X will work in a PCI 2.0 bus (I have a 29329lpr in a 2.0 bus) But the problem is your drives are much slower than the capabilities of the card.

I would deff go in a raid 5 or 10 in any system if you have enough drives. You'll get speed and a hot pair. Your going to need at least four 80pin to 68pin converters, because those drives are LCD 80 PIN and the card operates with 68 pin cabling. Before you get the 2200s verify with Adaptec that it will operate on a 32bit PCI bus.


And perhaps while your setting up your system you might consider getting one 73gig u320 68pin HDD (Which you can get for under 100) and have your OS sit there there & use the slower 9gigers as storage. Just a thought. Good Luck
July 17, 2006 2:04:12 PM

If you're thinking of spending any money on this setup, I would recommend you instead spend it on a couple of big, cheap 7200RPM SATA drives and a cheap 2-port SATA RAID controller, and make yourself a RAID 1 array. Total cost would be easily less than the $200 that the 2200s would cost you, and you'd get buttloads more storage, it would be easier to set up, consume less power, be faster, probably more reliable since the drives are new (especially if you use drives designed for high duty cycle, like Maxtor MaxLine) and take up less space. You can't really lose.
July 19, 2006 3:31:19 PM

NEW INFO

The 2200s will work in a regular PCI slot

For some reason I was thinking that the "LC" was rated the same as the "LW" Anyway here is the new deal.

I bought the 9giggers for $6 each so no big loss and I can return them for credit and I can get ST318406LW for $35 each.


This machine will run 1 dedicated program for daytrading(forex/currency) so a large amount of disk space is not needed. I just need the speed when changing from one bank of monitors(6) to another. That is why the CACHE on the 2200 will help a lot.

On my old machine(SATA Drives), A64 3000+, it was taking about 45 seconds to switch from one bank to the next. On a friends 29160 with a ST318452LW and PCI-Express cards it took about 7 seconds.

I wonder what it will be with a raid setup and 64MB Cache on a new Intel Core Duo? That is where I am headed.
!