OK Choirbass -- then 2-160's striped '0' would max me out also-even 1 would do it. I don't even have to go as high as the 320's. My greatest advantage would be access times improving. Is there any way to figure out what access times would be with 3, 4, or 5 drives even on a theoretical basis?
And I think I want it to run an Intel Core2 Duo
Doesn't the PCI-Express bus run on lanes, and the newer boards have 40 lanes at 250MB/sec per lane=10 gigs bidirectionally. I know this applies to video cards and assume the same applies to any other data traveling on the bus. I believe that the new ATI chipset for motherboards has 48 lanes for 3 fully functional PCI-express x16 slots
This would make possible the following(as far as PCI-Express goes) I do not know how the chipsets calculate PCI and PCI-X limitations.
2 PCI-express slots running at x16
2 PCI-express slot running at x8
2 PCI-X slot
1 PCI slots
a single 7200 RPM 160GB drive should come relatively close to a burst transfer rate that saturates the PCI bus, sustained tranfer rates however should be well below that though, closer to around half (~70MB/s or so)... which is where raid 0 comes in handy, raid 0 will boost your sustained transfer rates by a good margin...
for wanting faster access times however... the less hdds you have, the better (with a single hdd giving the fastest average access times)
for instance:
- a single 160GB hdd might give you an average access time of 10 ms
- 2 160GB hdds in raid 0 might then give you an average access time of maybe 12 ms
- 3 160GB hdds in raid 0 might then give you an average access time of maybe 15 ms
so the more hdds you have in a raid 0 array, the longer it will take for the files that need to be accessed to be found (because there are that many more hard drives to have to search through for what you need)... before the faster sustained transfer rates can begin to take place
as far as the differences between PCI-X and PCIe... PCI-X is primarily only used in servers, thats usually only where youll find them anyhow, on server motherboards... ...but, with the superiority of PCIe (although still in its infancy comparatively)... is slowly phasing PCI-X out, probably very slowly i would imagine, lol... because of how firmly grounded the more mature PCI-X is in the server market... ...so, the abundance of PCI-X on consumer boards is significantly less
im not sure how individual chipsets handle PCIe limitations, but, each lane is actually just another name the PCIe #... but, youre right about bidirectional throughput (forgot lol)... so half the bottlenecking would then occur
im not sure about the additional lanes in a PCIe slot (though i could be wrong)... ...cuz technically that would also increase the PCI # too... so for 40 lanes... it would then be PCIe 40x... ...but, maybe they mean it as something else, other than lanes...
edit: lol... i see what you mean now, i missed that part... when they say 48 lanes... ...theyre combining 3 PCIe 16x slots... i see that now
... ...but not additional lanes per slot...
but...
each direction is capable of transferring upto 250MB/s
bidirectional is then capable of transferring upto 500MB/s combined
so...
1*133MB/s @ 8bits per byte
PCI 32bit = ~133MB/s (~1Gb/s)
2*250MB/s @ 10bits per byte
PCIe x1 (1 lane) = ~500 MB/s (~5Gb/s)
PCIe x4 (4 lanes) = ~2 GB/s (~20Gb/s)
PCIe x8 (8 lanes) = ~4 GB/s (~40Gb/s
PCIe x16 (16 lanes) = ~8 GB/s (~80Gb/s)
also... technically i guess this would make normal 32bit PCI actually 66bit, instead of 32bit (like its commonly thought)... ...cuz if you multiply 33(MHz)*8MB/s, you get 264MB/s... but the normal 32bit PCI bus isnt capable of tranferring at that... but divide 264 in half, and you get 132... which it is capable of... ...so, yeah... cuz if you wanted to only have a transfer rate of 133MB/s, it should only have a speed of 16MHz, not 33... sooo 32bit PCI technically is 66bit, but it can only transfer at 32bit (i know thats probably not how it would be figured out if you wanted to do that correctly, but, it loosely makes sense)... i know someone is probably going to feel inclined to correct me on that, lol