Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ich10r or LSI?

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 12, 2009 7:11:30 PM

I am trying to build a system optimized for editing photoshop files.

the typical case would be opening files of 50 to 500 MB, editing, saving - which depending on format could go from 50 to 500 MBs.

I thought RAID 0 (striping) would help.

I considered 3 to 4 disks summing up to 1.5 TB.

I saw the benchmarks on this site ( http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ich10r-sb750-780a,2... ).

The ICH10R wins every time (database, file server etc) except on "iometer bandwidth" on RAID 5, and "iometer streaming reads/writes" in RAID 0.

What benchmark best describes my case? Am I right in wanting to go with the ICH10R?

More about : ich10r lsi

a b G Storage
November 12, 2009 7:26:29 PM

ICH10R would be the best choice

i/o is important when the computer is trying to do many things at once such as boot up when all your background programs are trying to start at once, working on a DB, in a server....

assuming you have sufficient ram then sequential reads and writes would have the most impact on your editing apps

if you strip your drives you MUST do regular backups
a c 127 G Storage
November 12, 2009 7:47:44 PM

Intel has very good RAID drivers; relative to what is available on Windows. You also have the ability to activate 'write caching' option, which is dangerous (risk of filesystem corruption in case of crash/power outage) but can significantly speed up I/O in realistic cases of both reading and writing patterns. Its also mandatory to get any decent RAID5 write performance, but try to limit yourself to RAID0 or RAID1 if you can, as RAID5 is a much more complicated RAID level.
Related resources
November 12, 2009 8:01:12 PM

Ok thanks so much.

Would I gain much by having, say, 6 striped disks instead of 3?
a c 127 G Storage
November 12, 2009 8:04:31 PM

Only with a proper setup (not XP), and only if your applications allow all 6 HDDs to be used at once. Sequential transfers will use all 6, but with random I/O its more difficult to use all 6 drives. For example, things like booting will use only one drive during many parts of the booting process. All 6 drives will be used, but only one at a time so the performance is very close to single-drive performance. This is expressed in 'queue depth'. With a queue depth of 6, there would be 6 separate I/O requests outstanding, which can be sent to 6 individual drives to be processed; enhancing performance.

On windows though; i would say that more than 4 disks in RAID0 will get diminishing results.
a b G Storage
November 12, 2009 8:16:10 PM

also the more drives you add the greater the odds of one going bad taking down the whole array
November 13, 2009 9:52:48 PM

thanks so much for the answers
a b G Storage
November 13, 2009 11:43:04 PM

If I were in your position right now, I'd be looking to "future-proof"
my core components with a SATA/6G and/or SAS/6G hardware RAID
controller, like Intel's RS2BL040 or RS2BL080 x8 PCI-E 2.0 controllers:

http://www.intel.com/Products/Server/RAID-controllers/R...
http://www.intel.com/Products/Server/RAID-controllers/R...


This will allow you much more growth potential (MAX HEADROOM)
as the entire industry ramps up to SATA/6G and SAS/6G HDDs,
a few of which are available now, but more importantly when
SATA/6G SSDs become more widely available, and less expensive.

Be sure to install such a controller in an x8 or x16 mechanical slot
to which the motherboard's chipset assigns a full x8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes.
The size of the edge connector on that controller may not be the
actual number of PCI-E lanes assigned to that slot.

If you're in the mood to investigate, Seagate have 3.5" Cheetah
and 2.5" Savvio HDDs that spin at 15,000 rpm and now support
an interface speed of 6 Gigabits per second e.g.:

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/savvi...


MRFS
a b G Storage
November 14, 2009 1:12:35 AM

there may be drives that support the interface but there are none that can actually use the speed. that's like saying you need drag slicks on a yugo just in case you wanna upgrade it.
a c 127 G Storage
November 14, 2009 1:14:23 AM

MRFS, what good would SATA 6Gbps be for a harddrive that cannot even reach 150MB/s under the best of circumstances? I fail to see the point. For SSDs maybe, though even there the speed benefit comes from IOps not from sequential speeds.

If you want high sequential speeds, running RAID0 with lots of devices on the chipset SATA ports would be the best choice, as with 6 disks he would exceed 600MB/s throughput. I fail to see the need to focus on 6Gbps SATA, especially if he has to buy a separate add-on controller which adds latency opposed to chipset powered SATA ports. The next generation SATA chipsets (AMD 900 chipset series for example) will feature SATA 6Gbps ports. This is something you get 'for free' with the next generation of motherboards. Whether its useful is still unclear. HDDs will not benefit from it, for sure.
!