Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD RAIDXpert works with 2TB drives, NOT with 3TB Drives?

Last response: in Storage
Share
September 6, 2012 1:04:28 AM

Hello,

Maybe someone has a solution:

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H (AMD 890GX chip set), rev 3.1, firmware F5H.

2TB drives: Hitachi Green
3TB drives: Western Digital Green

What works: Configure a 6-drive RAID 0 array in BIOS with (6) Hitachi 2TB drives. Boot into Win7x64. Windows device manager recognizes a 12TB RAID 0 array labeled "AMD 6+0 Stripe/RAID0 SCSI Disk Device". Format it as a GPT volume. No problems.

What doesn't work: Connect (5) Western Digital 3TB drives to the same SATA ports as above (leaving one empty). Configure a 5-drive RAID 0 array in BIOS on the (5) Western Digital 3TB drives. Boot into Win7x64. Windows device manager sees five discreet disk drives labeled "WDC WD30EZRX-00MMMB0 SCSI Disk Device"
a c 76 G Storage
September 6, 2012 4:39:42 PM

With 2TB after configured RAID0, it shows as 12TB <-- correct setup
With 3TB after configured RAID0, it shows "nothing" <-- incorrect setup.

Need to make sure there is 15TB RAID0 in the BIOS before you can see under Windows
m
0
l
September 6, 2012 5:05:03 PM

Why you would want to Raid 0 x6 hard drives is strange. Unless you want a giant scratch disk to do photo editing, rendering, data processing using only SSD's for speed. Raid 0 with that many drives is like saying ok I want to go 1 month and lose all my data because of the raid.

At least raid 5 it man, you lose one drive and you don't lose everything lol.

Otherwise you will be on here two months from now with a single failed drive and dumbfounded why you didn't at least make a raid 5 because now you have no data.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 13, 2012 12:24:12 AM

You ask a good question.

Why a 12TB RAID 0 Partition?

Performance!!! Minimal down time!!!

I'm a database developer, in the clinical business intelligence area, and I work with very large databases.

I ran extensive benchmarks before choosing my current configuration, which is three servers -- one 6-drive, 12TB RAID-0 based primary, and two 6-drive, 12TB RAID 0-based hot failover servers.

Here's why:

The 6-Drive RAID 0 array runs at 600 to 700 MBytes/sec throughput.

The same hardware configured as RAID 5 drops throughput to 100MBytes/sec at best. Worse -- if a drive in the RAID 5 array fails, the array takes almost a day to rebuild from the parity stripes in the remaining drives after the spare drive is activated. I can't afford that amount of downtime.

One of my database analyses takes about 2 hours to complete on the RAID 0 array, and about 12 to 13 hours to complete on the RAID 5 array. It's way cheaper for me to invest in 12TB of RAID 0 hard drives with hot failovers instead of 12TB of RAID 5 SSD storage.

RAID 5 is good in theory, but sucks, performance-wise and recovery-wise, in the real world of big datasets.

At least, that's been my experience.
m
0
l
September 13, 2012 12:26:48 AM

I did setup the 5-drive array in BIOS. The BIOS correctly recognizes a 15TB RAID zero array on boot, but Windows doesn't. The only difference is that the problem occurs with 3TB drives, not with 2TB drives.





FireWire2 said:
With 2TB after configured RAID0, it shows as 12TB <-- correct setup
With 3TB after configured RAID0, it shows "nothing" <-- incorrect setup.

Need to make sure there is 15TB RAID0 in the BIOS before you can see under Windows

m
0
l

Best solution

September 13, 2012 12:57:50 PM

Then heres another question, why use pure software raid? Not hardware raid? You will get better throughput and you have less of a chance of failure if running a hardware raid since it handles caching, and disk spinup differently.
Share
!