PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

[Wayne Youngman]

Hi,

would there be much difference between using a PCI RAID-0 controller with 2
x IDE hard disks, as compared to a built in SATA RAID-0 running 2 x SATA
disks?.

I just sold my system which had SATA-RAID-0 and I'm not sure whether to
build the same again, or a more value mobo and add my own IDE RAID-0.

I'm not talking about the INTEl ICH5-R SATA RAID-0, but the one that is
included with most AMD mobos (silicon image)

 

[S.Heenan]

Hi,

would there be much difference between using a PCI RAID-0 controller
with 2 x IDE hard disks, as compared to a built in SATA RAID-0
running 2 x SATA disks?.

I just sold my system which had SATA-RAID-0 and I'm not sure whether
to build the same again, or a more value mobo and add my own IDE
RAID-0.

I'm not talking about the INTEl ICH5-R SATA RAID-0, but the one that
is included with most AMD mobos (silicon image)

No performance difference at all. If you have already have PATA hard drives,
buy a HighPoint or Promise RAID controller if the board does not support IDE
RAID.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

You will not ever get it, won't you, Wayne.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

No performance difference at all.
Clueless.

If you have already have PATA hard drives, buy a HighPoint or
Promise RAID controller if the board does not support IDE RAID.

 

[S.Heenan]

Clueless.

Huh ?
Enlighten me as to how there's a performance difference between onboard SATA
RAID0 and IDE RAID0

 

[Wayne Youngman]

Clueless.

Huh ?
Enlighten me as to how there's a performance difference between onboard SATA
RAID0 and IDE RAID0

You will not ever get it, won't you, Wayne.

Lol!
not you again.

I would imagine there isn't a heap of difference, but why on earth did they
make SATA drives?. Is it the case that they only works properly when used
with the INTEL ICH5-R. Is it that PCI BUS limit of 133MB/s just normallsing
any RAID set-up on it? so why do people use Raptor 10,000rpm drives in
RAID-0? just for lower access times?

 

[J. Clarke]

Huh ?
Enlighten me as to how there's a performance difference between onboard
SATA RAID0 and IDE RAID0

When folknut says "clueless" he's talking about himself.

 

[J. Clarke]

Lol!
not you again.

I would imagine there isn't a heap of difference, but why on earth did
they
make SATA drives?.

Mostly marketing. The major benefit of SATA is support for hot-plugging.
The smaller cable is beneficial for airflow in the case. The higher
transfer rate may be important some day but that day is not today.

Is it the case that they only works properly when used
with the INTEL ICH5-R. Is it that PCI BUS limit of 133MB/s just
normallsing
any RAID set-up on it? so why do people use Raptor 10,000rpm drives in
RAID-0? just for lower access times?

The raptor is a fast drive because of its high rotational speed, not because
of SATA. WD could make the same drive with PATA and the performance would
be the same--its maximum transfer rate is considerably under 133 MB/sec.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Huh ?
Enlighten me as to how there's a performance difference between onboard
SATA RAID0 and IDE RAID0

I apologize, my fault.
I was caught out by the question in the first para-
graph and the less than clear reformulation later on.
I didn't expect it to be the stupid question that it turned out to be.

When both on PCI it doesn't make a difference except for running
2 PATA on the same channel.

When comparing built in chipset SATA/PATA to PCI connected SATA/
PATA the built in version isn't limited to the PCI bus bandwidth.

 

[Wayne Youngman]

"Folkert Rienstra" wrote

When both on PCI it doesn't make a difference except for running
2 PATA on the same channel.

When comparing built in chipset SATA/PATA to PCI connected SATA/
PATA the built in version isn't limited to the PCI bus bandwidth.

That doesn't make any sense. You are saying that a add-on controller, which
is *bolted* on to the PCI BUS isn't affected by the PCI BUS
bandwidth/limitation of 133MB/s ?

 

[J. Clarke]

"Folkert Rienstra" wrote


That doesn't make any sense. You are saying that a add-on controller,
which is *bolted* on to the PCI BUS isn't affected by the PCI BUS
bandwidth/limitation of 133MB/s ?

Depending on the chipset it may not be "bolted onto the PCI bus". It may be
bridged directly to the front-side bus.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

If you read carefully () I say the exact opposite.

Depending on the chipset it may not be "bolted onto the PCI bus". It may be
bridged directly to the front-side bus.

Which it is in all the newer chipsets.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Yup. In an other post you said you were learning slowly.
I think you overstated that considerably.

Mostly marketing.

Nonsense. The ATA interface was outliving its lifespan.

The major benefit of SATA is support for hot-plugging.
The smaller cable is beneficial for airflow in the case.

The higher transfer rate may be important some day but that day is
not today.

SATA is not just a drive interface. SATA can be RAID-ed and con-
nected through a single port. SATA150 will already be too slow for that.

Nope.

Sorry, I don't understand gibberish.

For the same reason people always use RAID0.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with RAID.

The raptor is a fast drive because of its high rotational speed,

With the (lowish) platter density that they have.
They could be similarly fast in 7200 with higher density platters.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

When folknut says "clueless" he's talking about himself.

Do I hear someone grind an axe?
Is that all they learn at the 'school of hard knocks'?!

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Lol!
not you again.

I would imagine there isn't a heap of difference, but why on earth did they
make SATA drives?. Is it the case that they only works properly when used
with the INTEL ICH5-R. Is it that PCI BUS limit of 133MB/s just normallsing
any RAID set-up on it? so why do people use Raptor 10,000rpm drives in
RAID-0? just for lower access times?

This has nothing to do with SATA but everything with PCI vs non-PCI
(ie hypertransport bus/hub interface).

 

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

When folknut says "clueless" he's talking about himself.

Do I hear someone grind an axe?
Is that all they learn at the 'school of hard knocks'?!

And if you two idiots would just kiss and make up you will soon feel better
about yourselves. Plus, both of you will never learn that playing with
these toys is no substitute for the best, SCSI.

Rita

 

[Wayne Youngman]

Depending on the chipset it may not be "bolted onto the PCI bus". It
may be

Which it is in all the newer chipsets.

You are talking about the INTEL *Native* ICH5-R Southbridge? or the newer
AMD64 mobos?, well I am not, I am talking about my NF7-S motherboard. I
happen to have an old PCI card that does RAID-0 with IDE drives and I'm
wondering whether to use that with a motherboard that have *NO* onboard
RAID, or go with a mobo that has *onboard* RAID (connected via the PCI Bus)

When you say *newest* chipsets, what do you mean? Most
chipsets/motherboards use an *add-on* SATA chip that runs through the PCI
BUS.

So my question was whether or not there was any difference between:

1) 2x SATA 150 drives connected to my onboard *Silicon-Image* SATA-RAID-0
Chip.

2) 2 x ATA/100 drives connected to an add-in PCI card (Fast-Trax) in RAID-0

Sheesh Mr Rienstra, go do some yoga or what not, even better go hug a tree.
.. lol!

 

[J. Clarke]

You are talking about the INTEL *Native* ICH5-R Southbridge? or the newer
AMD64 mobos?, well I am not, I am talking about my NF7-S motherboard. I
happen to have an old PCI card that does RAID-0 with IDE drives and I'm
wondering whether to use that with a motherboard that have *NO* onboard
RAID, or go with a mobo that has *onboard* RAID (connected via the PCI
Bus)

When you say *newest* chipsets, what do you mean? Most
chipsets/motherboards use an *add-on* SATA chip that runs through the PCI
BUS.

So my question was whether or not there was any difference between:

1) 2x SATA 150 drives connected to my onboard *Silicon-Image* SATA-RAID-0
Chip.

2) 2 x ATA/100 drives connected to an add-in PCI card (Fast-Trax) in
RAID-0

Sheesh Mr Rienstra, go do some yoga or what not, even better go hug a
tree. . lol!

There's going to be little difference between those two options--both are
software RAID and that's where the bottleneck is going to be, not the PCI
bus.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

There's going to be little difference between those two options--

both are software RAID

So what?

and that's where the bottleneck is going to be,

With RAID5, not with RAID0.

not the PCI bus.

Certainly will be with the next generation and some of the current
generation of harddrives.

Who isn't even smart enough to setup his newsclient properly.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

You are talking about the INTEL *Native* ICH5-R Southbridge? or the newer
AMD64 mobos?,

well I am not, I am talking about my NF7-S motherboard.

No Wayne, you sold that, remember?!
I know you have a short memory span, but it can't be that short, can it?

I happen to have an old PCI card that does RAID-0 with IDE drives and I'm
wondering whether to use that with a motherboard that have *NO* onboard
RAID, or go with a mobo that has *onboard* RAID (connected via the PCI Bus)

When you say *newest* chipsets, what do you mean?

Suddenly you don't understand english, Wayne?

VIA K8T800/VT8237, SIS755/964, NVIDIA nForce3 250/MCP, ALI1687?.

Most chipsets/motherboards use an *add-on* SATA chip that runs through the
PCI BUS.

So my question was whether or not there was any difference between:

1) 2x SATA 150 drives connected to my onboard *Silicon-Image* SATA-RAID-0
Chip.

2) 2 x ATA/100 drives connected to an add-in PCI card (Fast-Trax) in RAID-0

Which has been answered.