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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wayne Youngman
  • Start date Start date
W

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)
 
Wayne said:
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)
Click to expand...


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.
 
S.Heenan said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Clueless.
Click to expand...


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


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


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?
 
S.Heenan said:
Huh ?
Enlighten me as to how there's a performance difference between onboard
SATA RAID0 and IDE RAID0
Click to expand...

When folknut says "clueless" he's talking about himself.
 
Wayne said:
Lol!
not you again.

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

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
S.Heenan said:
Huh ?
Enlighten me as to how there's a performance difference between onboard
SATA RAID0 and IDE RAID0
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
Click to expand...


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 ?
 
Wayne said:
"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 ?
Click to expand...

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

Which it is in all the newer chipsets.
 
Yup. In an other post you said you were learning slowly.
I think you overstated that considerably.
Mostly marketing.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

With the (lowish) platter density that they have.
They could be similarly fast in 7200 with higher density platters.
 
J. Clarke said:
When folknut says "clueless" he's talking about himself.
Click to expand...

Do I hear someone grind an axe?
Is that all they learn at the 'school of hard knocks'?!
 
Wayne Youngman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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

Which it is in all the newer chipsets.
Click to expand...


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!
 
Wayne said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wayne Youngman said:
You are talking about the INTEL *Native* ICH5-R Southbridge? or the newer
AMD64 mobos?,
Click to expand...
well I am not, I am talking about my NF7-S motherboard.
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...
When you say *newest* chipsets, what do you mean?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Which has been answered.
 
Back
Top