Any mobo's w/ onboard raid 5?
- Thread starter anomaly
- Start date
Not that I know of.
RAID5 controllers require a processor (to calculate parody) and thus are expensive (often like $300+ for an IDE controller that supports RAID5.) Integrated RAID5 would make the motherboard very expensive. Most people who want RAID5 are of the type that would want to choose the controller and buy it seperatly ... so I doubt any manufacturer has much of a reason to ever include RAID5. IDE RAID 0,1,0+1 however are very cheap and easy to just toss onto a motherboard.
RAID5 controllers require a processor (to calculate parody) and thus are expensive (often like $300+ for an IDE controller that supports RAID5.) Integrated RAID5 would make the motherboard very expensive. Most people who want RAID5 are of the type that would want to choose the controller and buy it seperatly ... so I doubt any manufacturer has much of a reason to ever include RAID5. IDE RAID 0,1,0+1 however are very cheap and easy to just toss onto a motherboard.
Im building a new system soon, and im just trying to figure out what to do. I hear that raid 0 has double the chance of loosing data, but really improves performance. Thats probibly what im going to end up going with anyways. Thanks for the help.
Don't worry, we only tease you because we like youOriginally posted by: AluminumStudios
My Engrish isn't so good, I meant to say parity
Ooops - Engrish? I guess it isn't! I'm using a promise raid 0 controller and it's annoying to watch writing to the raid array consume 40-50% of the P3 1.1 when vcdgearing a file.
For two drives it is approximately double the chance. For three drives it is approximately three times the chance. You get the idea. I don't recommend RAID 0 on any system that has data of any importance which is not backed up religiously.
you could probably go to a raid 0+1 cheaper than buying a good raid 5 card,
raid 5 would give you 3 hdds with the capcaity of 2, 0+1 would give 4 hdds with capacity of 2 but fully mirrored
so basically it comes down to which costs more, a new raid card or another hdd
for 0+1 to work most effectively i think you need a 4 channel raid card though,
the epox 8k5a4+ (think i havew the model name right..its one of the boards in the 8k5 line) has a built in 4 channel highpoint controller
raid 5 would give you 3 hdds with the capcaity of 2, 0+1 would give 4 hdds with capacity of 2 but fully mirrored
so basically it comes down to which costs more, a new raid card or another hdd
for 0+1 to work most effectively i think you need a 4 channel raid card though,
the epox 8k5a4+ (think i havew the model name right..its one of the boards in the 8k5 line) has a built in 4 channel highpoint controller
Nemo160 makes a good point. It is probably cheaper to go RAID 0+1, and RAID 0+1 is faster than RAID 5 anyways.
RAID0+1 is very inefficient with 50% overhead. Not only that but most IDE RAID adapters use your CPU to handle the calculations. Consider a 3Ware Escalade, Promise SX600, or Adaptec 2400A for true hardware IDE RAID. They include an onboard CPU, usually the Intel i960 RISC or StrongARM like on the SCSI RAID cards as well as onboard cache memory. At worst your overhead on RAID5 is 33% on a 3 drive minimum setup.
What I use in my home server
Windogg
What I use in my home server
Windogg
I forgot to mention my main priority was data redundancy and security. Lots of data I want to keep secure.
Windogg, that's a pretty AHA2400A. How much cache did you install? I have 128MB in my 2400A. With 4 WD drives it's plenty fast! I got mine used (including the cache) for $175 total. Not bad considering the card is a current model that usually sells for ~$320 plus cache memory.
Let's see, I have the 2400A plus four 40GB WD drives. That gives me an array with 120GB of usable space, with nice performance, great data security, and physical redundancy. The RAID controller cost $175 and each drive was $72. That's $463. There's NO way you could get 120GB of redundant storage using SCSI for that kind of money. Not even for close to that amount of money.
Adul
Elite Member
There are motherboards with onboard SCSI that can be converted to raid with an add-on card. Mylex calls it SISL. Both the motherboard and the RAID card have to be of compatible types.
what exactly do you mean by 50% overhead windogg?
that you get 50% usable space from the harddrives? or do you mean i/o performance?
a 0+1 array on a 4 channel onboard raid should be just about as fast as a straight raid 0
as far as only getting 50% of the capacity...that's the price of the data security it provides
and if you do manange to get a hardware raid card for $175 that's still higher than the price of most new ide drives
that you get 50% usable space from the harddrives? or do you mean i/o performance?
a 0+1 array on a 4 channel onboard raid should be just about as fast as a straight raid 0
as far as only getting 50% of the capacity...that's the price of the data security it provides
and if you do manange to get a hardware raid card for $175 that's still higher than the price of most new ide drives
If your worried about security, just make the RAID 0 a secondary drive, put all your games on it, and have another EIDE drive for all your important files and programs. That's what I do. Besides for me all the stuff on my RAID drive is stuff that 2 other of my friends have anyway. If anything dies, I just go to their house, get the data from them, so it's not a big deal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter