• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ICH6R & RAID0

I

Ice9

Senior member
OK, in the ICH6R bios (Ctrl-I) I can only select TWO drives for a RAID0 stripeset. Is this normal for the ICH6R on a 925XE?

Has anyone successfully run more than 2 SATA HDD's in a RAID0 stripeset? How about on Nforce4?

I'm using 3 Raptor 740GD's and basically want balls-to-the-wall disk throughput...

 
Yes, I've ran 5 drives in RAID 0 for a bit. Obviously not in a Nforce4 though. I believe those chipset RAID controllers only allow two disk arrays...
Tas.
 
I'm actually asking about this on ICH6R (925XE).... What chipset were you using that allowed you to do RAID0 across 5 drives?
 
Originally posted by: nick1985
no, because no one here uses Raid 0 because its flat out retarded
Click to expand...

Quit flaming, please. RAID 0 isn't that bad if you can't do a RAID 5 array, or want a simple two disk burst in speed (such as for boot, or even better a partition just for scratch disks, RAMdisks, and swap files). If someone wants to do something, let them do it...
Tas.
 
Yeah, I do it because I do a lot of video file work and thrash disks around a LOT.

I would really like to do a 3 disk RAID0 stripe, but it seems I don't know how to select more than 3 drives in the RAID bios... That's why I'm wondering which chipsets allow it...
 
Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362
Originally posted by: nick1985
no, because no one here uses Raid 0 because its flat out retarded
Click to expand...

Quit flaming, please. RAID 0 isn't that bad if you can't do a RAID 5 array, or want a simple two disk burst in speed (such as for boot, or even better a partition just for scratch disks, RAMdisks, and swap files). If someone wants to do something, let them do it...
Tas.
Click to expand...

"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

~Anandtech.com



fine, I'll quit "flaming".
 
Originally posted by: nick1985


"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

~Anandtech.com



fine, I'll quit "flaming".
Click to expand...

I don't think that article did any kind of testing with heavily disk intensive applications, like video editing. I'm pretty sure they just tested game level load times 🙂
 
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362
Originally posted by: nick1985
no, because no one here uses Raid 0 because its flat out retarded
Click to expand...

Quit flaming, please. RAID 0 isn't that bad if you can't do a RAID 5 array, or want a simple two disk burst in speed (such as for boot, or even better a partition just for scratch disks, RAMdisks, and swap files). If someone wants to do something, let them do it...
Tas.
Click to expand...

"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

~Anandtech.com



fine, I'll quit "flaming".
Click to expand...

hehehehe. And I agree with it (how can you not really). But if someone wants to do it, let them do it. 🙂
Tas.
 
hehehehe. And I agree with it (how can you not really). But if someone wants to do it, let them do it. 🙂
Tas.
Click to expand...

Guys, read the article again. Look at what they test.

A bunch of benchmarks (which RAID0 always wins), like Winstone, sysmark, and a few other synthetics....

Then they test... uh... gee. Game loading times.

Great article. Really spells things out for the "real world" *yawn*

According to the "real world" as they call it in the last sentence, all the "real world" does is play games. How many of us know that isn't the case? Raise your hands 🙂

So yeah. If ALL you do is play games, then yeah, RAID0 is useless. But if you do ANYTHING that requires disk thrashing, like linear video, or hell - even just unRARing/PARchecking your usenet downloads, RAID0 flies like nobody's business and saves you real time in the long run.

 
Originally posted by: Ice9
hehehehe. And I agree with it (how can you not really). But if someone wants to do it, let them do it. 🙂
Tas.
Click to expand...

But if you do ANYTHING that requires disk thrashing, like linear video, or hell - even just unRARing/PARchecking your usenet downloads, RAID0 flies like nobody's business and saves you real time in the long run.
Click to expand...

...until 1 drive goes bad and you lose ALL your data.
 
Originally posted by: nick1985

...until 1 drive goes bad and you lose ALL your data.
Click to expand...

As opposed to having ONE drive in your box, having IT go bad, and losing all your data? Seems the same to me. Plus ICH6R lets you do matrix raid - so you don't lose all your data.
 
heheheehe. I love the RAID 0 wars. I really do. But I believe RAID 0 does have a function. It's not a bunc RAID array setup--it's just not for primary useage of one's setup. A RAID 0 array, with a 250gb storage hd... That's what I would be opting for in a high end PC. Me, I like RAID 5. And it churns numbers like nobody's business..
Tas.
 
There are places for RAID-0 where there are benefits, but the majority of the people use it for the wrong reason. Many are just gamers and for that RAID-0 is a terrible choice. Seek times are worsened when using a RAID-0 array which will be bad for the OS and many games. In certain games there may be a performance gain if the the levels being loaded are just huge bitmaps or something because of the increased sequential transfer rate, but for most games there won't be an increase and their actually could eb a decrease because of the worsened seek times. Also when editing a large video or audio files there may be an increase in performance, but a lot of times the CPU is the lmiting factor and having seperate drives would be more efficient.
 
so to get back on topic here, does anyone know of which chipsets support a 3 drive RAID0 stripe that doesn't require an add-on card?
 
Originally posted by: Ice9
OK, in the ICH6R bios (Ctrl-I) I can only select TWO drives for a RAID0 stripeset. Is this normal for the ICH6R on a 925XE?

Has anyone successfully run more than 2 SATA HDD's in a RAID0 stripeset? How about on Nforce4?

I'm using 3 Raptor 740GD's and basically want balls-to-the-wall disk throughput...
Click to expand...

I've been downloading and reading the manuals for several mobos, and they all say that RAID 0 is a two-disk setup. Even for mobos that supports 3+ RAID 5 arrays, they only use two disks for RAID 0. So I don't know. I'd contact the manufacturer and see if there is a patch or something, which is how they got RAID 5 to work in a lot of cases apparently.
Tas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top