SAS- UPDATE! ::::::POLL ADDED-->>>

[Googer]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822151031

16MB Cache 73GB 15000RPM!

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1515148&enterthread=y&arctab=y



EDIT:

FIXED THE LINK

 

[Googer]

Raptor has now officially been renderd useless.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Only two bad things I see... $465 for 73mb. I would just go SCSI for that price. Although it will be the hd to have in Dream Machines. The second thing is purely personal, but the problem I see is "Maxtor". Damn that thing is going to be loud.
Tas.

 

[ElTorrente]

OMFG

O.K... I'm right now considering replacing the drives in my RAID with these.. These are crazy.

Imagine 4 of these on my Areca 1210 PCIex8 card?

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
OMFG

O.K... I'm right now considering replacing the drives in my RAID with these.. These are crazy.

Imagine 4 of these on my Areca 1210 PCIex8 card?

Yeah... That would be sweet. (Thanks for pointing out a RAID card for when I take my server to PCI-e platform Xeon).
Tas.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
OMFG

O.K... I'm right now considering replacing the drives in my RAID with these.. These are crazy.

Imagine 4 of these on my Areca 1210 PCIex8 card?

While SAS controllers can handle SATA just fine, is this drive SATA backwards compatible? I think that might dash you're lil day dream there.

 

[Googer]

These drives WILL NOT WORK WITH A STANDARD SATA CONTROLLER, instead you will need a specialized SAS Controller.

http://www.lsilogic.com/products/sas_hbas/sas3442x.html

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Googer
Raptor has now officially been renderd useless.

not really considering the price...

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
OMFG

O.K... I'm right now considering replacing the drives in my RAID with these.. These are crazy.

Imagine 4 of these on my Areca 1210 PCIex8 card?

While SAS controllers can handle SATA just fine, is this drive SATA backwards compatible? I think that might dash you're lil day dream there.

SATA controllers are Half Duplex and do not support many of the error control protocols of the Full Duplex SAS.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: Googer
SATA controllers are Half Duplex and do not support many of the error control protocols of the Full Duplex SAS.

I'm aware of that. I was just saying, SAS HBAs can handle SATA drives, but not the other way around.

SAS HBA on the cheap

So for the super deluxe frugal el cheap price of $650 for 74GB, you can pwn the raptor.

 

[ElTorrente]

I don't think my Areca is a standard SATA controller. In fact, it shows up as a SCSI controller both in the computer BIOS, and the RAID card BIOS. The Intel XOR processer onboard came from the SCSI world- adapted to SATA. I think this will work with these drives.

I'm gonna do some research on them before pulling the trigger, of course- but I have my hopes up with compatibility.

There is a nice review about these on Storagereview.com btw..

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I don't think my Areca is a standard SATA controller. In fact, it shows up as a SCSI controller both in the computer BIOS, and the RAID card BIOS. The Intel XOR processer onboard came from the SCSI world- adapted to SATA. I think this will work with these drives.

I'm gonna do some research on them before pulling the trigger, of course- but I have my hopes up with compatibility.

There is a nice review about these on Storagereview.com btw..

We need it in a PCI-express x16 version, when was the last time anyone saw a desktop nFORCE 4 chipset with PCI-X 66MHz? That card is incompatable with 32bit 33MHz.

But it is a good price, I however would not be too inclined to run any serous raid arrays from it due to it's lack of Cache ram and IO Processor.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: Googer
We need it in a PCI-express x4 version, when was the last time anyone saw a desktop nFORCE 4 chipset with PCI-X 66MHz? That card is incompatable with 32bit 33MHz.

Fixed. Few boards could make use of it in x16 format. (or a desktop with a plain PCI card GPU, using the vid card's x16 slot for the HBA)

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I don't think my Areca is a standard SATA controller. In fact, it shows up as a SCSI controller both in the computer BIOS, and the RAID card BIOS. The Intel XOR processer onboard came from the SCSI world- adapted to SATA. I think this will work with these drives.

I'm gonna do some research on them before pulling the trigger, of course- but I have my hopes up with compatibility.

There is a nice review about these on Storagereview.com btw..

That means nothing these days I have an IDE ATA 100 Contoller card that shows up in the bios and under windows as SCSI but in reality there is nothing special about your card, all add on storage adapters show up as scsi devices.

Beginers do lean it just takes time.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Googer
We need it in a PCI-express x4 version, when was the last time anyone saw a desktop nFORCE 4 chipset with PCI-X 66MHz? That card is incompatable with 32bit 33MHz.

Fixed.

Nope, an X4 Slot would not have enogh bandwith to acommodate multiple drives. An X8 would be the minimum needed. An X8 Card would Fit and operate in an X16 motherboard, the day will come when all motherboards have Five x16 slots and or maybe one or two x32 Slots.

X16 is good for other things besides Graphics cards. Reminds me of the PRE-AGP days.

If we push nVIDIA and Intel today to add more lanes we could see it happen in the future if we demonstrate the demand for such connections. WE WANT MORE!

 

[ribbon13]

4x would be 2500MBps

"1x PCIe slots will support a bandwidth of 2.5Gbps (625MBps)

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Googer
We need it in a PCI-express x4 version, when was the last time anyone saw a desktop nFORCE 4 chipset with PCI-X 66MHz? That card is incompatable with 32bit 33MHz.

Fixed.

Nope, an X4 Slot would not have enogh bandwith to acommodate multiple drives. An X8 would be the minimum needed. An X8 Card would Fit and operate in an X16 motherboard, the day will come when all motherboards have Five x16 slots and or maybe one or two x32 Slots.

X16 is good for other things besides Graphics cards. Reminds me of the PRE-AGP days.

If we push nVIDIA and Intel today to add more lanes we could see it happen in the future if we demonstrate the demand for such connections. WE WANT MORE!

Ofcourse that would good. But they are having problems with routing all the traces for that, and keeping the costs down (ie not going to 6 & 8 layer boards). Me, I'll stick with PCI-X until my machine and it's storage just doesn't do what I need it to anymore.
Tas.

 

[ElTorrente]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I don't think my Areca is a standard SATA controller. In fact, it shows up as a SCSI controller both in the computer BIOS, and the RAID card BIOS. The Intel XOR processer onboard came from the SCSI world- adapted to SATA. I think this will work with these drives.

I'm gonna do some research on them before pulling the trigger, of course- but I have my hopes up with compatibility.

There is a nice review about these on Storagereview.com btw..

That means nothing these days I have an IDE ATA 100 Contoller card that shows up in the bios and under windows as SCSI but in reality there is nothing special about your card, all add on storage adapters show up as scsi devices.

Beginers do lean it just takes time

Oh well. Maybe my next build..

Why the need to be so condescending?

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Googer
We need it in a PCI-express x4 version, when was the last time anyone saw a desktop nFORCE 4 chipset with PCI-X 66MHz? That card is incompatable with 32bit 33MHz.

Fixed.

Nope, an X4 Slot would not have enogh bandwith to acommodate multiple drives. An X8 would be the minimum needed. An X8 Card would Fit and operate in an X16 motherboard, the day will come when all motherboards have Five x16 slots and or maybe one or two x32 Slots.

X16 is good for other things besides Graphics cards. Reminds me of the PRE-AGP days.

If we push nVIDIA and Intel today to add more lanes we could see it happen in the future if we demonstrate the demand for such connections. WE WANT MORE!

Ofcourse that would good. But they are having problems with routing all the traces for that, and keeping the costs down (ie not going to 6 & 8 layer boards). Me, I'll stick with PCI-X until my machine and it's storage just doesn't do what I need it to anymore.
Tas.

That leads me into my other gripe, PCI-X is so hard to find and even harder to find in a board that supports non-ecc ram along side highspeed graphics. I have been wishing for years now for motherboard makers to start intergrating PCI-X in to home computers, long before PCI-E was introduced. I would love to see the classic architecture live a bit longer: PCI-X is the ticket. Frustrating.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

I'm nitpicking again, but if I'm missing something here I'd like to know:

Originally posted by: ribbon13
4x would be 2500MBps

"1x PCIe slots will support a bandwidth of 2.5Gbps (625MBps)

That site needs some serious number re-crunching AFAICT.

2.5Gbps / 8 = 320MB/s. Times four is 1280MB/s. (or rather, ten bits per Byte makes 4x = 1GB/s)

Further more: "and the 16x PCIe slot will support 80Gbps", but then links to a "Video bus through-put" page which states "Not shown is version II of the PCIe bus which increases the bus speed to 10GBps" and "Also the PCI-Express through put may be nearer 4000MBps".

It looks as if the article author confused PCIe version II with 16x (as well as using both 8 and 10 bits for conversion to Byte/s at various times).

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Googer
We need it in a PCI-express x4 version, when was the last time anyone saw a desktop nFORCE 4 chipset with PCI-X 66MHz? That card is incompatable with 32bit 33MHz.

Fixed.

Nope, an X4 Slot would not have enogh bandwith to acommodate multiple drives. An X8 would be the minimum needed. An X8 Card would Fit and operate in an X16 motherboard, the day will come when all motherboards have Five x16 slots and or maybe one or two x32 Slots.

X16 is good for other things besides Graphics cards. Reminds me of the PRE-AGP days.

If we push nVIDIA and Intel today to add more lanes we could see it happen in the future if we demonstrate the demand for such connections. WE WANT MORE!

Ofcourse that would good. But they are having problems with routing all the traces for that, and keeping the costs down (ie not going to 6 & 8 layer boards). Me, I'll stick with PCI-X until my machine and it's storage just doesn't do what I need it to anymore.
Tas.

That leads me into my other gripe, PCI-X is so hard to find and even harder to find in a board that supports non-ecc ram along side highspeed graphics. I have been wishing for years now for motherboard makers to start intergrating PCI-X in to home computers, long before PCI-E was introduced. I would love to see the classic architecture live a bit longer: PCI-X is the ticket. Frustrating.

Not hard to find at all. Just have to know where to look. Beginners can find all kinds of mobos at Supermicro's page. I grabbed me a dual Xeon 603 for doing work in 3DS Max, and I really like the PCI-X controllers. I've been looking forward to seeing PCI-E RAID controllers for when I eventually take my machine to the 800MHz Xeons, or whatever comes out next...
Tas.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: BikeDude
I'm nitpicking again, but if I'm missing something here I'd like to know:

Originally posted by: ribbon13
4x would be 2500MBps

"1x PCIe slots will support a bandwidth of 2.5Gbps (625MBps)

That site needs some serious number re-crunching AFAICT.

2.5Gbps / 8 = 320MB/s. Times four is 1280MB/s. (or rather, ten bits per Byte makes 4x = 1GB/s)

Further more: "and the 16x PCIe slot will support 80Gbps", but then links to a "Video bus through-put" page which states "Not shown is version II of the PCIe bus which increases the bus speed to 10GBps" and "Also the PCI-Express through put may be nearer 4000MBps".

It looks as if the article author confused PCIe version II with 16x (as well as using both 8 and 10 bits for conversion to Byte/s at various times).

Ful Duplex Bandwith does not count, only the amount of data that can travel in on direction is all that counts. This marketing BS of Saying My internet connection is 2Gb/s when in reality you are only able to reviece or transmit 1Gb/s (bits) in any one direction. Half Duplex measurements only.

Las time I checked (I could be wrong) x16 had 2GB/s or 4GB/s bandwith but the marketing departments double those numbers and tell the general public that it has 8GB/s (Bytes).

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Googer
We need it in a PCI-express x4 version, when was the last time anyone saw a desktop nFORCE 4 chipset with PCI-X 66MHz? That card is incompatable with 32bit 33MHz.

Fixed.

Nope, an X4 Slot would not have enogh bandwith to acommodate multiple drives. An X8 would be the minimum needed. An X8 Card would Fit and operate in an X16 motherboard, the day will come when all motherboards have Five x16 slots and or maybe one or two x32 Slots.

X16 is good for other things besides Graphics cards. Reminds me of the PRE-AGP days.

If we push nVIDIA and Intel today to add more lanes we could see it happen in the future if we demonstrate the demand for such connections. WE WANT MORE!

Ofcourse that would good. But they are having problems with routing all the traces for that, and keeping the costs down (ie not going to 6 & 8 layer boards). Me, I'll stick with PCI-X until my machine and it's storage just doesn't do what I need it to anymore.
Tas.

That leads me into my other gripe, PCI-X is so hard to find and even harder to find in a board that supports non-ecc ram along side highspeed graphics. I have been wishing for years now for motherboard makers to start intergrating PCI-X in to home computers, long before PCI-E was introduced. I would love to see the classic architecture live a bit longer: PCI-X is the ticket. Frustrating.

Not hard to find at all. Just have to know where to look. Beginners can find all kinds of mobos at Supermicro's page. I grabbed me a dual Xeon 603 for doing work in 3DS Max, and I really like the PCI-X controllers. I've been looking forward to seeing PCI-E RAID controllers for when I eventually take my machine to the 800MHz Xeons, or whatever comes out next...
Tas.

Those are not everyday desktop motherboards. I can only think of a few off hand in recent memory: DFI's Socket 479 Pentium M motherboard and a Socket 478 Motherboard that was made by Gigabyte about a year and a half ago.
Dream board but missing PCI-e
Dream Board 2 but no pci-e

Try to find me a Socket 939 board like those but has some kind of PCI-express. It wont be easy.

 

[ElTorrente]

Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362

Not hard to find at all. Just have to know where to look. Beginners can find all kinds of mobos at Supermicro's page.

:laugh:

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente

Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362

Not hard to find at all. Just have to know where to look. Beginners can find all kinds of mobos at Supermicro's page.

:laugh:

Not trying to be condescending. I am Just encouraging a new guy with less experience to learn, if you need help just send me a message.