Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old August 20, 2010, 12:30 PM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,882

My System Specs

Default

Yeah but it won't be going over my LAN, just locally really. I'm guessing the ICH10R will be adequate, but then I basically have to move 2TB of data elsewhere when I buy a new board. Seems like spending $300 or so on a RAID controller is worth it just to save that hassle. Otherwise I'd have to buy like a 2TB drive (that's like $200?) just to copy everything to.

Then once I factor in the rebuild time and all that fun stuff, it seems like that $300 goes to a rather practical and time saving device.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old August 20, 2010, 12:36 PM
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 990

My System Specs

Default

As long as you stick with subsequent Intel boards, you will be able to migrate from ICH10R to ICH11R or whatever the next gen will be called. I've moved from ICH9R to 10R without issue. They're pretty good about keeping compatibility. If you already have the drives, don't fill it up just yet and test it out to see if you're ok with the throughput.
__________________
heatware
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old August 20, 2010, 06:00 PM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,882

My System Specs

Default

Well I've decided to try out the ICH but initializing is taking forever! Only at 40% in 3 hours...
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old August 20, 2010, 06:49 PM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,037

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supaflyx3 View Post
Depends on what he's expecting from it.
If it's a simple HTPC, or media server then sure an onboard will be fine, but if it's his normal computer he'll notice the drop in speeds.
Ah, yes. Going from 80megs sec sequential thruput of a single drive to 220megs/sec ICH10R RAID 5 was a traumatic drop in speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcdguy View Post
and what happens when this happens with his onboard controller and it starts to do a rebuild in raid 5 it wil take even longer. There is a reason that hardware raid is still used in enterprise solutions. Also the ichr10 is still essentially a software raid. a very good one, but still software. ( and while i use it for my boot ssd array i don't keep anything on it that isn't backed up elsewhere as i don't trust it.) if you were to run raid levels 1, 0 or 10 then i would say don't bother with a hardware controller but anything that requires parity you really should.
So? It takes a while. I still play games while it rebuilds. You just give it 20 minutes to get a bit of the way in and then it runs more or less fine. Sure it's eating some CPU and lots of HD thrashing is going on but it's not *that* bad, especially considering the cost (free) Is any of his data mission critical? Is an entire corporation relying on access to that data *right now*? If so, then go with hardware RAID card.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoob View Post
IMO, test out R5 on ICH10R first. If performance is satisfactory, keep using it. I was able to max out my gigabit LAN with a 5x1 TB RAID5 on ICH10R.
Exactly my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoob View Post
As long as you stick with subsequent Intel boards, you will be able to migrate from ICH10R to ICH11R or whatever the next gen will be called. I've moved from ICH9R to 10R without issue. They're pretty good about keeping compatibility. If you already have the drives, don't fill it up just yet and test it out to see if you're ok with the throughput.
Yeah, and when/if your ICH10R chipset dies it's pretty cheap to get another to continue using your RAID. However, if your $1000 fancy raid card dies then you've just lost your RAID until you get a replacement, for the most part.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old August 21, 2010, 09:21 AM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,882

My System Specs

Default

Well here's the results:



Compared to a single:



512K read seems a bit low along with 4K writes compared to a standalone F3. Rest seem to have a decent increase, but can more performance be had? How much faster will I get from a proper card?

Also how important is stripe size? Intel defaulted to 64KB so I left it there, but should it be set higher? I know Intel maxes out at 128KB, but I've seen mention of 256KB on the Internets...
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old August 21, 2010, 02:27 PM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,037

My System Specs

Default

Well your RAID is healthier (faster over a longer data range) than mine is, but makes sense as your single drive is waaaay better than mine.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old August 21, 2010, 05:30 PM
lowfat's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grande Prairie, AB
Posts: 7,927

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcdguy View Post
ideally for RAID 5 you should be using a hardware controller as you will get much better performance since RAID 5 uses parity. Also for raid 5 i would recommend a minimum of 4 disk. 3 in the array and one as a hot spare to be added in the event a drive dies or is dropped from the array.
This makes very little sense to me. This way you get 2TB of usable data (assuming 1TB disks). There is no reason to not use RAID 0+1 instead as it will perform better w/o losing any usable space.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New SSD drives DragonFlame Storage 13 August 13, 2010 11:57 PM
Win7 and soft raid5?! SaskGoose Storage 3 March 15, 2010 04:50 PM
Raid 0 - can't see other drives Butkick Storage 3 January 28, 2010 11:05 AM
Network drives DragonFlame Networking 7 December 9, 2009 09:48 PM
Which Hardware RAID5 Card? CanadaRox Storage 12 August 3, 2008 12:26 PM