If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAID 1 solution for desktop
Hello All,
I need to implement a RAID 1 solution for a high end desktop machine, and I'm considering 2 options: 1) Use the onboard(cheap) SATA RAID controller on my motherboard with 2 Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 74GB 10K SATA drives. Approximate cost: $400.00 2) Purchase new SCSI RAID controller with 2 high speed SCSI drives such as the Maxtor Atlas II 15K 73GB drives. Approximate cost: $1500.00 My question is: Will the superior performance of the SCSI drives be realized considering the PCI Bus architecture of my MB? Especially considering the $1100.00 difference? Also, I'm sure the reliability of the SCSI solution surpasses the SATA, but both hard disks listed have a 5 year warranty. Opinions? TIA, Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
David Beasley wrote: Hello All, I need to implement a RAID 1 solution for a high end desktop machine, and I'm considering 2 options: 1) Use the onboard(cheap) SATA RAID controller on my motherboard with 2 Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 74GB 10K SATA drives. Approximate cost: $400.00 2) Purchase new SCSI RAID controller with 2 high speed SCSI drives such as the Maxtor Atlas II 15K 73GB drives. Approximate cost: $1500.00 My question is: Will the superior performance of the SCSI drives be realized considering the PCI Bus architecture of my MB? Especially considering the $1100.00 difference? I'll let you decide if it's worth the money, but what kind of performance do you need? High transfer rate? Quick response time? Can you estimate a value for one or the other? Hard to tell not knowing what you need, but eyeballing, going SCSI seems overkill. Also, I'm sure the reliability of the SCSI solution surpasses the SATA, but both hard disks listed have a 5 year warranty. That means that you'll get your money back or a replacement if something breaks before. Is not a prediction of how long either model will last, just to be clear. Opinions? TIA, Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 13 Oct 2005 14:00:10 -0700, "David Beasley"
wrote: Hello All, I need to implement a RAID 1 solution for a high end desktop machine, and I'm considering 2 options: 1) Use the onboard(cheap) SATA RAID controller on my motherboard with 2 Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 74GB 10K SATA drives. Approximate cost: $400.00 2) Purchase new SCSI RAID controller with 2 high speed SCSI drives such as the Maxtor Atlas II 15K 73GB drives. Approximate cost: $1500.00 My question is: Will the superior performance of the SCSI drives be realized considering the PCI Bus architecture of my MB? Especially considering the $1100.00 difference? Also, I'm sure the reliability of the SCSI solution surpasses the SATA, but both hard disks listed have a 5 year warranty. Opinions? TIA, Dave What are the requirements? If safety is the driving factor for this mirror then it makes little difference in the long run, you've got 2 copies online. If performance is the driving factor then what is the application? Streaming media or large sequential writes/reads will probably not see a noticeable difference between them. But if you're IO is more random in nature then scsi will give a significant boost. ~F |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the replies guys.
Security of data is the number one priority, followed very closely by performance. Usage will be almost entirely reading/writing large files, so transfer rate would drive the performance need. This is a graphic design/image manipulation workstation utilizing Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Quark Xpress, and CorelDraw intensively. If I'm reading y'all correctly, there will be minimal performance gains in my situation from going SCSI, which is what I figured initially. I only considered the SCSI solution because I bought this machine explicitly for performance, and I hate to slow it down for mirroring. Initially I had a RAID 0 setup for performance, with nightly backups. But slowly I began slacking with the backups and got burned badly when one of the drives went down. One other related question: The onboard RAID on the MB(Asus P4C800 Deluxe) is the Promise PDC20378 controller chipset. From what I've read in other forums, this is actually a software RAID controller, no? Would adding a hardware RAID controller give noticeable performance benefits? If so, any recommendations for a SATA RAID controller? Intel SRCS16, LSI MegaRAID, and 3Ware Escalade all seem affordable. These are specs on the system if it matters: 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4 processor Asus P4C800 Deluxe MB 2 GB RAM Thanks again for the help, Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 14 Oct 2005 11:02:02 -0700, "David Beasley"
wrote: Thanks for the replies guys. Security of data is the number one priority, followed very closely by performance. Usage will be almost entirely reading/writing large files, so transfer rate would drive the performance need. This is a graphic design/image manipulation workstation utilizing Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Quark Xpress, and CorelDraw intensively. If I'm reading y'all correctly, there will be minimal performance gains in my situation from going SCSI, Correct. SATA should suit you just fine. only considered the SCSI solution because I bought this machine explicitly for performance, and I hate to slow it down for mirroring. It can actually speed up reads since it can request parts of the data from 2 spindles. One other related question: The onboard RAID on the MB(Asus P4C800 Deluxe) is the Promise PDC20378 controller chipset. From what I've read in other forums, this is actually a software RAID controller, no? Would adding a hardware RAID controller give noticeable performance benefits? If so, any recommendations for a SATA RAID controller? Intel SRCS16, LSI MegaRAID, and 3Ware Escalade all seem affordable. Software RAID 1 is really not cpu intensive so I don't think you need to worry about hardware raid. Now if you were doing raid 5 that would be different. I can speak to the LSI and 3Ware controllers, both are fine. If you've got money you're looking to spend then go for it. But like I said, I don't really think you need to. ~F |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
David Beasley wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys. Security of data is the number one priority, followed very closely by performance. Usage will be almost entirely reading/writing large files, so transfer rate would drive the performance need. In that case, you may actually be better off with the newest high-density 7200 rpm SATA drives. And as long as you mirror them data security (availability) should not suffer measurably from what you'd have with higher-end drives. In any event, you'll want to be using a file system that gives some priority to keeping the files unfragmented (or defragment the disks frequently while they're otherwise idle). - bill |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Todd wrote: In that case, you may actually be better off with the newest high-density 7200 rpm SATA drives. Oh, how so? Do you have any specific recommendations? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
David Beasley wrote:
Bill Todd wrote: In that case, you may actually be better off with the newest high-density 7200 rpm SATA drives. Oh, how so? In transfer rate, of course: the context to which I was replying. The highest-density new SATA drives rival or exceed anything else on the market in this area, because while they spin more slowly their linear density is high enough to compensate. - bill |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Many thanks for the help guys. I probably would have wasted money
without your advice. I've decided to go with 160GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 hard drives using the onboard RAID. Total cost: $200. Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
David Beasley wrote: Security of data is the number one priority, What happens if one of the drives in the mirror pair is bad? You might not even notice for weeks that you have lost one drive, and run in degraded mode. At this point, you suddenly become vulnerable to the second drive failing. Unless you have hot spare drives installed and have set up the RAID controller to automatically rebuild onto the hot spare, this is a real risk. Make sure there is some sort of monitoring program set up. Also, what happens to operator error (deleted the most important file), and OS error (operating system scrambles the file system)? Unless you have a snapshot solution and/or good backup, these are the most likely cause of data loss, once you have mirrored the data. So RAID doesn't save you from having to do backups. If I'm reading y'all correctly, there will be minimal performance gains in my situation from going SCSI True for sequential bandwidth. Also, SCSI has a large cost penalty. I would still use SCSI disks. Why? They are faster in seek times, and that matters a little too. It can matter a lot of you have multiple applications running, each of them doing sequential work. And WAY more reliable. Yes, I know you have RAID-1. But I like belt and suspenders. And you'll have less time spent on occasionally (every few years) replacing disks. Look at it this way: The cost of this workstation going down is probably the salary (or lost productivity?) of the person using it. At a cost of maybe $150K per year (with overhead and such) for the user, that's $75 per hour. Compared to that, the extra cost of SCSI is just a few hours less trouble. If so, any recommendations for a SATA RAID controller? Intel SRCS16, LSI MegaRAID, and 3Ware Escalade all seem affordable. I've used both LSI and 3Ware, both with excellent results. LSI is a little more expensive, but has slightly better performance; 3Ware is more common and less expensive. This is not an endorsement, nor do I have anything bad to say about the Intel card (never used one). As you are not doing RAID-5 (in particular not RAID-5 in degraded mode), performance of the RAID card is probably irrelevant; the disks will be the bottleneck. Even the On-board Promise chip might be good enough - but I would test that. Enjoy your new fast (and reliable) system. -- The address in the header is invalid for obvious reasons. Please reconstruct the address from the information below (look for _). Ralph Becker-Szendy |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A7N8X series "incomplete RAID set" bug - my experiences and solution | Andy C | Asus Motherboards | 0 | July 19th 05 03:06 AM |
How Create SATA RAID 1 with current install? | Mr Mister | Asus Motherboards | 8 | July 25th 04 10:46 PM |
P4C800-E Delux: Setting up SATA Drives with RAID | Will | Asus Motherboards | 13 | July 12th 04 04:33 AM |
DAW & Windows XP RAID Tips, ProTools error -9086 | Giganews | Asus Motherboards | 0 | October 24th 03 06:45 AM |
RAID-1 reliability | marcodeo | Storage (alternative) | 26 | August 30th 03 09:53 PM |