A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage & Hardrives
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 20th 08, 10:59 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?

I'm about to put together another virtual server for our organization
of about 40 users overall (currently)..

We currently run virtual server 2005.. but the new server will either
be hyper-v barebones server.. or server 2008 with the hyperv role..

Right now i run 11 or so virtual servers, each with their own role
(basically one application per vm) on a dual CPU, dual quad core
harpertown 2.5 GHZ xeon...

The new server will probably have a 2.83GHZ cpu, same class though..

It will have this motherboard:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=MB-...50206af2c74e0d
(supermicro)

and use this controller card: (areca arc-1680ix-16 a sas and sata
card) http://www.provantage.com/areca-arc-...6~7AREC012.htm

It will also have 800mhz memory as oppossed to 667mhz on the existing
server.

Right now our existing server has a 3.2TB raid6 array which is pretty
fast with these drives (8 of them): ST3500630NS
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...ist=cele bros
(500GB 32mb cache 7200 rpm x 8)

I get a diskmark of about 2600 on the raid6 array on this server with
performance test 6.1 x64.. (my home pc with 4 similar drives on a sata
controller gets around 1200).

So my question is what type of SAS drive would i want to push this
thing even faster.. (dual port? 10k or 7200 with dual port etc).. I'm
not 100% up on sas at this point..

Our one sql server vm, with multiple sql server instances may grow
very large in size, to about 1 or 2TB in size over time, as we move
alot of data into team foundation server 2008 (lots of graphical, vr,
rendering data and images etc).. this is my only thinking for SAS, as
this sql VM will be getting hit more and more (or split the SQL
instances over two VMs on two different hosts)..

I would think even with sql in our environment and running about 8
VM's on each server, we would still be ok with SATA...

Any thoughts?

Here are two SAS drives I've found (500GB variety, though i have yet
to see a 32mb cache equivalent of our sata):

Dual port wise: i dont see many over 500GB in size.. or really any

Single port: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...530&lid=627063
(Seagate 7200rpm 16mb cache)



  #2  
Old November 21st 08, 06:04 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
Torbjorn Lindgren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?

wrote:
[...]
It will have this motherboard:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=MB-...50206af2c74e0d
(supermicro)


You may want to consider the Seaburg (5400) models instead of the old
Blackford (5000P), ie X7DW something, but it depends on your exact
requirements.


and use this controller card: (areca arc-1680ix-16 a sas and sata
card) http://www.provantage.com/areca-arc-...6~7AREC012.htm


I've not used the 1680 but Areca's 1261ML (SAS) controller rocks.

The 1680ix-16 uses a 50% faster CPU version than the 1261ML, but I've
heard that someone was recommended going with the 1231/1261/1280
series instead if they plan to only connect SATA disks to them by
someone at Areca support.

I also know that some other manufacturers SAS RAID controllers pretty
much sucks when connected to SATA disks (it works but performance
isn't there). I doubt Areca 1680 will be *bad* (the CPU is newer and
much higher clocked than the other vendor) but I doubt it will beat
the 1261 series of card either.

Areca's 1680 performance brief suggests they too had some problems in
this area, a number of SATA benchmark is a LOT higher with 1.45
(currrent) than 1.43 firmware. This may have been the cause for that
recommendation so it may well be better now. It's also doubtful if it
would manifest itself with the SAS ES.2 disks, even if the "backend"
hardware is essentially the same as it's SATA cousins.

Either way I assume you're getting the "optional" BBM for the card
(vital) and possibly a memory upgrade (because it may help and doesn't
cost much). The memory upgrade can be a great help if you have a lot
of writes going on.


Right now our existing server has a 3.2TB raid6 array which is pretty
fast with these drives (8 of them): ST3500630NS
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...ist=cele bros
(500GB 32mb cache 7200 rpm x 8)


Yes, the Barracuda ES series, it's a "RAID" disks (IE higher specs in
some important areas and server optimized firmware) and a pretty good
choice at the time you made that choice. However, ST3500630NS doesn't
have 32MB cache, Seagate says it has 16MB!


So my question is what type of SAS drive would i want to push this
thing even faster.. (dual port? 10k or 7200 with dual port etc).. I'm
not 100% up on sas at this point..


Almost all SAS disks are either 10k or 15k RPM, which does give
benefits. 10k is also available in SATA (WD Raptor) but for "server
loads" it usually looses against the real server disks, and for a VM
server running multiple independent VMs I suspect it's server disk IO
"profile" that fits best.

The drawback is that "normal" SAS disks cost a lot more per GB and
tops out at 450GB (3.5" models). With SATA there's RAID certified
disks up to 1TB (and you definitely don't want the normal Seagate
1.5TB, Seagate has firmware problems on it).


Our one sql server vm, with multiple sql server instances may grow
very large in size, to about 1 or 2TB in size over time, as we move
alot of data into team foundation server 2008 (lots of graphical, vr,
rendering data and images etc).. this is my only thinking for SAS, as
this sql VM will be getting hit more and more (or split the SQL
instances over two VMs on two different hosts)..

I would think even with sql in our environment and running about 8
VM's on each server, we would still be ok with SATA...


2+TB means quite a lot of SAS 10/15k disks, but the performance will
be a lot greater than with 7.2k SATA disks, due to higher performance
per spindle AND more spindles.

You need to decide how much storage you need and how much IO activity
you're going to see, without a detailed analysis no one else is going
to be able to help you.


Here are two SAS drives I've found (500GB variety, though i have yet
to see a 32mb cache equivalent of our sata):

Dual port wise: i dont see many over 500GB in size.. or really any

Single port:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...530&lid=627063
(Seagate 7200rpm 16mb cache)


This is Seagate Barracuda ES.2, model ST3500620SS. It's the smallest
model in the SAS ES.2 series, both SAS and SATA ES.2 go up to 1TB...

However, the SAS models have 16MB (same as your ES disks) and the SATA
models 32MB cache. Since there's no other differences you'll see at
least as good performance from the SATA ES.2 and probably slightly
better in fact (assuming no controller bottleneck).

So unless you're willing to go with a larger number of 10k/15k SAS
disks there doesn't seem to be any upside at all with going with SAS.
The disks are very similar and probably run similar firmware so even
the MTBF and other factors should be close to identical.

There IS a significant extra cost for the SAS models compared to the
SATA models so I know which one I would be using (except heavy duty DB
servers which ends up with a pile of 15k SAS disks in RAID10, they
tend to not need that much storage but craves IOPS).

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/pro...arracuda_es.2/

For dual port you're really going for FC disks, with the capacity
drawbacks I mentioned earlier (only 10k/15k disks) and in addition
you'll pay a lot extra for it being FC. But whatever floats your boat :-)

It probably makes sense for large arrays where even FC disks are a
small fraction of the cost of the array.
  #3  
Old November 25th 08, 07:03 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?

On Nov 21, 12:04*pm, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
wrote:

[...]

It will have this motherboard:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=MB-...8a1d895c25a4f0...
(supermicro)


You may want to consider the Seaburg (5400) models instead of the old
Blackford (5000P), ie X7DW something, but it depends on your exact
requirements.

and use this controller card: (areca arc-1680ix-16 a sas and sata
card)http://www.provantage.com/areca-arc-...6~7AREC012.htm


I've not used the 1680 but Areca's 1261ML (SAS) controller rocks.

The 1680ix-16 uses a 50% faster CPU version than the 1261ML, but I've
heard that someone was recommended going with the 1231/1261/1280
series instead if they plan to only connect SATA disks to them by
someone at Areca support.

I also know that some other manufacturers SAS RAID controllers pretty
much sucks when connected to SATA disks (it works but performance
isn't there). I doubt Areca 1680 will be *bad* (the CPU is newer and
much higher clocked than the other vendor) but I doubt it will beat
the 1261 series of card either.

Areca's 1680 performance brief suggests they too had some problems in
this area, a number of SATA benchmark is a LOT higher with 1.45
(currrent) than 1.43 firmware. This may have been the cause for that
recommendation so it may well be better now. It's also doubtful if it
would manifest itself with the SAS ES.2 disks, even if the "backend"
hardware is essentially the same as it's SATA cousins.

Either way I assume you're getting the "optional" BBM for the card
(vital) and possibly a memory upgrade (because it may help and doesn't
cost much). The memory upgrade can be a great help if you have a lot
of writes going on.

Right now our existing server has a 3.2TB raid6 array which is pretty
fast with these drives (8 of them): *ST3500630NS
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...Code=101923&pr....
(500GB 32mb cache 7200 rpm x 8)


Yes, the Barracuda ES series, it's a "RAID" disks (IE higher specs in
some important areas and server optimized firmware) and a pretty good
choice at the time you made that choice. However, ST3500630NS doesn't
have 32MB cache, Seagate says it has 16MB!

So my question is what type of SAS drive would i want to push this
thing even faster.. (dual port? 10k or 7200 with dual port etc).. I'm
not 100% up on sas at this point..


Almost all SAS disks are either 10k or 15k RPM, which does give
benefits. 10k is also available in SATA (WD Raptor) but for "server
loads" it usually looses against the real server disks, and for a VM
server running multiple independent VMs I suspect it's server disk IO
"profile" that fits best.

The drawback is that "normal" SAS disks cost a lot more per GB and
tops out at 450GB (3.5" models). With SATA there's RAID certified
disks up to 1TB (and you definitely don't want the normal Seagate
1.5TB, Seagate has firmware problems on it).

Our one sql server vm, with multiple sql server instances may grow
very large in size, to about 1 or 2TB in size over time, as we move
alot of data into team foundation server 2008 (lots of graphical, vr,
rendering data and images etc).. this is my only thinking for SAS, as
this sql VM will be getting hit more and more (or split the SQL
instances over two VMs on two different hosts)..


I would think even with sql in our environment and running about 8
VM's on each server, we would still be ok with SATA...


2+TB means quite a lot of SAS 10/15k disks, but the performance will
be a lot greater than with 7.2k SATA disks, due to higher performance
per spindle AND more spindles.

You need to decide how much storage you need and how much IO activity
you're going to see, without a detailed analysis no one else is going
to be able to help you.

Here are two SAS drives I've found (500GB variety, though i have yet
to see a 32mb cache equivalent of our sata):


Dual port wise: *i dont see many over 500GB in size.. or really any


Single port:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...ku=A1622058&cs....
(Seagate 7200rpm 16mb cache)


This is Seagate Barracuda ES.2, model ST3500620SS. It's the smallest
model in the SAS ES.2 series, both SAS and SATA ES.2 go up to 1TB...

However, the SAS models have 16MB (same as your ES disks) and the SATA
models 32MB cache. Since there's no other differences you'll see at
least as good performance from the SATA ES.2 and probably slightly
better in fact (assuming no controller bottleneck).

So unless you're willing to go with a larger number of 10k/15k SAS
disks there doesn't seem to be any upside at all with going with SAS.
The disks are very similar and probably run similar firmware so even
the MTBF and other factors should be close to identical.

There IS a significant extra cost for the SAS models compared to the
SATA models so I know which one I would be using (except heavy duty DB
servers which ends up with a pile of 15k SAS disks in RAID10, they
tend to not need that much storage but craves IOPS).

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/pro...cuda_es/barrac...

For dual port you're really going for FC disks, with the capacity
drawbacks I mentioned earlier (only 10k/15k disks) and in addition
you'll pay a lot extra for it being FC. But whatever floats your boat :-)

It probably makes sense for large arrays where even FC disks are a
small fraction of the cost of the array.


Thanks for all the great details..

So you dont think the 7200 rpm (single port)? sas drives (ES2.1) from
seagate.. ie: 500gb, would be worth the bother over 32MB enterprise
drive equivalents that are sata?

I dont think we take a ton of file I/O hits now.. but our file system
is stored on the host server side.. with the new server it will be
from within a VM.

I'm leaning towards building a nice array of SAS drives on the new
server just for a VM or two that will do nothing but file sharing
(network shares)..

Or maybe use that SAS array to power say 2-3 VMS, the rest will be on
a sata array..

With file sharing right now, on the main host, we have about 60 open
files.. but for most other sql apps that fall under our one sql vm,
i'm guessing we dont have more than a handful or maybe 15 at the most
simultaneous hits as of now, though this may grow.

  #4  
Old November 29th 08, 06:01 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
Torbjorn Lindgren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?

wrote:
So you dont think the 7200 rpm (single port)? sas drives (ES2.1) from
seagate.. ie: 500gb, would be worth the bother over 32MB enterprise
drive equivalents that are sata?


Based on the spec it's the same drive mechanism except less cache on
the SAS model, the firmare is somewhat different though. It depends on
whether you need to mix in SAS 15k disks in the same chassi/controller
or not, if not I'd save the money and go for the lower cost SATA ES.2
drives.

There CAN be differences in other areas, in this case it appears to be
that the SAS controller is faster (up to 50% faster CPU, slightly
faster memory). It can also handle more cache (4GB instead of 2GB),
though in most cases 2GB is probably enough.

The CPU/memory difference should give it higher streaming read/write,
if given enough disks (as a guess it'll may start showing up at
perhaps 10-12 disk for read and RAID1/10/5 write, 8-10 disks for RAID6
write?).

However, for most people STR has little or NO effect, it's high enough
that about the only possible exception I can think is HD video editing
using *uncompressed* video and I'm not sure even those guys would
typically notice it (probably run into CPU utilization limits even on
a dual/quad before a STR limit that high is noticeable).


I dont think we take a ton of file I/O hits now.. but our file system
is stored on the host server side.. with the new server it will be
from within a VM.

I'm leaning towards building a nice array of SAS drives on the new
server just for a VM or two that will do nothing but file sharing
(network shares)..

Or maybe use that SAS array to power say 2-3 VMS, the rest will be on
a sata array..


That's where it starts to get complicated and where there's few good
guides. It MAY work well to use both SATA and SAS disks on a
controller, and it may not! If not you do want the SAS ES.2 models for
bulk storage instead (or two different controllers but that
complicates other things).

There's a few anecdotes but not much beyond that.


With file sharing right now, on the main host, we have about 60 open
files.. but for most other sql apps that fall under our one sql vm,
i'm guessing we dont have more than a handful or maybe 15 at the most
simultaneous hits as of now, though this may grow.


Number of files isn't a particularly usefull metric for someone
outside which doesn't have knownledge of your system.

If you want to size this try to figure how much read IOPS and write
IOPS you have, then try to figure out how many of those can be
gathered via a large write-back cache (this will have a big impact if
you use RAID5 or RAID6 and 10+% writes).
  #5  
Old December 1st 08, 04:03 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?

On Nov 29, 12:01*pm, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:

There CAN be differences in other areas, in this case it appears to be
that the SAS controller is faster (up to 50% faster CPU, slightly
faster memory). It can also handle more cache (4GB instead of 2GB),
though in most cases 2GB is probably enough.


Yeah, our controller is definitely a SAS type, so i guess we have that
benefit as well. The drives do have to be enterprise type. Our
current system is using Raid6 over 8 drives, which "seems" fast to me,
given our load.



With file sharing right now, on the main host, we have about 60 open
files.. but for most other sql apps that fall under our one sql vm,
i'm guessing we dont have more than a handful or maybe 15 at the most
simultaneous hits as of now, though this may grow.


Number of files isn't a particularly usefull metric for someone
outside which doesn't have knownledge of your system.

If you want to size this try to figure how much read IOPS and write
IOPS you have, then try to figure out how many of those can be
gathered via a large write-back cache (this will have a big impact if
you use RAID5 or RAID6 and 10+% writes).


You're suggesting to use perf monitor to monitor these? Which values
should i add to it.. i dont recall IOPS being an option, maybe avg
disk queue length etc?

Either way, i have to get the order fired off in the next day or so,
as of now i'm leaning towards sticking with an 8 drive raid6 array of
Sata drives, or maybe 4 drives at 1TB each but Also doing a 4 drive
SAS array of some variety, for my most intensive apps (sql mainly)..
but 4 drives may not be enough, if the largest drive i can get (at
15K) is 300GB? Thats not quite 1TB, really ideally, i'd want a 2TB
SAS array of some variety.

Thanks again
  #6  
Old December 3rd 08, 05:51 AM posted to comp.arch.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?

On Nov 29, 12:01*pm, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
wrote:
So you dont thinkthe7200 rpm (single port)? sas drives (ES2.1) from
seagate.. ie: 500gb, would be worththebother over 32MB enterprise
drive equivalents that are sata?


Based onthespec it'sthesame drive mechanism except less cache on
theSAS model,thefirmare is somewhat different though. It depends on
whether you need to mix in SAS 15k disks inthesame chassi/controller
ornot, ifnotI'd savethemoney and go forthelower cost SATA ES.2
drives.

There CAN be differences in other areas, in this case it appears to be
thattheSAS controller is faster (up to 50% faster CPU, slightly
faster memory). It can also handle more cache (4GB instead of 2GB),
though in most cases 2GB is probably enough.

TheCPU/memory difference should give it higher streaming read/write,
if given enough disks (as a guess it'll may start showing up at
perhaps 10-12 disk for read and RAID1/10/5 write, 8-10 disks for RAID6
write?).

However, for most people STR has little or NO effect, it's high enough
that abouttheonly possible exception I can think is HD video editing
using *uncompressed* video and I'mnotsure even those guys would
typically notice it (probably run into CPU utilization limits even on
a dual/quad before a STR limit that high is noticeable).

I dont think we take a ton offileI/O hits now.. but ourfilesystem
is stored onthehost server side.. withthenew server it will be
from within a VM.


I'm leaning towards building a nice array of SAS drives onthenew
server just for a VM or two that will do nothing butfilesharing
(network shares)..


Or maybe use that SAS array to power say 2-3 VMS,therest will be on
a sata array..


That's where it starts to get complicated and where there's few good
guides. It MAY work well to use both SATA and SAS disks on a
controller, and it maynot! Ifnotyou do wanttheSAS ES.2 models for
bulk storage instead (or two different controllers but that
complicates other things).

There's a few anecdotes butnotmuch beyond that.

Withfilesharing right now, onthemain host, we have about 60 open
files.. but for most other sql apps that fall under our one sql vm,
i'm guessing we dont have more than a handful or maybe 15 atthemost
simultaneous hits as of now, though this may grow.


Number of files isn't a particularly usefull metric for someone
outside which doesn't have knownledge of yoursystem.

If you want to size this try to figure how much read IOPS and write
IOPS you have, then try to figure out how many of those can be
gathered via a large write-back cache (this will have a big impact if
you use RAID5 or RAID6 and 10+% writes).


A fresh thought occurred.. i wonder if doing a mirror of two 15K SAS
drives would prove beneficial?

I looked at 450GB seagates that were 15K drives.. i'd need 5 to come
close to 2TB in a raid5 array.. thats $3000 alone.

You mentioned looking at Seaburg for the cpu.. how is it different
than harpertown.. do you have a particular model in mind.

The model of harpertown i'm going to slightly upgrade to is the 2.66
1333 fsb 5430 series. This is up from 2.5 and 1066 fsb on our other
server.


  #7  
Old December 9th 08, 02:40 AM posted to comp.arch.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?

On Dec 2, 11:51*pm, wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:01*pm, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:



wrote:
So you dont thinkthe7200 rpm (single port)? sas drives (ES2.1) from
seagate.. ie: 500gb, would be worththebother over 32MB enterprise
drive equivalents that are sata?


Based onthespec it'sthesame drive mechanism except less cache on
theSAS model,thefirmare is somewhat different though. It depends on
whether you need to mix in SAS 15k disks inthesame chassi/controller
ornot, ifnotI'd savethemoney and go forthelower cost SATA ES.2
drives.


There CAN be differences in other areas, in this case it appears to be
thattheSAS controller is faster (up to 50% faster CPU, slightly
faster memory). It can also handle more cache (4GB instead of 2GB),
though in most cases 2GB is probably enough.


TheCPU/memory difference should give it higher streaming read/write,
if given enough disks (as a guess it'll may start showing up at
perhaps 10-12 disk for read and RAID1/10/5 write, 8-10 disks for RAID6
write?).


However, for most people STR has little or NO effect, it's high enough
that abouttheonly possible exception I can think is HD video editing
using *uncompressed* video and I'mnotsure even those guys would
typically notice it (probably run into CPU utilization limits even on
a dual/quad before a STR limit that high is noticeable).


I dont think we take a ton offileI/O hits now.. but ourfilesystem
is stored onthehost server side.. withthenew server it will be
from within a VM.


I'm leaning towards building a nice array of SAS drives onthenew
server just for a VM or two that will do nothing butfilesharing
(network shares)..


Or maybe use that SAS array to power say 2-3 VMS,therest will be on
a sata array..


That's where it starts to get complicated and where there's few good
guides. It MAY work well to use both SATA and SAS disks on a
controller, and it maynot! Ifnotyou do wanttheSAS ES.2 models for
bulk storage instead (or two different controllers but that
complicates other things).


There's a few anecdotes butnotmuch beyond that.


Withfilesharing right now, onthemain host, we have about 60 open
files.. but for most other sql apps that fall under our one sql vm,
i'm guessing we dont have more than a handful or maybe 15 atthemost
simultaneous hits as of now, though this may grow.


Number of files isn't a particularly usefull metric for someone
outside which doesn't have knownledge of yoursystem.


If you want to size this try to figure how much read IOPS and write
IOPS you have, then try to figure out how many of those can be
gathered via a large write-back cache (this will have a big impact if
you use RAID5 or RAID6 and 10+% writes).


A fresh thought occurred.. i wonder if doing a mirror of two 15K SAS
drives would prove beneficial?

I looked at 450GB seagates that were 15K drives.. i'd need 5 to come
close to 2TB in a raid5 array.. thats $3000 alone.

You mentioned looking at Seaburg for the cpu.. how is it different
than harpertown.. do you have a particular model in mind.

The model of harpertown i'm going to slightly upgrade to is the 2.66
1333 fsb 5430 series. *This is up from 2.5 and 1066 fsb on our other
server.


I saw some passmark disk mark ratings on a sas 15k 4 drive array.. the
values were around 15,000 or so if i remember correctly, which blows
away our raid6 8 drive 32mb 500gb array that is sataII..

It still is a bit steep for a 2TB 5 drive SAS array ($3000), vs the
$799 6 or 7TB raid6 or raid5 array.. but i'm betting the Vm'S that ran
on those arrays would probably have impressive disk marks in
themselves... but for us, for now we settled for Sata II's, maybe
going with SAS in a year, when sas 2.0 is out (price drop), unless we
find our file systems suffer in the VM's they are moved to (network
shares).

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Increased Spam For You Too? Bruce Dell Computers 8 December 3rd 07 01:13 AM
increased ram from 512 to 2 Gig, but... J Mac Homebuilt PC's 11 September 21st 05 12:47 AM
P4S533-MX problem - help greatly appreciated Kent_Diego Asus Motherboards 3 April 18th 05 01:20 AM
PC reboots when FSB is increased !!!! Anthropy Homebuilt PC's 26 January 2nd 05 06:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.