PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Wayne Youn » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:57:24


Hi,

would there be much difference between using a PCI RAID-0 controller with 2
x IDE hard disks, as compared to a built in SATA RAID-0 running 2 x SATA
disks?.

I just sold my system which had SATA-RAID-0 and I'm not sure whether to
build the same again, or a more value mobo and add my own IDE RAID-0.

I'm not talking about the INTEl ICH5-R SATA RAID-0, but the one that is
included with most AMD mobos (silicon image)
--
Wayne ][
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by S.Heena » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:36:44


No performance difference at all. If you have already have PATA hard drives,
buy a HighPoint or Promise RAID controller if the board does not support IDE
RAID.

 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Folkert Ri » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:57:57

You will not ever get it, won't you, Wayne.
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Folkert Ri » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:59:57


Clueless.
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by S.Heena » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:58:10


Huh ?
Enlighten me as to how there's a performance difference between onboard SATA
RAID0 and IDE RAID0
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Wayne Youn » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:23:07

"Folkert Rienstra" wrote


"S.Heenan" wrote
SATA


"Folkert Rienstra" wrote


Lol!
not you again.

I would imagine there isn't a heap of difference, but why on earth did they
make SATA drives?. Is it the case that they only works properly when used
with the INTEL ICH5-R. Is it that PCI BUS limit of 133MB/s just normallsing
any RAID set-up on it? so why do people use Raptor 10,000rpm drives in
RAID-0? just for lower access times?
--
Wayne ][
<new specs coming soon!>
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by J. Clark » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:51:34


When folknut says "clueless" he's talking about himself.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by J. Clark » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:55:19


Mostly marketing. The major benefit of SATA is support for hot-plugging.
The smaller cable is beneficial for airflow in the case. The higher
transfer rate may be important some day but that day is not today.


The raptor is a fast drive because of its high rotational speed, not because
of SATA. WD could make the same drive with PATA and the performance would
be the same--its maximum transfer rate is considerably under 133 MB/sec.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Folkert Ri » Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:22:19


I apologize, my fault.
I was caught out by the question in the first para-
graph and the less than clear reformulation later on.
I didn't expect it to be the stupid question that it turned out to be.

When both on PCI it doesn't make a difference except for running
2 PATA on the same channel.

When comparing built in chipset SATA/PATA to PCI connected SATA/
PATA the built in version isn't limited to the PCI bus bandwidth.
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Wayne Youn » Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:06:04


"Folkert Rienstra" wrote


That doesn't make any sense. You are saying that a add-on controller, which
is *bolted* on to the PCI BUS isn't affected by the PCI BUS
bandwidth/limitation of 133MB/s ?
--
Wayne ][
<new specs coming soon!>
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by J. Clark » Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:59:47


Depending on the chipset it may not be "bolted onto the PCI bus". It may be
bridged directly to the front-side bus.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Folkert Ri » Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:00:07


If you read carefully () I say the exact opposite.


Which it is in all the newer chipsets.
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Folkert Ri » Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:12:35


Yup. In an other post you said you were learning slowly.
I think you overstated that considerably.


Nonsense. The ATA interface was outliving its lifespan.



SATA is not just a drive interface. SATA can be RAID-ed and con-
nected through a single port. SATA150 will already be too slow for that.


Nope.


Sorry, I don't understand gibberish.


For the same reason people always use RAID0.


Yes, but that has nothing to do with RAID.


With the (lowish) platter density that they have.
They could be similarly fast in 7200 with higher density platters.
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Folkert Ri » Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:34:37


Do I hear someone grind an axe?
Is that all they learn at the 'school of hard knocks'?!
 
 
 

PCI ATA/100 RAID-0 vs PCI SATA RAID-0

Post by Folkert Ri » Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:36:01


This has nothing to do with SATA but everything with PCI vs non-PCI
(ie hypertransport bus/hub interface).