Do you rather have 9265-8i or 1882i?

[ben805]

Between the LSi 9265-8i and Areca 1882i, which one would you rather have and why? they are selling for about the same price around $650, use the same ROC dual core processors and both have 1GB of cache.

According to Tomshardware review, the Areca 1880i(previous model with only 512MB cache) smoked the 9265-8i in both RAID 5 and 6, but the LSi came out on top in RAID 0, 10, and everything else: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sas-6gb-raid-controller,3028-15.html

 

[HardyOne]

I have been thinking of getting one of these also. As I understand it, both use the same ROC chip, both have 1 GB of cache memory. The Areca can be upgraded to 4GB which gives it the edge for cache size. However, the LSI has available CacheCade which uses SSD's as cache. The SSD's are slower than the 4GB of memory, but you can have up to 512GB for cache. I would love to see a comparison of these two cards to see which cache technology is better.

 

[MarkL]

The cache's are really more aimed at different things aren't they? The CacheCade is to cache reads.. and a large amount of battery backed cached means you can store more in a buffer to write to disk.. So it depends on your usage patterns on how much writing to reading, etc...

 

[Old Hippie]

According to Tomshardware review, the Areca 1880i(previous model with only 512MB cache) smoked the 9265-8i in both RAID 5 and 6, but the LSi came out on top in RAID 0, 10

There's way too many variables and options for the LSI card to make a decision for YOUR needs.

Pick which RAID configuration you're going to use and go from there.

 

[HardyOne]

Pick which RAID configuration you're going to use and go from there

Which card (1882i or 9265) would work better for Raid 5 used for video editing large 15-20GB files?

The other option would be to use Raid 3, which means only the Areca supports that raid level.

 

[ben805]

Which card (1882i or 9265) would work better for Raid 5 used for video editing large 15-20GB files?

The other option would be to use Raid 3, which means only the Areca supports that raid level.

I too will be using the array for 21MP photo and 1080p video editing, I decided to go with the LSi base on my research because it is not as picky as the Areca when it comes to hardware compatibility, the reliability track record is also ahead of the Areca. I am not sure if the cachecade would help us because from what I understand it only improve random and sequential read...

 

[HardyOne]

I would like to get a loaner card of each (with LSI CacheCade and 4GB of mem for the Areca) and do some exhastive testing. After that, I would return the cards, then buy the one that performs the best.

 

[grogthegreat]

The cache's are really more aimed at different things aren't they? The CacheCade is to cache reads.. and a large amount of battery backed cached means you can store more in a buffer to write to disk.. So it depends on your usage patterns on how much writing to reading, etc...

CacheCade2.0 is out for the 9260 and is coming out very soon for the 9265. CacheCade2.0 will cache both read AND write. Unlike the 4GB cache on the Areca, SSDs are nonvolitile memory so that cache will still be there after a shutdown or reboot.

The LSI with CacheCade2.0 would be faster for editing large video files since the entire video will easily fit in cache. The 4GB of DDR3 on the Areca would be faster than SSDs but three or four SSDs in a raid 0 (or maybe a raid5) is still very very fast. Remember that the LSI card still has the 1GB of memory which it will use to cache the SSDs.

If you aren't going to buy the CacheCade2.0 or don't want to wait for it to be released (Q1 2012 last I heard), than I suggest the Areca. Otherwise I suggest the LSI.

To put things into perspective, I currently own a 9260-4i and plan on replacing it with the 9265-4i with CacheCade2.0 as soon as it comes out this quarter.

 

[Aesma]

Which card (1882i or 9265) would work better for Raid 5 used for video editing large 15-20GB files?

The other option would be to use Raid 3, which means only the Areca supports that raid level.

RAID 5 of HDDs or SSDs ? And how many ? What about RAID 50 ?

 

[ben805]

I'm going to set mine up in RAID 6 instead of 5, it has better redundancy and allow 2 failed drive instead of 1. 6x 7500K 1TB HDD in RAID 6 and 2x samsung 830 256GB SSD in RAID 0, most likely partition half of SSD to be use for cachecade and the other half for OS and apps.

 

[StuckInTexas]

I have both cards and I personally like the 9265. I do RAID 0 with many disks and large file access and the LSI card performs better, but only at the higher limits.

 

[jen4950]

I have the LSI and am quite happy with it- has been really stable.

Only issue I had was firmware on the SSD's- but getting those up to date solved all of my problems.

 

[ben805]

I have both cards and I personally like the 9265. I do RAID 0 with many disks and large file access and the LSI card performs better, but only at the higher limits.

I'm loving the 9265 so far but the GUI and Storage Manager are kinda lame. The card runs a bit hot, put a slot cooler to draw out hot air right next to the heatsink now it's around 50C. Setup 1 SSD for OS and apps, and 4x 1TB in RAID0 as temp/scratch drive, I refuse to deal with the slowness from RAID 5 and 6 and taking a hit in useable space. For storage and backup I use 3x 2TB single drive instead, they are disconnected from the system when not in use to prevent wear and tear.

 

[jen4950]

I'm loving the 9265 so far but the GUI and Storage Manager are kinda lame. The card runs a bit hot, put a slot cooler to draw out hot air right next to the heatsink now it's around 50C. Setup 1 SSD for OS and apps, and 4x 1TB in RAID0 as temp/scratch drive, I refuse to deal with the slowness from RAID 5 and 6 and taking a hit in useable space. For storage and backup I use 3x 2TB single drive instead, they are disconnected from the system when not in use to prevent wear and tear.

Some argue that the power cycling and consequent thermal cycles causes more wear and tear than just running constantly,.

 

[ben805]

Some argue that the power cycling and consequent thermal cycles causes more wear and tear than just running constantly,.

nahhhh, my 3x 2TB are not constantly being power up and down, they will only be connected to the system when i need to do backup and storage, they spend most of the time sitting in the shelf.

Beside, Heat is the number 1 killer of mechanical drive. I still have some VERY OLD Hitachi and WD 160GB and 250GB 5200rpm drive still alive and kicking for being constantly power on and off for YEARS, they are in my daughter's PC running windows 95.