• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Raid 5 Sata

M

Megalomaniac

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,193
Would a raid 5 Sata setup be faster than a raid 5 IDE
i pressume yes, but i have not seen any proof of it.
I guess a lot would depend on the Raid card.
 
Possibly. Like you mentioned, a lot will depend on the card. Older generation cards like the 3ware 8500 won't help much in terms of speed; if you want raw speed Areca has the title right now. If you don't spring for one of those, it's probably best to go for a software-based solution like a Highpoint. They're a lot cheaper than the low-end hardware cards, and perform on par in most cases.

 
I'd be inclined to say the SATA would be faster. This is based on the fact that using SATA each drive is on a different cable so you could send data to all of the drives at the same time. This is compared to having to switch between drives on master/slave channels. The caches on the drives would help but still not be as good as consistently feeding data to all of the drives.

The card would still make a big difference though. You'd still need a card capable of sending all the data at once as well as being able to transfer a lot of data over the bus(ie PCI-X or PCI Express x8, etc)
 
For a raid5 or 6 setup, it should be fine to run the card in a PCI slot. Raid5 has relatively slow writes and read (slower than a single drive), not nearly enough to saturate the PCI bus. Something like raptors in raid0 would be bottlenecked by a pci controller though.
Also, assuming the same controller, sata raid5 would be as fast as pata raid5, provided that the pata setup used one drive per cable, as opposed to two.
 
and here you are also answering my follow up question :D
i currently have an Adaptec 2400A (PCI)
good card for raid 5, but really dated.
i am usually very pissed when i have to wait for hours to do a data dump, and i am hoping to speed it up.

so when i will go to 64 bit, i am thinking of getting a PCIe raid 5 card.
 
RavenD said:
For a raid5 or 6 setup, it should be fine to run the card in a PCI slot. Raid5 has relatively slow writes and read (slower than a single drive), not nearly enough to saturate the PCI bus. Something like raptors in raid0 would be bottlenecked by a pci controller though.
Also, assuming the same controller, sata raid5 would be as fast as pata raid5, provided that the pata setup used one drive per cable, as opposed to two.
Click to expand...

Raid 5 has almost the same read speed as raid0, writes are a little slower.
 
RavenD said:
For a raid5 or 6 setup, it should be fine to run the card in a PCI slot. Raid5 has relatively slow writes and read (slower than a single drive), not nearly enough to saturate the PCI bus. Something like raptors in raid0 would be bottlenecked by a pci controller though.
Also, assuming the same controller, sata raid5 would be as fast as pata raid5, provided that the pata setup used one drive per cable, as opposed to two.
Click to expand...

Uh, on sustained large filetransfer reads, (such as md5 summing a fedora fc4 ISO image), I get ~ 120-135MB/second (pci-x, not pci-e controller) on my raid5 of 4 x 400GB sata seagate drives. This is using windows software raid5. Writing is a whole nother world at 7MB/second
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top