Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I want to buy a mb, i will make raid 0 with 4 disk but i dont know which mb better for raid, i cant choose one.

Please Help.

Confic will be like this;

4 Gb Ram

Core i7 2.96 Ghz

4 x 2 Tb disk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,630 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Enrgy
View Post

I want to buy a mb, i will make raid 0 with 4 disk but i dont know which mb better for raid, i cant choose one.

Please Help.

Confic will be like this;

4 Gb Ram

Core i7 2.96 Ghz

4 x 2 Tb disk

your existing board can do RAID 0...but why with 4 HDD's? that only increases your chance of RAID array failure by 4x........and I would get RE3 edition drives from WD or Samsung F3's for RAID cause normal HDD's from WD would easily drop out from RAID cause WD disabled TLER so you would have to cash out more for a drive with TLER enabled

you can setup RAID inside your bios....just go to storage confi set it from "AHCI" to "RAID", reboot and it should tell you to click "ctrl+i or ctrl+o" to configure RAID

Quote:


Originally Posted by subliminally incorrect
View Post

the asus p6t7 will do raid 0 with 4 HDD no problem.

generally any modern day mainstream motherboard has a decent raid controller.

NEARLY all modern mobo's have a standard RAID controller
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by subliminally incorrect
View Post

generally any modern day mainstream motherboard has a decent raid controller.

Not true... AMD, JMicron, NEC, and NVIDIA RAID isn't nearly as good as Intel

As for the OP, virtually all socket 1366 motherboards have the ICH10R.

Quote:


Originally Posted by Mr.Pie
View Post

all modern mobo's have a standard RAID controller


There are a few current Intel motherboards using the ICH10 instead...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,630 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by DuckieHo
View Post

Not true... AMD, JMicron, NEC, and NVIDIA RAID isn't nearly as good as Intel

As for the OP, virtually all socket 1366 motherboards have the ICH10R.

There are a few current Intel motherboards using the ICH10 instead...

you caught me duckie!


fixed!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,484 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Enrgy
View Post

which RAID controller better than intel ICH10R ?

Decent hardware RAID Controller. But that costs as much as another motherboard, usually.
.

Otherwise, nothing better than ICH10R at this time for HostRAID / FakeRAID implementation.

At least, nothing better at the mainstream level...

And 4x2TB in RAID-0? Just asking for trouble. Really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
i dont really need real raid, just i want to make download and media server just all and i need speed while file copping,

how is that:

WD RE4-GP
3.5-inch Enterprise SATA Hard Drives
2 TB, 1.2 million hours MTBF, 64 MB Cache, IntelliPower
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Enrgy View Post
i dont really need real raid, just i want to make download and media server just all and i need speed while file copping,

how is that:

WD RE4-GP
3.5-inch Enterprise SATA Hard Drives
2 TB, 1.2 million hours MTBF, 64 MB Cache, IntelliPower
If this is just for basic file storage then RAID0 is not what you want. You should be looking at RAID5, 6 or 10, or not using RAID at all and going with something like the folder duplication built into WHS.

That is a nice drive, not sure how it copes in RAID though. I would imagine as it's an RE drive it should be fine, but as it's also a Green drive it might have issues. I have no direct experience of it I'm afraid. If you intend to run it in a hardware array (which would really require a dedicated hardware controller rather than your onboard for anything other than RAID0 or 10) then you should read around and see if it has been certified for use with any of the true hardware RAID cards.

Another option is to run software RAID using some flavour of unix or linux. FreeNAS or Openfiler both offer decent software RAID, and both are free and easy to set up. Depends on what you want to set up - is this a dedicated file server, or just a few extra disks in you main rig?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
i didnt understand, i need a greater read speed,
this server will stay in to the network, approximately 200 people will connect this server for file copy or for watch films.

i dont care data protection, i need speed,

This disk have these properties.

WD RE3 family of drives and adds advanced power management technology to deliver a faster, greener solution for large-scale data centers.

StableTrac - Secures the motor shaft at both ends to reduce system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate tracking, during read and write operations. View demo >
RAID-specific time-limited error recovery (TLER) - Pioneered by WD, this feature prevents drive fallout caused by the extended hard drive error-recovery processes common to desktop drives.
Rotary Acceleration Feed Forward (RAFF) - Optimizes operation and performance when the drives are used in vibration-prone multi-drive systems such as rack mounted servers.
Ideal For

Large data centers, web service providers, commercial grade surveillance systems and organizations requiring huge amounts of storage with limited budget and power allotment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Enrgy View Post
i didnt understand, i need a greater read speed,
this server will stay in to the network, approximately 200 people will connect this server for file copy or for watch films.

i dont care data protection, i need speed,

This disk have these properties.
What is your network infrastructure? Will you server have a 1Gb, 2Gb, or 10Gb connection?

RAID5/6 is a better option than RAID0 if you have write once, read often data and would like some redundency. RAID5 read performance is close to a (n-1) RAID0. RAID6 read performance is close to a (n-2) RAID0. However, both provide terrible writes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
RAID5/6 is a better option than RAID0 if you have write once, read often data and would like some redundency. RAID5 read performance is close to a (n-1) RAID0. RAID6 read performance is close to a (n-2) RAID0. However, both provide terrible writes.
Actually sequential writes on both RAID5 and RAID6 are pretty decent with a hardware controller or a decent software implementation. Small writes are terrible though - anything less than a full stripe width will slow everything right down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enrgy View Post
i didnt understand, i need a greater read speed,
this server will stay in to the network, approximately 200 people will connect this server for file copy or for watch films.

i dont care data protection, i need speed,
If you are supporting 200 users, the last thing you want to do if run a server without some sort of redundancy in your disk subsystem.

And there is no way a 4-drive array, especially one made up of Green drives, will support 200 users for file copies & media streaming. Just won't work - performance will be terrible. To support that level of users for media work will require you to invest a LOT more in your hardware.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,001 Posts
An array like that would be horrible for many accesses at the same time. Lose more than 50% speed copying on a single drive because the head needs to swipe back and forth, then add in the latency of the controller needing to wait for each of the 4 drives to make the right swipe, and you got some insanely slow speeds on your hands. And this was theoretically with two simultaneous reads. 200 users and this just is just a joke. Basically each drive would have to switch between 200 different locations on the hard drive to get files for 200 different people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Quote:

Originally Posted by LemonSlice View Post
An array like that would be horrible for many accesses at the same time. Lose more than 50% speed copying on a single drive because the head needs to swipe back and forth, then add in the latency of the controller needing to wait for each of the 4 drives to make the right swipe, and you got some insanely slow speeds on your hands. And this was theoretically with two simultaneous reads. 200 users and this just is just a joke. Basically each drive would have to switch between 200 different locations on the hard drive to get files for 200 different people.
Thanks this,

What should i do, what is the best solution?

i have 12 wireless point, they are connect a 48 port L2 router, i will connect this server to the router,

i want to ask one more question, how can i make dual ethernet connection (i have 2 x RJ48 port over the mainboard).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,484 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Enrgy
View Post

Thanks this,

What should i do, what is the best solution?

i have 12 wireless point, they are connect a 48 port L2 router, i will connect this server to the router,

i want to ask one more question, how can i make dual ethernet connection (i have 2 x RJ48 port over the mainboard).

What's your budget for this "solution" that you need...?

NIC teaming is dependent on the NIC driver support.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Enrgy View Post
My budget is 1600$
for the whole system or for the storage subsystem?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Enrgy View Post
All

Tell the business: "Fast, Reliable, or Cheap. Pick two."

With a $1600 budget, you are look just cheap... it won't be fast or reliable.

Can you segment the users to allow spreading the load across servers or at least across arrays?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Tell the business: "Fast, Reliable, or Cheap. Pick two."

With a $1600 budget, you are look just cheap... it won't be fast or reliable.

Can you segment the users to allow spreading the load across servers or at least across arrays?
With $1600 he won't look cheap, he will look like an idiot. The system just won't work.

Someone needs to get their wallet out in a big way if the OP really wants to stream even low-def video to 200 clients.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top