MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

20 July 2006

When my motherboard says it supports RAID 0/1... [More:]

Is that a "hardware" solution, or is it being done through some drivers at the OS-level? I don't own any SATA drives yet, but I'm considering getting 2 instead of 1, and mirroring it with RAID. However, I want to be able to boot off it, and have the system think it's just one drive. Do you think this will work for me? I run Linux on this computer.

Also, is there any reason to worry about the fact that I "only" have SATA (150MB/s) and not the new SATA-II interface? Hard drives aren't even that fast, right? Except, possibly, the cache...
For RAID controllers that come integrated on motherboards it's usually fingerquotes hardware. Meaning that the OS driver does all the heavy lifting. The distinction doesn't really matter for RAID0/1 though because there is no parity data to generate, and conveniently that's all they usually support. It would only really matter for RAID5, and in that case software RAID5 almost always trounces hardware RAID5 because the CPU is much faster than whatever embedded processor is on the card.

And yes SATA-2 is pointless at this point because no drive even comes close to sustaining 150MB/s let alone 300.
posted by Rhomboid 20 July | 09:10
Thanks! So that probably means in Linux, I should just do an all-software solution, rather than messing with whatever integrated RAID controller is on the board?
posted by knave 20 July | 09:55
software RAID5 almost always trounces hardware RAID5

That is the exact inverse of my own experience. Please explain how a generic CPU, busy with OS tasks and on the far side of a PCI Bus, beats custom ASICs directly on the raid I/O controller.

Knave: IMO & IME, hardware raid soundly beats software raid in every dimension except price. Disrearding performance questions, by doing it in hardware you are abstracting the redundancy operations from the host OS - which means that you do not need a bootable system to be able to recover from failure.

And single-spindle speed isn't the only consideration wrt 150 vs 300. Maybe one spindle can't saturate that, but multiple spindles in a stripe set can. Granted, you're not building that, but since you asked...
posted by Triode 20 July | 11:48
Get a FREE Copy of Godless! || Creepiest. Fish. Ever.

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN