Best RAID1/5 setup inside my PC case?

[Zoeff]

A few years back I switched from a bunch of random external USB drives to a proper RAID5 setup in a synology NAS box. It's exactly what I wanted, a simple and reliable assistant that does everything for me so no chance of the user (me) fucking something up and breaking the entire array. It's saved me once already however a drive in my computer case itself failed recently, pointing out an obvious hole in my redundancy. I've been thinking of replacing my 2 remaining 2TB drives in my case to a 2x 4TB RAID1 setup just in case of drive failure.

The question then is, what is the best route to take from here? On board Intel RAID, using the Marvell chip (GA-Z87X-UD5H), software based, or a dedicated RAID controller?

I was leaning towards buying a dedicated RAID controller purely to avoid headaches when the inevitable time comes that Intel tells me I need a new motherboard just for a new CPU...

However searching through these forums a bit it seems most are fine with Intel's build in RAID controller and even software RAID. This surprised me quite a bit, especially software RAID as that seems to me to be a recipe for headaches with software acting up and the inevitable upgrade. What happens when you decide to reinstall windows for example? How does the software recognize which drive is what after a format?

Wouldn't a hardware based solution be far simpler? The same question applies to hardware based, what happens when I replace my motherboard and turn on Intel RAID on the new motherboard? Does it recognize the drives as being a RAID volume or will it just format it and present me with a fresh RAID1 volume? :hmm:
Would a dedicated RAID controller card avoid this issue, as in, do those cards store the RAID setup independently of the motherboard/OS?

In the future I might migrate to RAID5 if the upcoming RAID1 setup proves successful, so obviously the setup has to be compatible with RAID5 and a simple automated software backup every week isn't preferable.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

 

[Cerb]

If you are using Windows all-around, use the Intel integrated RAID. It is very well implemented, with a good management interface.

However searching through these forums a bit it seems most are fine with Intel's build in RAID controller and even software RAID. This surprised me quite a bit, especially software RAID as that seems to me to be a recipe for headaches with software acting up and the inevitable upgrade.

We put up with hardware RAID, because Windows' own software RAID is too slow. Hardware RAID is notoriously finicky. Also, back in the 90s and earlier, our CPUs weren't powerful enough, nor was RAM cheap enough, to make software RAID fast. Today, for Windows servers and workstations, that pretty much means getting something from LSI (PERC/MegaRAID/ServeRAID/...)...same for Linux servers, if you have a reason not to use software RAID. The issue of upgrading is similar between RAID types. You can usually upgrade an array with a newer controller of the same type, but no guarantees, and that restricts your hardware choices.

What happens when you decide to reinstall windows for example? How does the software recognize which drive is what after a format?

Data about the array and its members is written on the disks. You might have to do some minimal setup, but generally migrating from an older one to a newer one is fairly painless (make sure to backup before upgrading, anyway, though!). If the RAID is not configured, Windows may see a dynamic disk with no data, or a, "RAID volume," either of which should be clues to go into the BIOS (if you need the array to boot the OS), or RST utility, and get the array properly configured.

While hardware-assisted for parity RAID, Intel RAID is very much FakeRAID. It's just really good FakeRAID for Windows, at a low price (about $20 more than a Bxx chipset board), if you don't need the high performance a real hardware RAID card can offer (as a single user, you never will). The performance, and lack of SAS support, are why it's not used too much in servers, not that it is unreliable or difficult to manage. Intel RAID hasn't killed off LSI or Areca, but has very much made 3Ware, whose products were typically bought due to their excellent utilities, redundant.

Your PC boots up, and the early boot environment is given enough information to use the partition table(s) and bootloader from the RAID, which let's you install or boot. Then, Windows loads, which loads the Intel driver (or, you provide it during setup, and then it loads it). Said Intel driver makes Windows see one logical disk, after it gets out of that early boot (I must admit I'm not 100% sure the exact process a EUFI machine goes through, as compared to BIOS, which was far simpler).

Wouldn't a hardware based solution be far simpler?

It can be, if you move the controller over with the drives, and do not experience controller failure at any point. It is convenient, in the right circumstances. However, RAID controller failure can and does occur, though the controllers may be more reliable than the disks they control. Remember that, "hardware RAID," means having a whole 'nother computer on a card.

In the future I might migrate to RAID5 if the upcoming RAID1 setup proves successful, so obviously the setup has to be compatible with RAID5 and a simple automated software backup every week isn't preferable.

Storage is too cheap, and RAID 5 is too slow for anything but serial access. Reliability concerns of RAID 5 probably won't matter, but another 25% cost to go with RAID 10 will mean it will always be faster than a single drive.

 

[Zoeff]

Just tried to swap the 2 drives to Intel SATA ports to look around the IRST interface (they were connected to the Marvell chip before) only to be greeted by a loud mechanical knocking sound from one of the drives. Swapping them back to the Marvell controller made it stop. :\

Either way, I'll go with Intel's build in RAID controller. Should be plenty for my needs.

What is the difference between the windows IRST application and the BIOS IRST menu? Is the BIOS one meant for when you want to boot from the volume? I don't plan on using a RAID volume as my boot drive, so either works?

 

[Cerb]

The BIOS stuff, most of it, anyway, is to get you up to that point where the OS can take over. If you needed the OS for everything, even to set up a drive array for the OS to be installed on, you would be in a catch-22, if you had to install the OS before you could set up the OS' boot volume.

That said, while I haven't done it, I'm pretty sure RST let's you promote a single drive into a RAID 1, which is another way around that problem, and a unique potential advantage of RAID 1.

 

[Zoeff]

Ok, got everything installed and got a nice RAID1 volume going with 2x 4TB drives. However, the FPS when playing games has dropped to about 20% of what it used to be. To see if this RAID is somehow interfering I turned off the whole sata controller (using the Marvell chip for my SSD) and my FPS is back to normal. Switching back and forth confirmed this.

How is this possible? Why would a RAID volume reduce performance this much? It's not like it has to continually calculate parity data as it's a simple mirror...

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks..

 

[Cerb]

1. Stop using the Marvell chip for anything where performance might matter. Your OS and programs go on the Intel ports. Leave the Marvell for slow data-only drives and ODDs.

2. Check and see what your cache settings are. If they are write-through, and you can choose write-back, that might do it.

3. If not any of the above, I don't know, because it shouldn't have that much effect.

 

[Zoeff]

Windows won't boot when it's connected to the intel controller for whatever reason. :/

'Write back' is greyed out. I can choose between 'Write through', 'Read only' and 'Off'.
Ah, it's selectable when disabling Write-cache buffer flushing. It seems to increased my FPS again but not to what it was before. Would using software raid be less resource intensive?

EDIT: ugh, performance has dropped back to what it was.

 

[Cerb]

You are using software RAID. Software RAID via the Intel ports is preferable, but either way, it's software.

 

[Zoeff]

I guess I'll just do it manually then - Copying files over every week or so. Everything seems to be breaking today (some non-computer related stuff) so I can't be arsed to try and fix this.