The fastest RAID 0 setup aviable!?

[Rickard]

I have serious plans to buy a SCSI RAID setup very soon. I'm leaning towards 2 x SEAGATE CHEETAH X15 36LP 18.4GB ULTRA160 WIDE 68-P and a ADAPTEC SCSI RAID 2100S ULTRA160 32MB 1-CHANNEL.

1. I will run my system on a non 64bit PCI platform (I'm using ASUS P4B266)
2. I will use Windows XP PRO
3. A big RAID array (Many Gigs) is not importent
4. I'm looking for speed and speed only. I assume RAID 0?
5. I have no need for extra SCSI channels (dont need SCSI CDROM etc...)
6. Money is not an issue here

Based on these decisions what can you recommend? Is the above a good choice of hardware or maybe i should choose something else?

 

[Mavrick007]

Although SCSI Raid 0 is very fast, it's also very unsafe. The failure of just one drive will result in all data in an array being lost. You say you want a single channel card, but the best performance will come from striping data across multiple controllers with only one drive per controller. It is possible to run from this config but be wary of the consequences. Why do you need so much speed from your hard drives?

 

[Rickard]

Because i'm addicted to speed . Is the risk bigger for a failure on a SCSI RAID 0 array then on an IDE RAID 0 array? I backup importent files to another harddisk and have a Ghost floppy configured for autodumping so i have an easy way of backing up my stuff (even my girlfriend can dump the whole installation to an image ). Will i actually gain anything having the harddisks at different channels?

 

[Pariah]

If you're after speed, you're better of with a software stripe than an Adaptec 2100S. No, that's not a joke.

 

[Mavrick007]

Hehe Addicted to speed.. aren't we all? I don't think I could justify the SCSI raid expense just for a bit more speed cause all it's going to help out is in loading games(not playing games), running a web server, video editing, or anything else requiring high bandwidth, and even then I don't think it would be enough to push me in that direction.

I wouldn't say that SCSI raid 0 has any more chance of failure than an IDE raid 0 cause any drive can die at anytime in scsi or ide, but scsi seems to be made of better quality components so the hard drives should essentially last longer. This isn't always the case though cause my friend bought a fast Seagate cheetah drive and it died in less than a year and he spent about $800 bucks on this drive.

I'm sure you do backup files but when you have even 40Gigs to backup or ghost, it gets to be a bit much. I've heard of Ghost not working correctly in raid configs too since they're located on different drives and different partitions (in raid 0). If the hard disks are on separate channels you will gain a bit more, but not as much as doing the Raid 0 by itself. Again, it's not worth it in my opinion unless you have a need for it cause performance only happens during high disk operations like writing, loading, installing, transferring, etc.

 

[Wolfsraider]

<< I have serious plans to buy a SCSI RAID setup very soon. I'm leaning towards 2 x SEAGATE CHEETAH X15 36LP 18.4GB ULTRA160 WIDE 68-P and a ADAPTEC SCSI RAID 2100S ULTRA160 32MB 1-CHANNEL. >>



the benchmarks and real world value of the 2100s are as bad as bad can get actually on par with a single drive rather than a raid 0. benchmarks Here



<< 1. I will run my system on a non 64bit PCI platform (I'm using ASUS P4B266) >>



see my thread asking the same questions but with the 32 bit bus as the prouduct Here]

the str for these drives is 60+ mb as per their benchmarks Transfer rates similarly forge ahead into record territory with outer-zone measurements topping 60 MB/sec Here


<< 4. I'm looking for speed and speed only. I assume RAID 0? >>


yep speed is raid0


<< 5. I have no need for extra SCSI channels (dont need SCSI CDROM etc...) >>


yep each channel is good for 15 drives well minus 1 for the controller


<< 6. Money is not an issue here >>


maybe not but you still got one major pain coming your way on that board
ready?
When the requirements of the computer system exceed the bandwidth of the I/O subsystem, it is impossible to improve performance by upgrading other parts of the computer system

andy the faq man gave me some vitals you maybe need too

Maximum 32-bit PCI bandwidth running at 33MHz is 133MB/s.

STR maximums for the fastest IDE drives - believe it or not the Seagate Barracuda IV has the largest STR of 43MB/s.

Assuming that you have 4 IDE ports (all 4 drives being master), then 4 x 43MB/s gives you more than the 133MB/s PCI can afford.

ATA/100 or ATA133 burst rates won't matter here....the bottleneck is the PCI bus. If you increased your PCI speed to 37.5MHz (that's a usual size overclock), you would still only have 150MB/s worth of bandwidth. You need 172MB/s for full transfer rates in best conditions. edit<thanks andy>

looks like a dually or server is in my future too lol as

64 bit 66mhz = 533 mb so seagatelv 43 x4 =<533 so no overload actually you could run 12 ide's using these numbers on a 533 mb board right?

hope this helps

 

[fkloster]

<< The fastest RAID 0 setup aviable!? >>



2-36lps on a 2100? You got the fastest setup available....

Don't worry about drive failure.....to my knowledge, these U160 cheetah's last 'a little' longer than 120gxps...

 

[Sunner]

If money's not an object, why not get a board with 64/66 PCI?

And a RAID 1+0 setup?

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Why stop at 2 drives in RAID 0? You know you can add more right? Funny how whenever someone mentions RAID 0 at anandtech, everyone already assumes it's only 2 drives...

Oh yeah if you decide to go SCSI, chip in for some hdd coolers as well...

 

[Mavrick007]

Actually if you add say 4 drives, the speed goes up cause it's writing across 4 drives instead of 2.
Raid 0+1 is fast and a bit safer too(4 drives minimum required), but a single drive failure will make the array become in essence a Raid 0 array. Look at a Raid 5 setup, that's what I would like. Highest read data transaction rate supposedly(minimum 3 drives).

 

[Athlon4all]

That is the fastest RAID 0 setup, but also very unsafe. I'd get 4 X15's and setup a RAID 0+1 for equal speed but you'll be safe.

 

[Goosemaster]

oh yes...and DO NOT get the Adpatec Card...I have no idea why Adaptec even markets it for its RAID 0 flavor...the card is just awful


Seriously, get a mylex 64/32Bit or something along those lines...ah..and oh yes...a pair of 36lp's

 

[Rickard]

Thanks for all the answers guys. I know i can get 4 drives but they wont fit in my case and i dont want to change my case. Right now i am thinking of getting: MYLEX ACCELERAID 170 LOW PROFILE 16MB 1 CHANNEL or: MYLEX ACCELERAID 170 32MB 1 CHANNEL. Witch one do you think i should pair up with 2 36LP drives?

If we are talking strictly HD performence here. Can you give me a few alternatives that comes just below the above config in HD speed.

1. 2 x 36LP @ MYLEX ACCELRAID 170
2. SCSI ??????????????
3. ??????????????????

If you could rank options. Something that is a little slower then number 1 above.

 

[SupaCh1nk]

that's a very impressive case you have there Rickard

 

[|TOAST|]

Why not get a separate case for the 4 SCSI drives and get some better cooling in there and RAID 0 ALL 4 drives for nice performance? It would be an external solution and it seems like the best possible answer when money is not a concern.

If you're going to buy 4 drives don't bother with RAID 0+1 if speed is your only concern.

 

[Rickard]

I cant have 4 disks. What about 2 * MAXTOR ATLAS 10K III 18.4GB ULTRA160 WIDE 68-PIN in RAID 0 on a Mylex card?

 

[RSMemphis]

<< If money's not an object, why not get a board with 64/66 PCI? >>



I *highly* second that.

Your burst speeds will be severly PCI bandwidth limited.

 

[sparks]

AMDMB.COM did a review of an ATTO raid card that blew away the Adaptec card.

 

[lastig21]

How many drives do you already have in that case? You can fit 3x3.5" drives in the upper bays, and an extra 5 drives in the removable drive cage.

 

[454Casull]

Trust me, money IS an issue if you're really looking for the top performing storage.

This is what you want. I'd have suggested a fibre channel SAN /w multiple SSDs striped or in RAID 0+1, but then it'd cost a world more than even the one linked to.

In any case, why don't you pick up a Mylex eXtremeRAID 2000? IIRC it's faster than the comparable Adaptec cards, but it uses a 64-bit interface.

(in all secrecy, I think he wants to keep the money spent to a minimum )

 

[454Casull]

This is what I would do if money were no impediment to satisfying my desire:

Pick up a Coldforge AA-15, PC P&C Turbo-Cool 600 ATX, Supermicro P4DCE+, 1/2 Pentium 2.2GHz Xeons, two sticks of 512MB PC800 RDRAM, a Mylex eXtremeRAID 2000, 2+ BiTMICRO SCSI UW 75GB in RAID 5... and that's pretty much it.

 

[Rickard]

Ok ok ok.... Maybe 454Casull is right....

I have no problem spending alot of money on a good HD solution to my system i have now. ASUS P4B266 with a 1.6 Woody. I want 2 disks in a RAID 0 array. As i see it i have to choose a good, fast reliable SCSI RAID card and then i need 2 SCSI hard disks. What options do i have then? Is 36LP the fastest aviable today?

 

[454Casull]

The X15-36LPs are the fastest _disk-based_ hard drives today. I suppose you wouldn't want to pick up a solid-state drive...

 

[WyteWatt]

Wondering what are the chances of 4 HDS to fail if you run the raid 4 so you get the same speed but ave backup incase it goes down? I mean couldn't 4 HDs die at once. I mean it is possible right? I guess you could always backup on DVDs with a DVD-RW or even just a CD-RW just depends how much you need to backup.

 

[woolmilk]

>BiTMICRO SCSI UW 75GB

the cheapest ssd i found costs ~$1000 per Gig.
do you have some prices for bitmicro ?
I would be really happy with 4-8GB, but its not affordable - not now.