×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

221 comments

no 1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877830)

FIRST POST SUCKERS

Re:no 1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877984)

I recently posted a review [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] of my first paid sex experience, and I'm considering what I want to buy next.

Option 1 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: The girl that I banged last time called me up and offered to do me with one of her friends. I'm rather into that shit. This would most likely cost around $350-$400. Pros: 2 girls, sexy petite young japanese sluts, one known to be super hot, known to be a nice honest place of business. Cons: already did the one, girl 2 is an unknown factor, expensive, already did a girl from that country.

Option 2 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Bang the previous ho's friend only. Pros: reasonably priced $200, girl comes with personal recommendation from super hottie, would be at known good place of business. Cons: haven't seen the girl personally, already banged a japanese girl.

Option 3 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Bang the previous ho again. Pros: known to be extremely hot, good service, good price $200. Cons: been there done that.

Option 4 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Find a hot little latina. Pros: could bang a chick from a new country so exotic factor goes up. Cons: Unknown cost, but should be around $200, unknown girl, don't know if she'll be honest with pics or a reputable service provider, i have already fooled around with a half mexican girl so exotic factor could be less.

Option 5 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Find a hot little black girl. Pros: could be hot bootie, never banged a black girl before, high exotic factor. Cons: unknown girl, unknown business reputation, black people live in the ghetto.

Option 6 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Go to a sexy trans-sexual I found online who still has a large fully functional cock. Pros: My wife bangs me with a strap-on once in a while, but I never got banged by a tgirl. Also, large cock sounds fun, reasonable price $250. Cons: false pictures could result in a horrible experience.

Option 7 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Go to one of the best dominatrices in the city. $250. Pros: She would hurt me and use me as her toilet. Cons: no sexual intercourse.

gnaa fp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877831)

gnaa steaming hot piss!

Re:gnaa fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877904)

mwhahah.. i win loser

ssdefs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877833)

dfgfgsds

Eight or Nine? (4, Interesting)

SirTwitchALot (576315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877842)

TFA says nine adapters, but the graphic says eight, whoops.

Re:Eight or Nine? (4, Interesting)

pbranes (565105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877910)

They must have started counting at 0. Stupid off-by-1 errors. ;-)

Seriously, though, I have been seeing many servers start to come in with SATA drives. Right now it is low end and off-brand servers. Dell even ships SATA drives in their cheapest server line. Sure SCSI has high spin rates & throughput, but they are freakin expensive. A good SCSI raid controller costs close to $1000 and a good SCSI hard drive can cost $400. It is so expensive, that it is reallly worth it sometimes to get the SATA drives in servers. I haven't seen that reliability of SATA over SCSI is a problem. I'm truly hoping that SCSI goes the way of the dodo. Its a pain to use. Who know what kind of cable you're supposed to use with that external SCSI device. SCSI, in its current form, is just opening itself up to becoming antiquated.

Re:Eight or Nine? (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878142)

Yeah, but what sort of real-world operating performance improvement will you get with SATA? I can understand using non-scsi raid to add redundancy, but to improve performance seems kind of silly. In the real world, your delays on the vast majority of files are not in throughput, but instead in seek time and latency. And as far as these things go, even the best ide drives are pretty bad compared to even moderate performance scsi drives.

If you just want redundancy, go ahead. But if you want better system performance, you need better seek time and latency. Keep your root partition on a small, fast scsi drive, and use cheap storage for your "bulk" content.

Re:Eight or Nine? (1)

Aroma 7herapy (814263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878821)

and use cheap storage for your "bulk" content

erm, perhaps you should try and remember what the acronym RAID stands for...

It's just moved on to the point where SCSI is the high-end solution and SATA the inexpensive (hint) one.

SCSI vs SATA (5, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878184)

SCSI, in its current form, is just opening itself up to becoming antiquated.

Perhaps, though personally I've had far more trouble getting SATA (and IDE) drives to work than SCSI drives and I've used both extensively. Driver issues mostly. SCSI's performance is better in multi-user systems, it's easy to set up, drivers tend to be less problematic especially on systems other than Windows, and it can have more devices attached. People claim it's more reliable though I have no evidence of this, and frankly am a bit dubious of the claim. SATA is also easy to set up and is a lot cheaper, though the drivers are still less ubiquitous than with SCSI and performance doesn't match SCSI yet for multi-user systems. (on a single user system it doesn't matter much)

That said, the next generation of SCSI is Serial Attached SCSI [adaptec.com] which is compatible with SATA. A SAS controller will be able to use SATA drives if you don't need the extra features of SAS. SCSI isn't going away, it's just adapting.

Onboard sata controllers are usually software (1)

Mustang Matt (133426) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878333)

I have an onboard sata raid controller on two of my 1u servers. So I configured it and it's bios said, hey you've got a mirrored drive using these two physical disks.

Linux sees then as completely seperate hard drives. Turns out the sata raid controller relies on a windows driver and is nothing more than software raid. I'm not even sure it's accellerated in any way.

So I just used linux software mirroring and it works fine. (Had to use a sarge nightly to recognize all the hardware.)

Re:Onboard sata controllers are usually software (0, Flamebait)

afidel (530433) | more than 9 years ago | (#11879056)

EVERY single adapter in the review was a true hardware RAID array controller. They all have at least four ports and can all do RAID5. Please read the fine article before spouting off about unrelated cheap schleck.

I did read the article. (1)

Mustang Matt (133426) | more than 9 years ago | (#11879103)

I was specifically addressing the parent posters mention of Dell including SATA in their cheapest server line. Chances are those are on board software controllers and not hardware controllers as seen in the review.

So take a chill pill, a deep breath, count to 10 and smile.

Re:Eight or Nine? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878611)

Who know what kind of cable you're supposed to use with that external SCSI device.
RTFM. And the answer with anything made in the last three years is "68-pin LVD". I suppose there might be some SE and HVD stuff still around, but you can tell just by looking at the symbol by the connector.

SCSI has other advantages, such as the ability to have fifteen devices per port. I would love to see that SATA raid card with 15 ports stuffed into it. Plus, your cable complaint is also an issue with SATA, as there are some manufacturers using the flimsy internal cable on external drives in addition to the new SATA II standard.

Re:Eight or Nine? (1)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878741)

> I haven't seen that reliability of SATA over SCSI is a problem.

And did you know that rebuilding a SATA RAID can take ages (which overlaps with times when you need every bit of performance you can get)?

> Who know (sic!) what kind of cable you're supposed to use with that external SCSI device.

How many companies have a single disk or JBOD (or RAID without enclosure) on an external SCSI connection without enclosure?

> SCSI, in its current form, is just opening itself up to becoming antiquated.

Everything it its current form is, including SATA.
Imagine how stupid would it be to still have SATA storage in 2015? I hope disk drives and all current interfaces will be out of fashion...

Re:Eight or Nine? (1)

Tassach (137772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878746)

SCSI, in its current form, is just opening itself up to becoming antiquated
It would be more accurate to say that the SCSI pricing model is becoming antiquated. Vendors have gotten used to being able to charge a 300%+ premium for SCSI hardware because, until recently, it was the only game in town for serious server storage.

The current generation of SATA gives you roughly 90% of the performance of SCSI for less than 50% of the price. Unless you absolutely need every shred of I/O throughput money can buy, the price/performance ratio of SATA makes it an attractive and realistic alternative.

Re:Eight or Nine? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878082)

TFA says nine adapters, but the graphic says eight, whoops.

It was a parity bit, ignore it.

Re:Eight or Nine? (2, Informative)

Phantom69 (758672) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878181)

From Page 2 of TFA:

Note: Since the original Dutch article was published in late January, we have finished tests of the 16-port Areca ARC-1160 using 128MB, 512MB and 1GB cache configurations and RAID 5 arrays of up to 12 drives. The ARC-1160 was using the latest 1.35 beta firmware. Furthermore, a non-disclosure agreement on the LSI MegaRAID SCSI 320-2E PCI Express x8 SCSI RAID adapter was lifted. The performance graphs have been updated to include the Areca ARC-1160 and LSI MegaRAID SCSI 320-2E results. Discussions of the results have not been updated, however. The results should be self-explanatory.

Re:Eight or Nine? (2, Informative)

FemmeT (803927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878437)

There are really nine adapters: 3ware Escalade 8506-8, 3ware Escalade 9500S-8, Areca ARC-1120, Areca ARC-1160, HighPoint RocketRAID 1820A, LSI MegaRAID SATA 150-4, LSI MegaRAID SATA 150-6, Promise FastTrak S150 SX4 and RAIDCore BC4852.

The results of the LSI MegaRAID SATA 150-4 and MegaRAID SATA 150-6 have been combined in the graphs since there is basicly no performance difference between to two in configurations up to four drives.

Adaptec? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878644)

Why didn't they bench anything from Adaptec?

32 pages? No thanks. (4, Informative)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877846)

After 32 pages, it's probably just best to skip to the conclusion:
http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/32 [tweakers.net]

Where it has the executive summary:

Areca ARC-1120: highly recommended
RAIDCore BC4852: recommended
HighPoint RocketRAID 1820A: recommended

For several reasons, we will refuse recommendations on the remaing adapters in this comparison


I think that pretty much covers the jist of the article.

Re:32 pages? No thanks. (5, Insightful)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877879)

But RAID is nota one size fits all game - the detail of the article is extremely useful for people who will be tailoring their RAID to a specific application. Yes, this article is specialised, but I hardly see how reducing it to a list of three, relatively meaningless names is helping.

Re:32 pages? No thanks. (1)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878068)

I think you're missing a bit of sarcasm. Robbedoeske writes "Which of the contestants delivers the best performance, offers the best value for money and has the best featureset?"

Well, the answer is, to quote Spaced: "skip to the end".

Areca ARC-1120 is the best card, and the HighPoint RocketRAID 1820A is the best value for money.

Easy!

Re:32 pages? No thanks. (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878512)

Well, I read somewhere that the blue ones are usually faster.

Maybe in Dilbert.

Re:32 pages? No thanks. (0, Flamebait)

Daniel Boisvert (143499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878210)

Good summary. As long as you care about one set of benchmarks and don't give a damn about reliability, real-world performance, or whether the manufacturer will answer your phone calls when the magic smoke gets out of the adapter, go with those cards.

It's not like you'd set up redundant disks for reasons other than short-term performance, right?

(not trying to flame, merely to point out that there might be other things you'd consider before "recommending" a RAID adapter)

Re:32 pages? No thanks. (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878461)

Yummy, looking at that makes me want to make a much needed replacement for my existing server. Can anyone suggest a good AMD 64 rackmount case/MB combo that fits nicely with this, the ones I can find are designed with hotplug scsi in mind.

Re:32 pages? No thanks. (1)

daviddumas (775096) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878625)

I can say from my recent experience setting up a SATA-RAID storage server that the needs and preferences of people using this technology are so varied that it would be hard to trust anyone's "executive summary".

Thirty-two pages is a lot, but it's also a big investment of time, money, and possible future frustration to setup and manage a storage array. More than likely, anyone who is really interested in this review is actually interested in some of the nitty-gritty content.

What I'd like to know is why so many SATA RAID controller reviews happily include solutions that are not "true hardware RAID" (i.e. 90% of the non-3ware controllers) but mostly exclude the high-quality many-port SATA controllers that are best suited to software-only RAID setups.

For example, the Promise SX8 8-channel PCI-X SATA controller has good linux support, but it's hard to find so much as a whisper about it when people talk about storage arrays.

Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed... (5, Interesting)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877853)

quite badly! They've been synonymous with quality in the RAID industry for many years. Look at this:

3ware Escalade 8506-8 is lagging far behind the competition. Moreover, it misses important features such as online capacity expansion, online RAID level migration and RAID 50 support.

http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/6 [tweakers.net]

What they say in the article is almost damning really...

Re:Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed. (2)

atarione (601740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878040)

3ware needs to develop new chips for their SATA raid controllers they are using ATA bridges on these SATA controllers and of course the controller chips are several years old now.

3ware needs to step it up w/ SATA controllers.

Re:Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878083)

They've been synonymous with quality in the RAID industry for many years.

I've had my share of 3ware cards drop a raid pack and need to be rebuilt from the BIOS, doing nothing special at all but running a RAID-0 as a big storage mountpoint. When the online rebuild tools fail you have massive downtime.

Re:Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed. (2, Insightful)

PDXNerd (654900) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878143)

RAID 0 is not the most reliable thing in the world. Couple that with the unreliability of SATA (yes, I work in a Validation Lab and we go through dozens of these a day) you would *NEVER NEVER* want SATA in RAID 0 storing anything valuable. Swap, sure, but never data! That said, we test dozens of SATA raid controllers as well. The best performer in my experience has been the 3Ware 9500-8. Does it have many advanced features? How many people who will be using SATA raid really NEED those advanced features?

Re:Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed. (4, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878148)

Well... as someone who has both of reviewed 3ware adapters in production I am not amazed. They are nice, but nothing to shout about. They also have LOADS of PROBLEMS not mentioned in the article.
  • 8506 SATA series prior to a certain board revision are extremely susceptible to bus noise. As a result you have to find a way to bastardize the PCI bus down to 33MHz and provide additional grounding. Even so, they are likely to cause random system deaths and serious memory corruption in most Opteron MSI and Assus motherboards as well as some other designs. Using in 1U and 2U chassis with riser cards is a no-no for the same reason (exemption for some buffered risers). As a side note, most resellers will try to stuff you with an old board despite the fact that they know about this problem.
  • 9506 board and linux driver at least as of 2.6.9 defaults to no read cache, only write cache which is outright daft. It is also the major reason for low performance at least under Linux.

Both are nice cards, but I would not recommend them to anyone who does not have extensive PC hardware knowledge. They are fussy, carpicious and very hard to troubleshoot when they go wrong.

Re:Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed. (2, Informative)

archen (447353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878200)

Just as an aside and sticking up for 3ware. 3ware is one of the few companies that has good driver support for Linux and FreeBSD. As far as 2port SATA mirroring I always recommend 3ware as my first choice - performance is good enough.

Obviously if you're looking at a raid 5 solution, you're moving more towards higher end stuff, so it would be hard to recommend anything that performs poorly there. Rather dissapointing, but probably not that surprising since their SATA cards seem very similar to the ATA cards, so I'm sure they're throwing performance out the window there somewhere =/

Re:Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878276)

The Areca claims to have FreeBSD support, does anyone know how it works under 5.3? It offers some interesting features, but every 3ware Card I've tried works without hassle in FreeBSD 5.3.

3ware me (0)

nfsilkey (652484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877862)

In most aspects of my life, I try to not be a snobby douche. But when it comes to hardware EIDE/SATA RAID, why would you think of anything _but_ 3Ware? Theyre the kings and have been.

Re:3ware me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877891)

Why would anyone buy a non-Intel processor? A non-Microsoft OS? A non-Ford car?

Re:3ware me (2, Interesting)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877897)

Because of this [slashdot.org] perhaps. Occasionally it helps to read an article before making comments that just make you look uninformed.

Re:3ware me (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878397)

Way to make me doubly-redundant :) I wanted to post A/C, but apparently my subnet has been abusing AC privileges lately so I'm not allowed to.

I guess that means someone in my neighborhood (near Mt Doug Park) is a slashdot troll.

Re:3ware me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878579)

sorry, but I'd still rather be backed up than knocked down! Anyway, you got a higher mod than me, so don't complain :)

Re:3ware me (4, Interesting)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877917)

The previous poster had this to say:
3ware Escalade 8506-8 is lagging far behind the competition. Moreover, it misses important features such as online capacity expansion, online RAID level migration and RAID 50 support.

Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877887)

That Linux doesn't support properly.

Oh joy.

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (0, Offtopic)

killmenow (184444) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878007)

*cough* TROLL *cough*

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (1, Insightful)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878268)

Troll my fanny. Have a read of the Linux SATA RAID faq. [linux.yyz.us] Notice all the claims that the RAID controllers aren't really hardware RAID controllers?

These claims are like the old claims that winmodems weren't really modems. Remember that? Strangely, now that someone figured it out, almost all winmodems work with Linux now and they are real modems again.

The fact that these RAID controllers are working RAID controllers for other operating systems but, don't work on Linux means that they really are hardware RAID controllers, contrary to the faq's claims. It means that LINUX does NOT support them. It means that no Linux developers have figured out how to make them work, yet.

I'm also willing to bet that Linux inability to work with many SATA RAID controllers is one of the primary, undisclosed, reasons that the majority of the controllers in the article weren't scored.

Oops, there's a problem. Let's just pretend it doesn't exist.

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (1)

stu42j (304634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878405)

Except that all the controllers reviewed in this article are true hardware RAID with good linux support. In fact, the article even spends a good deal of time discussing the issue.

If you want RAID on Linux (SATA or otherwise) you use true hardware RAID if you can afford it or Linux software RAID if you can't. Why bother messing with that fake-RAID crap, even when Linux is supported?

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878457)

You don't know what you are talking about. Most cheap raidcontrollers are software! The vendor drivers just hides the disks and presents one device to the OS. But all the raid calculations is done in the driver. On on the card. The cards reviewed here do have a on borad CPU and thus are true raid controllers. And Most of them. (Not promise and Raidcore) provide source drivers for linux that does use the onboard processor.

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878466)

The fact that Linux now supports jackasses that buy software modems does not make them real modems. They still leech on the CPU.

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878477)

Well, given that the winmodem hardware provides neither mo or dem functionality, it's not really a modem, is it? It's a DSP coprocessor or something. Software modems may well be a good thing, but without the right cooperation from the CPU, a winmodem isn't a modem.

Hardware RAID is something that I plug into a bus, that presents a number of connected disks as one big disk to my hardware. If it requires a special driver for my operating system in order to perform some of the RAID functions, it's not hardware RAID.

The combination of one of these cards and its windows driver is a mixed hardware/software RAID, but if the card does not present itself as something that I send SCSI or ATA commands to in the same way as I would address a "normal" disk, it's not a hardware RAID card.

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (1, Offtopic)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878517)

Winmodems are not really modems. Have you compard the performance of a softmodem and a hardmodem?

In anything less than ideal conditions, which means pretty much anywhere where broadband is not a viable option, softmodems suck. You'll be lucky to manage a 28.8k connection. Hook up a hardware modem and suddenly you get a 53k connection.

But as for the software raid, what do you thinks happens in Windows? There is a driver that fools the config utils in Windows into thinking the array is one drive. What happens in Linux? There is a driver that allows one to setup a software raid and configure an array. So both Windows and Linux do the same thing but Linux is more honest about it.

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878731)

Well, winmodems really aren't modems without the software to support them. The same goes for "software" (really host-based) RAID controllers. These controllers perform their calculations on the host CPU, so writing a driver for these is a much greater task than writing one for a "hardware" RAID controller (one with its own CPU).

Re:Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters (4, Interesting)

killmenow (184444) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878970)

It means that LINUX does NOT support them.
How you got modded Insightful is beyond me. Are you a troll? Did you RTFA? I didn't read it all either. But I read enough to catch this much: LINUX does support ALL of the cards in this review. Two of them (the Promise and RaidCore cards) come only in binary packages but the rest have Linux source available.

I, personally, would completely avoid any card manufactured by Promise or Highpoint as I've had crap luck with them in the past. They're just not very good cards, imho. And I'm not talking about their performance in Linux. I'm talking their performance in general. They're crap by my estimation regardless of platform. After losing data on my Windows 2000 box becuase of a crappy Highpoint card, I'll never buy another.

Anyway, your assertions are not even germaine. You point to the problem with "trick-BIOS" software RAID cards, which have been around for years and are not exclusive to SATA-RAID. They are shit cards, period...have been from the day they were made. Most of the cards in this review, however, are true hardware based SATA-RAID cards.

And, again, they all are supported on Linux. 3Ware, for example, has been a bastion of Linux support for ages.

As for the whole winmodem issue, who cares? What has it to do with a freaking troll blathering incorrectly about Linux not supporting SATA-RAID cards? Besides, the fact is, winmodems are NOT real modems. They're telecom interfaces, but not modems. You need software to make them modems. And I'm not talking about driver software to give access to the cards' functions. I'm talking software that has to implement the modem functionality itself...because the modem functionality doesn't exist on the "winmodem"...because it's not really a modem. Just because we now have linmodems.org and such to provide that software, it doesn't automagically make them "real" modems.

Don't plan on mixing Highpoint cards (5, Informative)

GoodNicsTken (688415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877923)

I had a Rocket Raid 100 (IDE 4 drive RAID1/0) and a RocketRaid 1640 (4 Channel SATA RAID 0,1,5) card. With nothing connected to the 1640 and 2 mirrored drives on the RR 100 the disks attached to the RR100 in bios show up on the 1640, and when windows gets to the boot screen it locks up.

When I removed the drives in windows, it booted up without problems. Highpoint has sent me diag tools to run rather than building this in their lab!

I'm not too impressed with them so far.

Re:Don't plan on mixing Highpoint cards (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878177)

and when windows gets to the boot screen it locks up.

When I removed the drives in windows, it booted up without problems. Highpoint has sent me diag tools to run rather than building this in their lab!

I'm not too impressed with them so far.

Perhaps it's just another Windows bug? There's scads of them, you know. I remember wasting a couple days trying to get two controllers to behave, only to find windows identified them wrongly and created a conflict. It was a while back I don't recall all the details, but it was one of those deals where Microsoft Tech Support actually suggested re-installing Windows. Which must be a stock answer for everything. Eventually I was elevated to talk to someone with a brain and they explained what went wrong and how to fix it. Not exactly what you're going to find in an FAQ anywhere.

Enjoying this (0, Offtopic)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877926)

When I see a link to such a great and extensive review and it's also from a small dutch tech news website, I feel proud to be dutch :)

Re:Enjoying this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878174)

I feel proud to be dutch :)

There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

whoring (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11877930)

I recently posted a review of my first paid sex experience, and I'm considering what I want to buy next.

Option 1 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: The girl that I banged last time called me up and offered to do me with one of her friends. I'm rather into that shit. This would most likely cost around $350-$400. Pros: 2 girls, sexy petite young japanese sluts, one known to be super hot, known to be a nice honest place of business. Cons: already did the one, girl 2 is an unknown factor, expensive, already did a girl from that country.

Option 2 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Bang the previous ho's friend only. Pros: reasonably priced $200, girl comes with personal recommendation from super hottie, would be at known good place of business. Cons: haven't seen the girl personally, already banged a japanese girl.

Option 3 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Bang the previous ho again. Pros: known to be extremely hot, good service, good price $200. Cons: been there done that.

Option 4 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Find a hot little latina. Pros: could bang a chick from a new country so exotic factor goes up. Cons: Unknown cost, but should be around $200, unknown girl, don't know if she'll be honest with pics or a reputable service provider, i have already fooled around with a half mexican girl so exotic factor could be less.

Option 5 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Find a hot little black girl. Pros: could be hot bootie, never banged a black girl before, high exotic factor. Cons: unknown girl, unknown business reputation, black people live in the ghetto.

Option 6 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Go to a sexy trans-sexual I found online who still has a large fully functional cock. Pros: My wife bangs me with a strap-on once in a while, but I never got banged by a tgirl. Also, large cock sounds fun, reasonable price $250. Cons: false pictures could result in a horrible experience.

Option 7 [impoll.net] [impoll.net]: Go to one of the best dominatrices in the city. $250. Pros: She would hurt me and use me as her toilet. Cons: no sexual intercourse.

I dread to think (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11877957)

I dread to think where my 'vanilla' dual channel SATA controller would come on the evaluation list but, hey, it's working fine and only cost £25!!!

Re:I dread to think (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878128)

I dread to think where my 'vanilla' dual channel SATA controller would come on the evaluation list but, hey, it's working fine and only cost £25!!!

That was hardly insightful. Maybe a couple more exclamation marks...

How about a link, what you have hooked up to it, what kind of load it experiences, how you use it, any fiddly bits concerning configuration -- all would be helpful.

I've got 2 160GB drives sitting on the floor and haven't done bugger with them since getting them months ago, trying to decide how I want to deploy them. (It's nice having a connection at a drive manufacturer and getting them at a discount, but you still have to figure out what you're going to do with all that space.)

Re:I dread to think (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878359)

It's One of these [ebuyer.com] (oh, yeah I bought two for £25!), hooked up to two of these [ebuyer.com] in an Acer Altos G310 P4-2.4 with 768MB RAM running Centos-3 [centos.org] .

The system is running eGroupWare [egroupware.org] for around 40 users and is also a store for their mailboxes. Load is not that heavy and such a non-issue that I've not bothered to benchmark anything

There was no hassle installing the drivers from the manufacturer's Web site. The initial RAID 1 sync on the disks took 90 mins.

You know the cheap-reliable-fast triangle. (4, Interesting)

lanc (762334) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878026)


Well, cheap+reliable == linux + softraid + Enhanced Network Block Device [uc3m.es] + Enterprise Volume Management System [sourceforge.net] (or LVM2). It is often faster than non-hw-raid (fake-hw [linux.yyz.us] controllers.

Re:You know the cheap-reliable-fast triangle. (1)

shic (309152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878670)

The cheap/reliable vertex of cheap; reliable; fast triangle is fairly obvious.

Can you suggest such a clear cut answer for the "cheap, fast" vertex?

[Yes - I would have a use. No - this wouldn't mean I'm playing fast-and-loose with unrecoverable data!]

Drivers? (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878047)

While I've admittedly not read the entire article (it's really long) I couldn't find much info about drivers. It seems the author basically assumed one would be running windows, which for servers (the most likely place for a RAID array) is a pretty poor assumption. I've tried a number of SATA RAID cards on my linux server (SuSE 9.1) and keep getting driven back to SCSI due to crappy/non-existant driver issues. Thank god for Addonics SATA-SCSI adaptors [addonics.com] which work great and have saved me a bunch of money.

It's a nice article comparing performance but without a serious analysis of drivers along with it for Windows AND linux (and Mac if applicable) the article isn't complete. I don't really care which one is fastest if I can't run it on my system.

Re:Drivers? (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878093)

3-ware has very good support for linux

Re:Drivers? (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878522)

I second the 3Ware recommendation. I've got 3 3Ware controllers at home and 9 of them at work and all of them work flawlessly with vanilla Linux kernels. The volume just shows up as a big SCSI disk. Plus you can move a bunch of disks from one controller to another and not lose your volume. They are seriously the best ATA RAID controllers I've found... pricey, but you get what you pay for.

Re:Drivers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11879071)

3-ware has very good support for linux


I'm running under FreeBSD 5.3 over here and I'm very happy as well. They may not be stellar performers, but for a small server they're just fine.

Re:Drivers? (2, Informative)

ajrs (186276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878199)

read the rest of the article. The fine article says which ones have drivers for different versions of MS, prebuilt drivers for linux, Bsd (which must not be dead), Mac, and if the source code is available.

Re:Drivers? (1)

carcajou (862125) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878340)

Just got in a new IBM XSeries 306 with integrated ServeRaid and dual SATA Drives...there were no drivers for SuSE 9.1...Suse 9.2 found the drives on its own, but at the time of install there were no ServeRaid drivers...ended up mirroring with SuSE...

Re:Drivers? (1)

rsalvo1975 (752350) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878361)

Since it's 32 pages long, I won't tell you to RTFA. I didn't read all of it either, but here's a relevant snippet I found while skimming the article.
Besides having a great feature set, the Areca ARC-1120 and its family members enjoy excellent driver support. For Microsoft operating systems, Areca supports Windows 2000 and higher, including drivers for the upcoming x64-versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Driver packages are available for the Linux based Mandrake, Red Hat, Red Hat Advanced Server, Fedore core, SuSe and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server operating systems, in addition to the source code for each of these. FreeBSD versions 4.2, 4.4 and 5.2 are supported, and driver source code is available for those as well.

Re:Drivers? (1)

FemmeT (803927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878509)

You're absolutely right about the importance of driver quality. Running all the benchmarks took a huge amount of time (more than four months of testing, 20 hours a day). I just had to limit the scope of the article for practical reasons.

There is some information about driver support listed in the feature comparisons on page 13 and 15.

Adaptec 21610SA (1)

canofbutter (843238) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878075)

Interesting that they didn't review the Adaptec 21610SA. I would have liked to see how it compared to some of the other cards on their list (especially the Areca 1160 (which is the only other 16-port card)). I own one of the 21610SAs and think it's complete garbage (arrays must be less than 2TB, drives configured to operate as independant volumes can not be moved off the card, failure alarm can hardly be heard when using a mere 2 Vantec Tornado system fans (80mm variety). The Areca 1120 they reviewed sounds impressive, and the 1160 sounds like it is equally nice. Too bad they don't point out where to buy these; my Adaptec could stand replacement and someone selling the Area 1160 seems to be hard to find...

Related Question (1)

aventius (814491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878099)

I currently have a 4-port sata card for Raid5 but I need more space and was thinking of replacing it with an 8-port card. My concern is the data on the drives. Will swapping the raid cards mess with the data or will the new card recognize the raid5 array and continue to function correctly without any data loss?

Re:Related Question (2, Informative)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878175)

From what I've heard, you should assume that you won't be able to swap cards out. You might be able to if you stick with the same manufacturer and they're using the same chipsets, but again, don't count on it.

Re:Related Question (1)

aventius (814491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878262)

Ok... does anybody have a recommendation. This isn't an enterprise solution... its for my home server. I don't have a tape drive to backup my data and I really don't want to burn 100 DVDs to backup my 500GB of data.

What I want to know is... Lets say I swap the cards and it doesn't work, can I revert to the old card without any data loss?

I'm currently using an Intel SRCS14L [intel.com] . Does anybody have any recommendations?

Re:Related Question (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878363)

So you are saying you don't have any backups for your data, and you are relying on only one hard drive going bad at a time to keep all your data safe? Ever heard of a power surge from a broken power supply, or lightening strike? Back up your data. If your data isn't that important, then just plug in the new controller and give it a shot.

Re:Related Question (1)

aventius (814491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878752)

Let me address your questions/comments orderly:

1) This is a server I setup in my house for my personal webpage, mp3s, movies, and backup for my laptop and desktop.
2) I'm a student ... so beer money is more important than a tape drive... hell one tape is like 4 kegs of beer
3) Relying on only one hard drive going bad at a time? Yes... I have never had a drive fail, and with my current setup of only 4 drives.... no I'm not worried about more than one drive failing at one time.
4) My data is important... and I know how to do this data migration correctly given the correct tools in an business situation but this isn't a business situation.
5) I would like to backup my data but I don't have the money for a tape drive to back up 500gb, nor the time to use DVDs for the backup...
6) I have a UPS for power surge protection but you raise a concern about my power supplies. Can power supplies surge while they naturally burn out and die.... not from external power surges... but from the Power supply just up and dying?
7) I think I'll just setup a second server ( I have a spare motherboard laying around) with the new 8 port card and copy all the data to 4 new drives. Then I'll format the four old drives and add them to the new array.
8) As for backup, any suggestions? I use RAID 5.... should I consider using RAID 6? Or should I just save up and buy a tape drive? (Remember this is a home system... I don't mind have a server go down for a week).

Re:Related Question (2, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11879114)

1,2) Tapes are of course way beyond what is called for in your situation. Tapes are for company servers where the data changes regularly and the system needs to be backed up quite often. Most of the data on your drive probably rarely changes, or changes slowly.

3) It can happen, believe me.

4) Home data can still be valuable and worth protecting.

5) Most of your data probably doesn't change that often, so DVDs would be fine. 100 DVDs can be had for around $50. That's not cheap for a student, but is probably worth trying to come up with when you think of how many hours you might spend trying to recreate that data. So:

1) Toss a DVD in to burn.

2) Go to class.

3) Go back to step one.

It won't be long until you have the bulk of your data backed up. Start with the most precious stuff.

6) Yes, a failing power supply can in some circumstances send a power surge through your system. It doesn't happen that often, but when it does, it can wreck a lot of your equipment. Plus a UPS will stop most but not *all* surges.

7) A good idea.

8) Use either DVDs or extra hard drives that are either offline or in another machine. Don't waste your money on tapes for your situation.

Re:Related Question (1)

carcajou (862125) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878469)

I have not had good luck with rebuilding arrays from drives, even though some RAID config utils have this feature...if it was my project, I would not count on being able to save the data on the drives...if you do get the array rebuilt from the drives I would be interested in knowing what 8 port card you used, and the nuts and bolts of how you got it to work...good luck!

If it doesn't say (3, Interesting)

cmefford (810011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878149)

3ware, It's a waste of /my/ time. So I really don't care what the tweakers think. The 3ware cards are reliable, easy to deal with, have brilliant drivers, good software, and they WORK! Always! I have a 5 of them. I have a friend who has 40, he agrees. I use a 2 channel as a backup-to-sata drive, (cheaper than tape), another 2 channel in a IIS server for payroll stuff, 1 4 channel for a mail server and 2 8 channels for file/web. I love'em. Nuff said.

Why would RAID require drivers? (0)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878158)

I'm having trouble accessing the article now, but I couldn't find any mention of hardware vs software-based RAID devices. Could anyone clarify a bit?

Why would RAID require drivers after everything is configured?

It makes sense that drivers would be used for a software configuration tool, because you are doing something which requires special access.

However, it seems that for day-to-day use, a good hardware-RAID device shouldn't require any special drivers anymore. A hardware-RAID card will handle all of the RAID functionality in a way that is transparant to the OS. For example, you have 2 RAID1 disks, the OS should only see a single disk disk. All of the RAID stuff happens behind the scenes.

If the RAID array requires drivers or if I need a special Kernel driver, doesn't that mean that the device is at least partially software-based, which then means that some processes may actually be handled by the CPU, thereby reducing performance.

My experience with RAID devices is obviously a little thin. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this question has come up in some LUGs and a few of my workplaces. Just asking for some clarification.

Re:Why would RAID require drivers? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878231)

Even a true 100% hardware RAID controller has to have some way to get requests from the OS to the controller, thus a driver. In theory the RAID controller could emulate something like AHCI that you already have a driver for, but for whatever reason they just don't.

Re:Why would RAID require drivers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878241)

All hardware requires drivers, even hardware raid. I don't understand why you think a driver made for a certain card is a "special" driver and makes it software raid.

On top of basic drivers for I/O, hardware raid requires some kind of management tool. That has to talk to the card via a kernel driver. You don't expect it to be so transparant that you can't tell when there is an error?

Re:Why would RAID require drivers? (1)

carcajou (862125) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878564)

This does confuse a lot of people...that's okay. With software mirroring, the OS will spend system resources writing to both disks in a mirror, then spend more resources making sure the disks stay synced. With the hardware RAID, the RAID Adapter driver talks to the OS, so that the OS reads and writes from the adapter. The adapter does the multi-drive write and sync, so the OS does not have to use resources for this...with the added benefit that, in some environments, since the OS sees one drive (actually the adapter), if one drive in the mirror goes down the OS never knows...no reconfig to boot from the other drive, etc.

Re:Why would RAID require drivers? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878630)

If the RAID array requires drivers or if I need a special Kernel driver, doesn't that mean that the device is at least partially software-based, which then means that some processes may actually be handled by the CPU, thereby reducing performance.

You're confusing 2 things. These adapters are raid cards, and they are disk controllers.

You need a driver to talk to a disk controller, even a plain regular one. Linux and BSD drivers are hard to find for some disk controllers.

You are thinking of some scsi raid enclosures where the enclosure manages the raid, and as far as the computer is concerned, the computer sees one scsi disk, without knowing any details behind the scenes. The computer only needs a regular scsi card. This raid enclosure can be easily used with many operating systems, since the operating system only needs to know how to talk to a scsi disk, and most do.

My thoughts (4, Informative)

tonsofpcs (687961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878167)

Areca ARC-1120 looks better on each and every page except for the sequential read/write tests where it tends to come in third [I'm just reading off the graphs].
The RAIDCore BC4852 seems fastest for sequential reads/writes.

BOTH of these have linux support. The Areca supports: Mandrake (9.0),Red Hat (7.3, 8.0, 9.0, AS 3.0), Fedora Core (2, 2 AMD64), SuSE (7.3, 9.1 Pro, 9.0 SLES, 9.0 SLES AMD64)
The RAIDCore: Red Hat (9.0, AS 3.0), Fedora Core (1)
The Areca also supports Windows XP and Server 2003 64-bit versions and BSDs: 4.2R, 4.4R, 5.2.1 (incl. source).

Also, the Areca ARC-1160 (they finished testing after the original article was written, so it didn't make it into most of the text) appears at the top of all of the Index/performance tests, except for "Fileserver - Large Filesize - RAID 1/10" [tweakers.net] and "My SQL - Data Drive - RAID 1/10" [tweakers.net] .

My experience with 3ware (3, Interesting)

dfn5 (524972) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878192)

I can say from my own experience with 3ware is that it sucks. We decided that we wanted to use S-ATA because we could get a lot of disk cheap. The problem was that these escalade cards didn't do parallel IO very well and by that I mean if one user is doing a long write operation the entire RAID array would go unresponsive to other users. For example if I created a large 20G oracle datafile the entire system would seem unresponsive until the operation completed. I wouldn't even be able to ssh into the server. And this was RedHat AS in case anyone wanted to know.

Moral of this story? You get what you pay for. SCSI should be used for servers.

To be fair, however, I was never able to determine if it was a result of using S-ATA, 3Ware or the linux device driver.

Re:My experience with 3ware (1, Interesting)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11879122)

I have no experience with 3ware, but I've heard that they are not that great, and that they are basically software RAID that depends on the drivers to do the work for you. This is probably why the system is unresponsive during a large write.

OTOH, I have an Apple Xserve RAID that uses SATA drives with a fibre channel interface. In using it, I cannot tell its not a SCSI system.

OS ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878246)

Why on earth dosen't the article say what OS they are testing on?

waste of time and money. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878293)

I am running RAID 5 in my computer right now.

Linux software RAID. Makes all this crap obsolete except for some specific cases.

I can have as many drives as I want, I can have hot swapability, I can have hot spares and all sorts of fun stuff.

Add LVM on top of that and you have a solution that is much superior then going out and buying any raid controller, except for the most fastest.

Linux software raid is actually VERY nice, I don't know of any OS that has better setup.

Re:waste of time and money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878820)

Software raid is slow as hell, especially software raid 5. This stuff isn't designed for your computer, it's meant for servers.

Re:waste of time and money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11879155)

Linux software RAID. Makes all this crap obsolete except for some specific cases.


Are you out of your fucking mind? You've obviously never worked with a real RAID. And no, eight ten gig seagates inside your homebrew pentium along with the neon lights in the case do not count.

Add LVM on top of that and you have a solution that is much superior then going out and buying any raid controller, except for the
most fastest.


I think this says it all. Get off the computer and go back to your room.

TRUE raid? (2, Interesting)

fire-eyes (522894) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878294)

All I care about is if these are 100% raid, unlike a seemingly increasing number of cards. In windows you might do alright, but anything else, look out.

In linux you will be treating such cards as a software raid array. Kind of defeats the point of buying "hardware" in the first place.

Wankers (the manufacturers).

Re:TRUE raid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878395)

A card that is as you put it "Not True Raid" are BIOS backed. They are just as slow on windows as on linux. Usually you would use LVM to make raid with such cards, as LVM is highly optimized unlike the vendor drivers.

Re:TRUE raid? (1)

stu42j (304634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878527)

All I care about is if these are 100% raid, unlike a seemingly increasing number of cards.

Yes they are.

It had to be said (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11878364)

Can the establishment counter the attack of the newcomers?

2000 Quatloos on the newcomers.

Beware hardware RAID (5, Interesting)

puke76 (775195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878462)

Sure everyone buys a few spare drives.. but make sure you buy more than one RAID card. If the RAID card goes, unless you replace it with an identical make and model, you can kiss your data goodbye.

That's what I like about software RAID on Linux - you can mount the array on another linux box if you need to.

Have yet to see a good comparison between low-end hardware RAID and Linux software RAID..

Re:Beware hardware RAID (1)

jdew (644405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11879147)

This is not totally true. Ignoring the SATA stuff as I've no experience with it first hand.

The Compaq SmartArray series uses the *SAME*FORMAT* for it's arrays in it's 6302 that it did on the original smartarray.

I have personally moved a raid array from a SmartArray 2P to a 2DH to a 4200 to a 5302. And it's all functioning perfectly.

my 2 cents (2, Informative)

Ankou (261125) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878679)

We have used 3 LSI 150-6 MegaRaid Cards and I must say that its the most increadible card / bang for buck you can get. Works perfectly in linux (Slackware 10.0 - 10.1 in our case), uses either the megaraid or megaraid2 (for those that want verbose information) right from the stock kernel compile. In each server we put in 6 Seagate SATA drives 250 GB each, totalling an impressive 1.2 TB total space. For under a grand (card + 6x 250 GB drives) you cant get a cheaper more reliable alternative. The thing aint slow either, consitantly get access of 100 mbps transfer speeds or more (hdparm tests / benchmarks). Initialization is almost instantanious, and while its doing the background inits (after the initial quick init), you can already access the entire contents of the full raided container. Do yourself a favor and grab one of these cards, you'll wonder why you stuck with the almost 3x price of scsi. Newegg.com has em for I think 290 bucks for the 150-6. Pay the extra money for the 150-6 its worth it. Optional battery packs available as well for the card.

The Article Never Explains What RAID 5 Is (3, Informative)

windowpain (211052) | more than 9 years ago | (#11878686)

Now you could argue that a car review in Car and Driver doesn't bother explaining what a transmission does but RAID is several orders for magnitude more complex and esoteric.

There are so many different flavors of RAID it can be hard to keep them straight if you're not working with them every day.

Anyway there are good explanations of RAID here [techtarget.com] and here [prepressure.com] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...