5punk

Right, I'm going to be building a SATA system for myself, and I don't know what most of these things to do with the drives mean: i.e. SATA 0/1/0+1/whatever. Is it important or is it just a case of plugging in and hoping it works?

EDIT: Oh, and when I say 'someone', I mean "someone, but probably Berk".

Wiggy69 wrote:SATA 0/1/0+1/whatever

I'm guessing these numbers are referring to the RAID modes supported by the motherboard, not anything to do with the SATA system itself. SATA drives are usually a case of plugging in and away you go and you probably don't want to worry about the RAID stuff unless you know what you are doing. More info on RAID here.

Bottom line: RAID is not normally used on desktop PCs, it's mostly used on servers for extra speed and to avoid downtime if a drive fails.

Yep, SATA is a type of disk, better than PATA (IDE) it's just the new fancy-pants type of disk used in modern PCs. AFAIK, it's just plug and go, just like the old ones.

RAID is a technology you can apply to any type of disks to improve performance and resiliency. Level 0 "stripes" the data across multiple disks, increasing performance; Level 1 "mirrors" all data for safety so that half the disks can fail, yet you will still have a full copy on the other disks (this halves your total capacity, however); Level 0+1 is just a striped mirror, so you get both benefits at once.

FatherJack wrote:Yep, SATA is a type of disk, better than PATA (IDE) it's just the new fancy-pants type of disk used in modern PCs. AFAIK, it's just plug and go, just like the old ones.

it's an interface, it's the cables and the controllers that're different.

usually plug and go, but sometimes can require drivers for older mobos

RAID is a technology you can apply to any type of disks to improve performance and resiliency. Level 0 "stripes" the data across multiple disks, increasing performance; Level 1 "mirrors" all data for safety so that half the disks can fail, yet you will still have a full copy on the other disks (this halves your total capacity, however); Level 0+1 is just a striped mirror, so you get both benefits at once.

this. however RAID is basically useless for home users.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:however RAID is basically useless for home users.

this, even though I want a 5 disk RAID 5 array...

Plug and go if you you are upgrading. SATA is actuallu easier to install that IDE in this sense - and the cables are a damn sight neater. However, if you're doing a fresh windows installation, make sure you have the right SATA drivers on a floppy and then hit F6 for 'RAID or 3rd Party Drivers' when prompted. Took me fuckin ages to work this out.

Also worth having SP2 streamed onto Windoze XP now to avoid the partition size limitation (sbuject of another threat I think)

deject wrote:

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:however RAID is basically useless for home users.

this, even though I want a 5 disk RAID 5 array...

I think now is a good enough time as any to pimp my new & improved server rig



2 x xeon 2.4ghz
2 x 1024mb ddr400
8 x 200gig raid 5 storage
2 x 80 gig raid ? system

Im slightly confused by the system raid. I want raid 0+1 - fast/safe
however when building the array it gave options for mirror or performance. i chose performance. it then built a 160gb array. i take it that aint right. Somewhere it recons that that is 0+2!?? Beeerrrrk! Help please!!

mobo (or controller your boot discs are on)?

ps. it is _not_ RAID2, it's not used.

thankye berk
i apparently have raid 0 system. thats good i hope

ProfHawking wrote:thankye berk
i apparently have raid 0 system. thats good i hope

From my very limited knowledge:

Does it work?

If yes, then yes it's good.

If no, then no it's not.

ProfHawking wrote:thankye berk
i apparently have raid 0 system. thats good i hope

RAID 0 is good for say, a video editing scratch disk. If you're not doing anything super-bandwidth intensive, you're just doubling your exposure to data loss. Seriously, RAID 0 doesn't have any real world benefits for most people.

*strokes chin thoughtfully*

Roman_Totale wrote:*strokes chin thoughtfully*

Are you thinking about the possibilities for more porn?..

pixie pie wrote:

Roman_Totale wrote:*strokes chin thoughtfully*

Are you thinking about the possibilities for more porn?..

let's hope so

porn WTF!
This is my pr0n server

You reckon you could send me some? Heh heh..

But in all honesty what would you use that for?.. and surely it would be more efficient to have multiple networked PC's with a sensible amount of hard-drives each?

no doubt someone (Berk) will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but then you'd be adding more latency to the whole thing, making it ever so slightly slower. Somehow I doubt you'd notice the difference though.

probably wouldn't make much difference.

prof's network is setup pretty well anyway (gigabit from the server to a gbit switch, then 10/100 from there (means upto 10 clients will get 100mbit sustained))

the main difference between raid in one computer, and using a cluster is cost, and heat.

remember, once you start running multiple computers, they'll eat at lot of power, which = money, heat and noise.

not to mention that it's a bastard to remember which server you saved stuff on.