sata 3.0 and RAID

[darthtrader]

Hi

I have an X58-UD7 and i have just connected 2 WF voliciraptors to it and wanted to RAID 0 them

In the manual it says the 2 sata 3.0 connectors are the GSATA 3_7 and 3_6

When i do this i have no RAID for the drives so i have connected them now to SATA port 0 and 1 and they now RAID fine and im up and running but i dont think im taking advantage of SATA 3.0 am i?

[Dark Mantis]

Hi

No you are doing the right thing by using the Intel SATA2 ports. The Marvell SATA3 ports didn't work properly and so whilst fine for one drive won't be stable enough for a RAID0 array. The actual throughput of data won't be much less in reality on the SATA2 ports than the SATA3 anyway as they are magnetic drives. You would really require SSDs to make full use of the speed anyway.

[Aussie Allan]

  You have by far the fastest and most stable ports on the board now connected ..... "Search" Marvell 9128 on this site for hundreds of hits and the full answer

  You will not overload the ports you are now using with just two Raptors by miles .

  Aussie Allan

[Rolo42]

Can the raptors (or any HDD) even saturate the SATA2 connection?

[Aussie Allan]

   is this a test?

  AA

[Rolo42]

ummmm...nooooo....I don't think any HDD to date can saturate a SATA2 link, unless I'm missing something raptor-specific.

[Dark Mantis]

You are quite correct Rolo no ordinary hard drive can use the full capacity of the SATA2 bus.

[Aussie Allan]

 Didn't know if it was a statement or a question how it was written Rolo but yes!......Raptors are still just spinning platters ...albeit faster....(15,000)

   the best Ive ever been able to get was about 465Mbs over SATA2 ....and that was with 6 drives / RAID0

   Aussie Allan

[Dark Mantis]

Before SSDs the Raptors were just about the fastest drives around and if you could afford a set of them they were the way to go for speed.

I know what you meant about Rolo's post Allan but I think he was just having a laugh.

[Rolo42]

Bollocks...put away the foil hats.    (Now I had the laugh.)

It was a question to be taken at face value if you didn't know the raptor's internal transfer rate, rhetorical if you didn't.

[Aussie Allan]

  What's bullocks? .... sorry had me ESP turned off this-sarvo

  AA

[Dark Mantis]

Bollocks...put away the foil hats.    (Now I had the laugh.)

It was a question to be taken at face value if you didn't know the raptor's internal transfer rate, rhetorical if you didn't.

I don't know what you are on about and your last sentence didn't even make sense, but I think that it was a funny way to ask a question. By the way this is a statement.

[Rolo42]

I'm not 'on' about anything.

Let me break it down for you:

- Internal transfer rate = rate data moves from platters to the disk controller on the drive
- External transfer rate = SATA2, SATA3 transfer rate = rate data moves from disk controller to host adapter on the motherboard (what we call 'disk controller' despite its moving to the drive)

If internal transfer rate < SATA2 transfer rate, then using SATA3 is moot (with the caveat that transfer rate from the HDD cache may be faster on SATA3 but arguably imperceptible)

If the reader already knew this, the question was rhetorical; if the reader did not know this, it was a relevant question to determine whether performance would actually be degraded using SATA2 vice SATA3.

That's all.  No hidden agenda, no conspiracy, not 'on' about anything...