Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hmmm, I'm a bit confused. According to their specs (below) they 'say' it has a hardware accelerated RAID engine, etc. And if it's connected by just a single eSATA port (or firewire for that matter) I don't see how it would tax your internal processor & system like a 'fake' RAID might. But maybe I'm still missing something. I do understand the RAM cache thing a bit, although it states 'RAID 3/5 Write-Back Cache'. Are they misleading a bit?



And again, not sure if this is apples-apples comparison, but the specs on their site for performance (http://www.datoptic.com/) look better than what I would think we'd get with our Highpoint RR 'fake' RAID internally in a RAID 5. They say write/read times over 200MB/s in a 5-drive RAID 5. Would we get much more than that with the internal Areca ARC-1120 on a standard PCI bus?
It's a small computer. That is, a small case with a 3.5" drive backplane, a status indicator board (LCD & a few buttons, & LED indicators as well), and most importantly, a very small basic/simple motherboard (ITX format would be a strong possibility). It loads an OS & RAID software, which can be stored on the board, or even via a USB stick mounted internally.

So in a sense, it's hardware, but it's no different than how software RAID works on any computer. But it's not the same as a true hardware RAID card (or those features would be listed). I guess you could consider it a bit better than the usual FakeRAID, as it does have a small computer (processor & memory). Personally, I don't, as there's a couple of important features that truly separates these from say the Areca's or Atto's for example.

This means features, such as an NVRAM solution to the write hole issue in parity based RAID (5/6/50/60), which has no solution for software based systems. It would also be missing things like Partition Table backups in firmware, which are incredibly handy in rebuilding (they can salvage the array in cases software based RAID can't).

The advantage of what you're looking at is (linked storage system/"RAID in a Box"), it takes the load off the primary system (i.e. keeps from adding additional "lag" to an already slowish system). It's also allows for capacity expansion on a small system (limited drive locations), followed by some increase in throughput via load splitting <separate data to different arrays to improve performance, such as separating data, applications, and OS on individual drives> (using eSATA).

Hope this clears things up a little. :)
 
Hi, I'm trying to get clarity on how to best setup a RAID for our 'new' server. Our needs aren't crazy, we aren't doing any streaming video - mostly file serving. And we don't even need that much total space - we've lived fine for a couple years with only 360GB total. Data security is our main priority.

Our current server is starting to crash a lot, so it needs to go. It is an old G4, with a Highpoint 1820a RAID card connected to 3 internal SATA drives on a RAID 5. This has been pretty solid for the last few years.

Our 'new' server will be a G5 1.6Ghz single processor tower (2003). It has 2 internal drive bays, and 3 regular old PCI slots (not PCI-X or PCIe).

So I'm trying to choose between a few simple setups, wondering about overall throughput mostly:

Option A) Throw a couple 'enterprise' SATA drives in internal bays and use software RAID (Apple or other) to make RAID 1.
- If I do this, I'm curious if I should partition the RAID to have the boot drive be on this as well? Any dangers of not being able to boot or fix RAID if there are RAID problems?

Option B) Throw our old Highpoint RAID card on a PCI slot and use that to connect 2-4 internal SATA drives (using kit to mount extra drives if needed).
- If we do this, we have a few choices - two RAID 1's (one for boot & one for files); a single RAID 5 (with or without a separate drive for boot); a RAID 10 (probably partitioned for boot & files).

So there's a lot of different ways to go here, I'm just wanting to see what would be at least as good as what we've had. I mostly don't know how much of a factor the older standard PCI slot plays into overall speed.

THANKS!

Hey Guy , I think your problem is not enough bandwidth , because pci only 133M/s is very slow. So I think you using option A better than option B. Using RocketRAID1820A & create array RAID 1 is best choice right now.
 
Hey Guy , I think your problem is not enough bandwidth , because pci only 133M/s is very slow. So I think you using option A better than option B. Using RocketRAID1820A & create array RAID 1 is best choice right now.
It's operating in a PCI slot, not PCI-X, so it's even worse at 33M/s. :eek:
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It's a small computer. That is, a small case with a 3.5" drive backplane, a status indicator board (LCD & a few buttons, & LED indicators as well), and most importantly, a very small basic/simple motherboard (ITX format would be a strong possibility). It loads an OS & RAID software, which can be stored on the board, or even via a USB stick mounted internally...)

Heehehe, you must be smoking nanofrog! That's wild :)

Why don't you call DATOptic with their 800 number to find out what they got in their box, instead of giving out your expert guess without knowing.

I called, they told me the controller in the T5-SR5 raid box is here:
http://www.datoptic.com/esata-hardware-raid-controller-spm394.html
 
Heehehe, you must be smoking nanofrog! That's wild :)

Why don't you call DATOptic with their 800 number to find out what they got in their box, instead of giving out your expert guess without knowing.

I called, they told me the controller in the T5-SR5 raid box is here:
http://www.datoptic.com/esata-hardware-raid-controller-spm394.html
It falls within what I described. The description reminds me of an Oxford 936 (ARM processor based RAID & bridge chip), with it's own ROM as well. They aren't that sophisticated, and what you tend to find in things like cardless 4 bay enclosures (example).

It's a better device than software RAID on a computer, but it's not as good as a proper card either (separate cache, faster processor, 8x lane PCIe bus,...). The cards I speak of can exceed $1k USD (i.e. Areca or ATTO's large port count models = up to 24).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.