View Full Version : Sata?

01-07-2004, 08:16 AM
Anyone got comments on the Escalade 8506 series SATA controllers for use with VT[3]?

Do the WD 'JD' series drives work well with these, any anecdotal comments on throughput? I've seen remarks indicating it's best to stripe through the OS, and others who disagreed - what have you found to be best?

Mark Patrick
01-07-2004, 08:56 AM
I am looking into this RAIDcore card. Supposedly beats escalade for much
less money.


Tom's Hardware reviewed it here:

Brian Harding at Raidcore wanted one of us T3 boys to call him to discuss Raidcore's potential for Toaster. His direct number is (603)-384-1042.

You won't find these on the market yet, but if we can establish that they work better than escalade it will open the floodgates.


01-20-2004, 12:06 PM
Mark forgive my manners in not responding sooner. All the business that never happened in 2003 seems to have been waiting for January! Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks. This looks like a very interesting option, and I will certainly look into it.

I'd love to find a SATA solution that was fast enough for VT3[] needs in a RAID 5 config.

01-24-2004, 07:55 PM
I'd love to find a SATA solution that was fast enough for VT3[] needs in a RAID 5 config.

Probably not cheap, but I'd look into the CAEN Engineering or Ajile Systems



01-24-2004, 08:01 PM
I put together a straightforward Escalade 8506 stripeset with 4 7200 RPM drives this week, and all I've got to say at the moment is HOLY COW! It seriously exceeded my expecations.

I've got to do a little more elaborate testing, but man! This was just an 'overflow' area for a client, but if what I saw was any indication SATA is going to kick butt.

01-24-2004, 09:14 PM
Numbers please!!!!!!:D

01-25-2004, 10:57 AM
At a quick glance (not necessarily reflecting the mean sustainable speeds across the whole volume) most of the Reads were in the 190's, with the lower end of the range dropping into the 160's. The average is certainly going to be well above 160.

(Not as fast as U320 to be sure, but it was only 4 drives and only 7200's. )

Jim Capillo
01-25-2004, 01:19 PM
I have (4) 10k U320's and they range between 200-240..... the IDE RAID is in the 78-80 mbs range.

Quite a difference - I think I'll be swapping the IDE's out :cool:

01-25-2004, 02:00 PM
Yeap - U320 still rules, but the margin is smaller than I'd expected, and it's not like I was going all out to put something together designed for rocket speed. I'd love to know what one could do with 6 or 8 similar SATA drives.

At the moment, the 10k 74gig Raptors are quite pricey, enough so that SCSI still looks good in my view - but that will likely change ... and it would make my heart sing to find an inexpensive solution fast enough to sustain, oh say 150, in a RAID 5 config.

01-25-2004, 02:51 PM
Even 160 is WAY better than my 70-80.
Those numbers look mighty yummy:)

Going for more drives?

I keep forgetting..Raid 5?
That's creating a backup at same time?
Thought VT used Raid 0 ?

01-25-2004, 04:23 PM
We've (mostly) all been running RAID 0 -- a simple stripeset which provides no volume security -- just because anything fast enough to give us the speed we needed would have been outrageously expensive at any other RAID level.

Add-on SCSI RAID solutions just were not suited to the bandwidth demands of the VT; or, at least, one fast enough to suffice while providing a failsafe level were priced off the scale for most of us. This has not been the happiest state of affairs.

We likely all know someone who, not having backed up to a large secondary volume provided for just the eventuality, lost months of work when a single drive died. IMHO, that picture may well be close to changing -- as the price of the 10k SATA drives falls, throwing enough of them at the problem may well make this issue disappear forever (and yes, I am aware that there are other benefits to SCSI in a VT environment, but many have found non-SCSI solutions adequate even so.)

Jim Capillo
01-25-2004, 04:42 PM
Steve, did you get those numbers with the Escalade 8506 controller?

01-25-2004, 06:48 PM
So RaidCore could yield even better numbers, no?

Steve, how much impact do you think Raid 5 vs. Raid 0 has on sustained throughput.

01-25-2004, 07:56 PM
I haven't got the foggiest notion, but sometime in the next couple months I intend to find out. I tried here and elsewhere to get practical field info, but apart from a few hints (much appreciated), very little was forthcoming. The Raidcore solution does look quite interesting, but I was in a hurry...

01-25-2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Jim Capillo
Steve, did you get those numbers with the Escalade 8506 controller? Yup. Agan, this was hardly an exhaustive test - just a quick read with Disktest...

Jim Capillo
01-26-2004, 03:33 AM
Yeah, but very respectable numbers...... :cool:

01-26-2004, 11:59 AM
Has anyone tried out any PATA to SATA adapters? (small boards, ~$30US, that plug into the back of a PATA drive to give it a SATA interface). I am thinking of setting up a SATA system but would like to take advantage of the small pile of PATA WD 120's I've acquired over the years.

One reason I like SATA is that it gives IDE the external-case advantages that SCSI has enjoyed for years (it's getting crowded and hot in my IDE RAID VT box :eek: ).


01-26-2004, 03:50 PM
PATA ???:mad:

Now another choice in the mix...
My brain is exploding!!!!
Just getting to like the SATA choice.:)

01-26-2004, 03:58 PM
Sorry, I'm not sure if I made that up or heard it used: PATA - Parallel ATA, the normal / old-style 40-pin connector IDE drives :p

Prospector starting to like ATA drives? What is the world coming to? :D


01-26-2004, 04:02 PM

That was close..
Did some investigation and came up with this statement on a testers website..

This will likely be the last PATA roundup you see anywhere, as the PATA interface will certainly become a dying breed, being replaced with the more future-friendly SATA interface.

1 less choice.
I'm sooo happy:D

Now if SBowie can twist a little harder,I'm sold;)