PDA

View Full Version : SATA DIY'ers: Mobo SATA ports - are any "Paired"?



Quiet1onTheSet
08-28-2008, 04:35 PM
Folks, you've been most helpful on the Drive-Thrashing thread, and for that, I owe you all a big one.

Now, I'm wondering:
Our new PC came with
an optical drive on port "SATA 0"
two 500GB HD drives on ports "SATA 2" and "SATA 3" which are hardware RAID-0 with Windows Vista 64 Ultimate.

I decided to
a. remove the OS
b. disable the hardware RAID configuration via the BIOS
c. install a smaller 250GB SATA drive, and place Vista 64 on that instead
d. RAID-0 stripe the two 500GB (larger) drives under Windows Disk Management for A/V media use.

Does it matter which SATA ports I plug any of these drives into (including the optical drive)?

I'm thinking of placing a 250GB
and adding another system (Linux Ubuntu?) drive on SATA 1

A/V Striped pair of 500GB drives on SATA 2 and SATA 3

Optical drive (DVD/CD-Writer) on SATA 5, not knowing whether or not such a change could potentially improve throughput anywhere in the system at all.

Should I just leave things alone, and just add drives to the empty SATA ports, or is there an advantage in observing the "paired" arrangement of those ports on the MOBO?

I ask because strangely (to me at least), some of those SATA ports have their "keyed notches" are "backward" with respect to some of the other SATA ports.

6 SATA Ports are arranged on the Intel® DP35DP Motherboard as follows:



eSATA SATA 0
SATA 5 SATA 1

SATA 2
SATA 3

Thanks in advance gang, for your feedback.

Q1

Quiet1onTheSet
08-28-2008, 04:48 PM
Should I just leave things alone, and just add drives to the empty SATA ports?

In other words, is there an advantage in observing the "paired" arrangement of those ports on the MOBO?

I ask because strangely (to me at least), 3 of those SATA ports have their "keyed notches" mounted "backward" with respect to the remaining 3 SATA ports, and are positioned on the mobo as follows:


..............................SATA 0 ]
eSATA ] ................. SATA 1 ]
SATA 5
..............................SATA 2
..............................SATA 3

Thanks in advance gang, for your feedback.

Q1[/QUOTE]

Lightwolf
08-29-2008, 02:24 AM
In other words, is there an advantage in observing the "paired" arrangement of those ports on the MOBO?
No, depending on the motherboard they just end up as ports on the same controller.
Some motherboards have two more SATA ports going to a different chip, I'd use them separately as well. I doubt that an Intel board does however.

Cheers,
Mike

Quiet1onTheSet
08-29-2008, 08:13 AM
No..., depending on the motherboard they just end up as ports on the same controller...Always grateful for your assist in these matters, Mike. Thanks.

CC Rider
08-29-2008, 08:33 AM
Why would you opt for RAID under windows management (software RAID) over Hardware RAID?
Hardware RAID is much faster!

:confused:

Seems counterproductive to me, just one more thing for the OS to be distracted and slowed by...

Jim_C
08-29-2008, 11:24 AM
Why would you opt for RAID under windows management (software RAID) over Hardware RAID?
Hardware RAID is much faster!.

For use with the VT or SE it is not.

This has been discussed pretty thoroughly here if you want official verbage and reasons of which I can not supply.

:)

CC Rider
08-29-2008, 11:33 AM
Interesting...
I haven't spent any time in either of those forums since I don't use those products so I hadn't heard that.

Never knew something like that could be "application dependant".
I'll have to check that out.
Is this true in general or just when using Vista?

Lightwolf
08-29-2008, 04:20 PM
Is this true in general or just when using Vista?
Well, true in general. It just depends on the RAID manufacturers focus when developing the product.

One the one side... the closer to the OS the better it knows what to read from where and how to cache it.
On the other hand you get a higher CPU load.

Cheers,
Mike

Quiet1onTheSet
08-30-2008, 07:55 AM
Well, true in general. It just depends on the RAID manufacturers focus when developing the product.

[On] the one side... the closer to the OS the better it knows what to read from where and how to cache it.
On the other hand you get a higher CPU load.Hmmm. I had never read nor heard the reasons you've cited above, Mike.

Earlier on (before faster SATA drives became widely available), four Ultra-SCSI 160 drives and certain controllers on a host PC's 64-bit PCI bus was the official recommendation from NewTek. But that would have to be with Windows software RAID-0 striping, due to VT's need for 70MB/sec sustained data transfer speeds -- which was deemed adequate for reading and writing uncompressed video streams.

NewTek's explanation for RAID-0 striping under Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista has been that dedicated hardware RAID controllers often operate in burst transfers, which can wreak havoc with VideoToaster's need for adequate sustained data throughput from and to the RAIDed media drives.

In summary, Windows support for striping two or more drives achieves faster sustained transfer speeds over dedicated hardware RAID solutions, generally.

Q1