Comparison of Nine SATA RAID 5 Adapters

Robbedoeske writes "Tweakers.net has put online a comparison of nine Serial ATA RAID 5 adapters. Can the establishment counter the attack of the newcomers? Which of the contestants delivers the best performance, offers the best value for money and has the best featureset?"

Comments

32 pages? No thanks.

[Mr. Sketch]

After 32 pages, it's probably just best to skip to the conclusion:
http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/32

Where it has the executive summary:

Areca ARC-1120: highly recommended
RAIDCore BC4852: recommended
HighPoint RocketRAID 1820A: recommended

For several reasons, we will refuse recommendations on the remaing adapters in this comparison

I think that pretty much covers the jist of the article.

Don't plan on mixing Highpoint cards

[GoodNicsTken]

I had a Rocket Raid 100 (IDE 4 drive RAID1/0) and a RocketRaid 1640 (4 Channel SATA RAID 0,1,5) card. With nothing connected to the 1640 and 2 mirrored drives on the RR 100 the disks attached to the RR100 in bios show up on the 1640, and when windows gets to the boot screen it locks up.

When I removed the drives in windows, it booted up without problems. Highpoint has sent me diag tools to run rather than building this in their lab!

I'm not too impressed with them so far.

Re:Drivers?

[LWATCDR]

3-ware has very good support for linux

Re:Interesting that the 3ware offerings performed.

[arivanov]

Well... as someone who has both of reviewed 3ware adapters in production I am not amazed. They are nice, but nothing to shout about. They also have LOADS of PROBLEMS not mentioned in the article.

• 8506 SATA series prior to a certain board revision are extremely susceptible to bus noise. As a result you have to find a way to bastardize the PCI bus down to 33MHz and provide additional grounding. Even so, they are likely to cause random system deaths and serious memory corruption in most Opteron MSI and Assus motherboards as well as some other designs. Using in 1U and 2U chassis with riser cards is a no-no for the same reason (exemption for some buffered risers). As a side note, most resellers will try to stuff you with an old board despite the fact that they know about this problem.
• 9506 board and linux driver at least as of 2.6.9 defaults to no read cache, only write cache which is outright daft. It is also the major reason for low performance at least under Linux.

Both are nice cards, but I would not recommend them to anyone who does not have extensive PC hardware knowledge. They are fussy, carpicious and very hard to troubleshoot when they go wrong.

My thoughts

[tonsofpcs]

Areca ARC-1120 looks better on each and every page except for the sequential read/write tests where it tends to come in third [I'm just reading off the graphs].
The RAIDCore BC4852 seems fastest for sequential reads/writes.

BOTH of these have linux support. The Areca supports: Mandrake (9.0),Red Hat (7.3, 8.0, 9.0, AS 3.0), Fedora Core (2, 2 AMD64), SuSE (7.3, 9.1 Pro, 9.0 SLES, 9.0 SLES AMD64)
The RAIDCore: Red Hat (9.0, AS 3.0), Fedora Core (1)
The Areca also supports Windows XP and Server 2003 64-bit versions and BSDs: 4.2R, 4.4R, 5.2.1 (incl. source).

Also, the Areca ARC-1160 (they finished testing after the original article was written, so it didn't make it into most of the text) appears at the top of all of the Index/performance tests, except for "Fileserver - Large Filesize - RAID 1/10" and "My SQL - Data Drive - RAID 1/10".

SCSI vs SATA

[sjbe]

SCSI, in its current form, is just opening itself up to becoming antiquated.

Perhaps, though personally I've had far more trouble getting SATA (and IDE) drives to work than SCSI drives and I've used both extensively. Driver issues mostly. SCSI's performance is better in multi-user systems, it's easy to set up, drivers tend to be less problematic especially on systems other than Windows, and it can have more devices attached. People claim it's more reliable though I have no evidence of this, and frankly am a bit dubious of the claim. SATA is also easy to set up and is a lot cheaper, though the drivers are still less ubiquitous than with SCSI and performance doesn't match SCSI yet for multi-user systems. (on a single user system it doesn't matter much)

That said, the next generation of SCSI is Serial Attached SCSI which is compatible with SATA. A SAS controller will be able to use SATA drives if you don't need the extra features of SAS. SCSI isn't going away, it's just adapting.

Re:SCSI vs SATA

[gmezero]

Here's how I seperate SCSI vs SATA. I use SATA RAID setups for video workstations that need large drive space and cheap drives... and I don't care if the drive pops after a year of abuse.

I put SCSI in my servers (RAID or otherwise) when I want the box to run for years and years under heavy load and not have to worry about replacing drives regularly.

With SCSI, your paying for the quality control/quality assurance more than anything else.

From what I understand a good SATA drive has the same TTL quality as a good IDE drive, just faster performance.

Re:Beware hardware RAID

[justins]

If the RAID card goes, unless you replace it with an identical make and model, you can kiss your data goodbye.

If you are dumb enough to use RAID as a substitute for backing up, that is.