Greetings.... I'm looking to purchase a RAID card... in the range of $200-$300. I need it to be RAID 0/1/5 and compatible with Vista64. This is an area I've never had much dealings with, and up until now I have always used the motherboard RAID drivers. If someone could steer me in the right direction and what to look for in a RAID card... I would much appreciate it... Thanks hagatha
Just a related question out of curiosity: How much benefit will that expensiv a raid card have over modern onboard controllers?
One of the major advantages of a separate RAID card in my eyes is that if the motherboard dies, you won't lose your RAID data with it, and can migrate the card and drives to a new motherboard in most instances. To the OP: I'm not familiar with high-end RAID options, myself.. I use a €50 card.
I am currently using a Highpoint card which does fine for me. (one of these, though I got it for a lot less than that. http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?...Raid+2310+PCI-E+4+Port+SATAII+Raid+Controller) If you want something high-end then Areca are generally highly recommended.
Intel Matrix RAID is movable to here, there, and anywhere. Even a non-Intel board (with the right-OS or OS tweaks). For a single user and a system under $15k it's not worth it.
Like any RAID is unneeded 99% of the times on user systems... RAID0 == (not really RAID) useless for what most use it for RAID1 == Enhanced security to hardware failure, but not to data corruption. So unless you have a decent backup routine, stay clear of RAID...
Don't understand why you say RAID0 is not really RAID? RAID essentially is the use of multiple drives in a way that they can't otherwise be used. Even JBOD is a form of RAID when it boils down to it - surely! As for RAID cards, they generally provide a better performance than onboard but that often because motherboard manufacturers don't really spend too much on onboard RAID and rightly so as most people won't use it. I've just got myself an XFX Revo RAID card but I'm not going to recommend it as I'm having various compatibility issues.
If you want to set up RAID5, you really need a (true) hardware RAID card, simply because the software implementation (ie. Intel ICHxR) of RAID5 will give poor "write" performance because the (parity) calculation will have to be carried out by the cpu, whereas on a true hardware card it is carried out by the onboard processor. Cards from the likes of Areca are excellent, or you could buy a second hand Dell PERC 5/i 256MB RAID SAS Controller Card (with correct cables) to implement RAID5 for probably around $100... The Intel ICHxR is fine for the like of RAID0/1... ________ Barbi live
No, your forgetting what the R stands for, Redundant. If anything RAID0 is the opposite as the failure chance is increased
Adaptec and 3-Ware have been making RAID controllers for years. I have instelled several Adaptecs and Intels and have not had problems with either. There is always the bad card from the factory, but that's normal. If your looking for a performance advantage, make sure the controller allows you to add additional RAM. Just like graphics cards (and other thing ), size matters. Also, as stated in a previous post, the controller will offload the CPU. Well worth it. If you are looking for data safety, then I would go with nothing less than RAID 1 for the OS, and RAID 5 for the data. Even better, but you need VERY deep pockets, put the data on a RAID 50. If this is just your home system, and your worried about a drive failure, RAID1 will be fine and use the onboard controller. Save your money. Or send it my way if you really want to part with it.
Just adding to the thread by saying i have the exact same card and am very happy with it. One of my drives is a tad dodgy and i've had the array rebuild itself a few times after detecting bad sectors... It's nice pretty much not having to worry about drive failures anymore I would agree to get a hardware raid card if you can afford it, though a quad core gives more than enough spare CPU power to run it in all but specialist situations
