SCSI RAID Advice Needed 2

[Glowball]

I currently have one Maxtor Atlas 10K IV SCSI hard drive (model 8B036LO) which is a 68-pin U320 drive. I am using a SIIG adapter card (model AP-40 SCSI Pro) on Windows XP. I'll be upgrading to Vista as soon as it comes out, on an Asus motherboard (model M2NPV-VM). I would like to buy an additional drive and a new adapter card in order to do RAID mirroring with this drive.

I'm a little lost, and I don't know what controller card to buy. The motherboard has 1 PCI Express x16 slot, 1 PCI Express x1 slot, and 2 PCI slots. It has onboard video, which I will eventually replace with a real PCI Express video card.

Fast, redundant SCSI is more important to me than fast graphics, so I can take the best slot for the controller if that helps.

I'm noticing that some SCSI cards are around $100 while others are around $800. I just want to have two SCSI drives and mirror them. What's the best plan? I don't want to spend a lot on this solution if I can help it.

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[attrofy]

It sounds like you have your mind set for RAID 1. Out of curiosity, since you are replacing, 2 of the 3 needed components, why not step up to 15K SCSI drives? You state speed and redundancy are most important as opposed to access, so why not go all out and get the fastest drives you can?

As for which controllers to use, if you are certain only a two drive setup with just mirroring capability is what you need, then the requirements are pretty low, and I would go with the best price with the most reliabale name. Other then looking at a MOBO that has an integrated driver. I personally have had good luck with LSI and Adaptec, however, I usually opt for RAID 5 or a 0+1/1+0 option, but usually go with the RAID 5 as for my real world experiences it gives the best performance/redundancy capabilities. Because of this, my card choices are usually a bit more expensive then some of the others out there (as most are for business applications), so I can't comment if these will give you the best bang for the buck.

One last thought regarding money, this is the most inefficient use of money for drive setup, as most of the other RAID options give you added capacity along with redundancy, thereby, effectively giving you more capacity AND redundancy for your money. As I don't know your situation, I can only speak in generalities, but usually when looking for speed, there are more efficient uses then setting up a RAID 1. If mirroring is absolutely critical, then you have few choices, but usually then, speed is not as important. One last thought if speed is of utmost concern, consider a backup drive and just run auto-backups on a daily basis after hours. And since it sounds like you are trying to use what you have as opposed to going with ALL new components, this might be a good alternative.

 

[Glowball]

Hi attrofy, thanks for your response. I guess I could have explained my needs better. This is my home and work computer (I work from home) and my primary drive is the SCSI drive (with XP and application files). I have a SATA RAID already for my working files. I have an IDE drive that is twice as big as my SCSI drive that is partitioned into two, and I alternate a duplication of the SCSI drive onto those two partitions every day. Everything is also backed up to tape every night. I guess you could say I'm a little paranoid about redundancy.

The single SCSI drive makes me a bit nervous, even though I duplicate it every night. A duplicate isn't the same thing as a mirror, so it's not like I could just start up XP off of the duplicate drive. Restoring my XP would take awhile off of that drive and tape, so I was thinking a mirror would be the best thing.

Because this is my own computer, I'd rather not spend a lot of money on this solution. The cost will determine whether or not I actually do this, but I'm confused about all of the options out there. I'd like to use the drive I have, also for cost reasons.

Do you think I could pull this off with a controller for under $150? Thanks again for any insight you have.

 

[kmcferrin]

If you're looking to not spend a fortune, and you're only requiring RAID 1, then just about any SCSI card should be able to do the trick. As above, try to stick with the brand names like Adaptec, LSI Logic, etc.

The only real wrench in the works is that you say that you are planning on going to Vista as soon as it is available. If that is the case then make sure that whatever card you buy is fully supported in Vista. You can't simply use the Windows XP drivers in Vista like you could with the 2000-XP conversion, as the driver model has completely changed. As with any new OS, getting device drivers will probably be the most frustrating part of the experience. I recommend checking out the Vista Hardware Compatibility List before buying anything. The link is here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905090.aspx

 

[Glowball]

Great advice on the Vista driver check, thanks! I don't think my current card can handle a RAID, but I'm not 100% sure about that. It's an old one.

 

[attrofy]

Glowball,

That appears to be a pretty old SCSI card you got there (

http://www.siig.com/manuals/04-0227A.pdf).

I am not sure you are even utilizing a portion of the cabability of the HDD. I read this card as only having 40MB/S Burst through put. Your HDD should be capable of 320MB/S burst. Terminology escapes me at the moment, but I beleive that card is SCSI-2 (Ultra Wide maybe?) and your drive seems to be SCSI-3. So any update in technology should see an increase in speed.

However, since you are wanting to do a mirroring array, it is usually more stable if you can use two identical drives. I know it is possible using mis-matched drives, but for my money, I would want something more solid. That being said, unless you have a good line on aquiring a second Maxtor drive pretty cheap, you are looking at $175 - $225 for a small 10K SCSI drive. PLus tack on that much again for a basic SCSI RAID card. Standard SCSI controllers are considerably cheaper, but a quick search didnt reveal any that would do RAID for under $100.

Since this sounds as if it will be your boot drive and basic system drive, a more cost effective alternative might be to go with a pair of the Western Digital smaller Raptor drives. They are SATA 10K drives. A SATA RAID controller will be cheaper, and Promise makes some nice options there as well as Adaptec. This would give you the speed, and redundancy, at about 1/2 the cost of the SCSI option. The other choice, is stick with your single SCSI drive, and purchase a low end SCSI controller card for around $60. Then purchase Ghost, or some other utility, and run it on a semi-regular basis. Then if/when that drive fails, restore your image to a new drive. OTherwise, I think your total bill will be closer to $350 - $400. And as kmcferrin stated, it might be easier to wait until Vista is out, so you can ensure driver capability. Nothing worse then those older pieces of hardware with no driver support.

 

[Glowball]

I hadn't thought of using Ghost or something instead of mirroring that drive. That's a good option. My concern is the amount of time I'd be down if the single SCSI drive fails, and if I had an image on another drive I guess I could use that to duplicate it back to a new drive if the SCSI one dies.

Maybe it would be smarter to spend the money on a decent controller card for a single SCSI drive so I can take advantage of the drive? The data sheet for my drive is at

http://www.maxtorbrand.com/_files/maxtor/en_us/documentation/data_sheets/atlas_10kiv_data_sheet.pdf

if that helps.

My mobo has onboard SATA RAID capabilities and I already have a pair of decent SATA drives (SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB buffer, 7200RPM). Am I being stubborn, holding on to the SCSI drive as my boot drive? I've noticed it's a lot faster in some situations (searches, file access times, etc.) so if I could make it even faster with a new controller that would be great.

Unless someone thinks this is idiotic, I think I'll do like you suggested and wait until Vista is out and then find a supported SCSI controller that will make the most of my existing drive (non-RAID). Then I'll use Ghost to keep an image of the drive so I can have a quick restore.

 

[attrofy]

It all comes down to comprimises. Which is the most reliable solution, with the most performance, and the least downtime in the event of a crash? You could always keep the SCSI drive in the system as your predominant "working" drive. That way most applications and searches/retreivals will be faster. It would be interesting to compare two 7200 MB 16 MB Cached drives in STRIPED array (Raid 0) to that of a single 10,000 RPM drive. Depending on the applications, I think each would be faster depending on the circumstances. Since you say you aren't doing high end graphics, chances are you would get more performance out of the higher RPM single drive then you would any gains from striping data. If you are gaming, or even doing high volume disk accessing for file manipulation, putting the heaviest applications and data sources on the SCSI drive will probably offer the best bang for the buck. However, it has yet to be seen how Vista will perform under your typicla scenarios. I remember when Win ME was touted to be the perfect solution for almost everyone, and it worked for hardly anyone. So time will tell. That being said, once Vista does come into its own, there may be a better solution at that time. My advice would be keep all options open, and design for what your immediate needs are today. As fast as hardware changes and prices drop, what is perfect now, will not look so good in 6 months. Buy what you need then, when you have a fixed budget (or funds) in hand, and know exactly how much you are willing to spend to get the most performance with the highest redundant security

 

[Glowball]

All great points, attrofy. I'm sure I'm building more than what I actually need. It's the redundancy and quick recovery times that concern me the most. Thanks for your help!

 

[Glowball]

Sorry to revive this older thread of mine, but I'm having a really difficult time. I can't find the controller card that I need.

Requirements: single-channel SCSI U320 for PCI or PCI-E x1, under $200

I don't need (and can't afford) RAID. I've been on the Vista HCL pages and all of the cards listed are for PCI-X, which I don't have.

Is there some sort of adapter that will convert a PCI-X card to PCI or PCI-E? What can I do at this point? I really don't want to bail on SCSI all together but it's starting to look a little bleak. I've been doing a LOT of research but I'm still stumped. Any ideas?

 

[attrofy]

Thats a tough bill to fill. I am sure there is something out there. You might have best luck with eBay. I am not sure of any adapter from PCI to PCI-X. Someone else may be able to ebtter comment on both these issues.

 

[attrofy]

http://www.scsi4me.com/product_info.php?cPath=4_5_61&products_id=1305

This is a dual channel PCI-E SCSI U320, but it is $499. Might start here and see what you can find used or discontinued somewhere.

 

[Glowball]

Thanks attrofy, that's an awesome card but way out of my price range. I've emailed Adaptec, LSI and SIIG to see if they have any suggestions. I hope I don't have to bail on SCSI but it might come down to that. I have a SCSI tape drive, too, so I need to find something.

 

[attrofy]

One thing to keep in mind, you dont have to abandon SCSI, just maybe your motherboard. If you have no PCI-X slots, and the only affordable availabale technology for SCSI cards is through PCI-X, for the same $200 I am sure you can go witha slightly older server style motherboard. Moreover, if you can come off of another $100 or so, a newer PCIe + PCIx style motherboard might be an acceptable solution (

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=1207&l1=3&l2=82&l3=0).

One last thought, you might be able to make something like this (

http://www.coolermaster.com/index.p...ct&ftype=&p_serial=RC-260-PCI2&other_title=0)

work for you ($17 or so from Newegg). This might give you a standard PCI solution. But since you have a rather robust Motherboard, you may not be so keen on one of the Server board solutions. As PCI-X tends to be a server solution (as does SCSI) and conflicts with the concept of PCIe (sort of like finding a SATA and SCSI driver board together - sort of conflicting interests) you may give up a few of the bells and whistles in favor of raw connectivity. However, it appears you may not be using all the features anyway, as you plan on upgrading away from the built in video.

However, since you have SATA RAID built onto that motherboard, you might just consider going the SATA route. That same $200 will buy you either two 37gb 10K rpm WD Drives (for RAID to boot from and hold system files), or one 150GB 16MB Cache 10K RPM WD Raptor drive. If the technology becomes more affordable over the next year or so, there may be hope to resurect that SCSI drive. If not, this will give you the same performance you are looking for, only buying a new HDD instead of an adapter card. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Glowball]

Hindsight is 20/20, and at this point it's too late to buy a different motherboard (I can't return the one I have now, even though it's still in the box). That Asus mobo is the one I was drooling over yesterday, though!

I looked at the riser card and then looked up a definition of a riser card because I have no idea what they do. It looks like it just changes the orientation of the slot. Does the Cooler Master one you linked to also change the slot to plain PCI?

I sent my questions to Adaptec, LSI and SIIG two days ago. Adaptec is the only one who has responded so far. They haven't really answered my questions yet, though, even though I think I'm explaining my needs fairly well. I'm a little disappointed in the responses (or lack of them).

After all of this, I think this is my plan: I'm going to install Vista and try to use my current SCSI controller. If it works, I'll be happy. If it doesn't, then I'll ditch the SCSI hard drive and go with my SATA RAID as my primary and only disk. I guess it wouldn't be so bad to make things less complicated.

My only issue is my SCSI tape drive (VXA-1). It's internal but I also have the external enclosure for it. I was looking at a little piece of hardware ($89) that converts SCSI to Firewire. That should allow me to use the tape drive externally. Or maybe I'll abandon it completely and just have the SATA RAID. I have no reason to be so paranoid about data.

I must admit that if I have to ditch the SCSI stuff I'll be pretty annoyed and a little sad. It made a big difference when all I could get was SATA 150, but now that I have SATA 300 it's getting pretty close to the SCSI drive anyway.

I'll definitely post up to let you know how things went. I appreciate all of your time and consideration on this! I couldn't have figured all of this out without your help.

 

[attrofy]

The Cooler Master site is a little lacking in details, and you might be better off googling the part number to see what 3rd party sites have to say about it. I found it on Newegg, and as best as I can tell, it changes PCIe to PCI. Apparently, Cooler Master has a tape drive or some other device that needs this and won't connect to the PCIe. From PCI, you might be able to find a standard PCI to SCSI controller card. This may limit you to only 160GB/S throughput though - you will have to do some checking on the specs.

I have had the best result from LSI tech support, Adaptec, although more automated is not as in depth. I find phone calls usually get me further then emails.

 

[Glowball]

One thing I do have is regular PCI slots, though. I've looked at a few third party sites and I'm still not sure what it does. Maybe it's two cards -- one that changes the orientation of a PCI-E slot, and another that changes a PCI slot. Either way, PCI-X isn't involved so I'm pretty sure that won't work in my situation.

I wouldn't want to use the SCSI HDD if I have to go down to 160GB/s but that would work for the tape drive. We'll see how it goes with the Vista installation.

*fingers crossed*

 

[Glowball]

I'm back with an update. I installed Vista x64 and it wouldn't accept the PCI U320 card at all, as expected. I've accepted that I won't be using the SCSI drive anymore, but I'm wondering what my options are for using the VXA-1 SCSI tape drive (U320).

Can I definitely use a U160 card for it? I don't care about the speed (tape drives are already so slow I doubt I'd notice anyway). The SCSI-to-Firewire converter company said that the hardware "should" work but their software isn't ready for Vista yet. So that would be a risk, and not as good of a solution.

The funny thing is that the Vista HCL page on Microsoft.com doesn't work in the IE version that came with Vista. Handy! I'm glad I have the XP laptop. I guess I'll start looking for U160 controllers if you all give me the green light.

 

[Glowball]

Sorry, I forgot that you can't edit your posts on Tek-Tips -- I wanted to add some more information. If I bought an Adaptec SCSI Card 19160 (

http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/support/scsi/u160/ASC-19160/)

would that work with my tape drive? That page says it's not Vista compatible but

http://adaptec-tic.adaptec.com/cgi-bin/adaptec_tic.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14790

says it is, and that the driver is on the Vista DVD. I found this card for $74 so this might be the solution I've been looking for.

Will this work?

 

[attrofy]

Assuming your tape drive has a 68-pin internal connector, you <b>should</b> be good to go. If the Vista disk does indeed include the drivers for that card, there <b>shouldn't</b> be any problems. Assuming the tape drive is 320MB/S, there <b>shouldn't</b> be any problems with it kicking down to 160MB/S. However, as with all things, it might be best to contact the tech support for the tape drive mfg. As for the incompatibility with Vista, it <b>should</b> just be that company's software. Vista <b>should</b> have a built in solution that will work for you.

Notice there is an underlying theme to this thread. The one variable is going to be Vista drivers and compatibility. The hardware should all work together. Vista should just see the devices attached and respond accordingly. But as with all things Microsoft, what <b>should</b> happen, doens't always.