Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:08:01 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Jarrod Martin <jmartin37@speakeasy.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which motherboard for RAID in AMD64? Message-ID: <42B365E1.6050501@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <42B35EDB.1080308@speakeasy.net> References: <20050604234246.G69694@zoraida.natserv.net> <200506071749.28840.groot@kde.org> <20050617081853.GG1485@dragon.NUXI.org> <200506180051.17505.groot@kde.org> <42B35EDB.1080308@speakeasy.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jarrod Martin wrote: > Adriaan de Groot wrote: > >> On Friday 17 June 2005 10:18, David O'Brien wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:49:28PM +0200, Adriaan de Groot wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Lots of motherboards have two RAID controllers on board. See, the VIA >>>> KT800 chipset has one and some vendors add a second, like a >>>> promise, for >>>> added value. 4 SATA connectors on the motherboard, on two different >>>> controllers. >>>> >>> >>> Why do so many motherboard manufacturers do that? Is the SiI or >>> Promise >>> RAID controller ready better than the VIA one? >>> >> > no... it isn't. you can read most of the motherboard reviews and > learn that the performance increases are slim to none for the > secondary SATA controller. in fact performance on the included SATA > controller is normally better (but by a negligible amount). > Secondary SATA normally is connected by PCI which has limited bandwidth and longer latency when comparing with chipsets built in SATA controller, Don't know how well a PCI-e based SATA controller will perform. David Xu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42B365E1.6050501>