IDE RAID

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Are there any 865 or newer boards with on-board IDE RAID, or is my only
choice SATA RAID?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Ted Dawson" <screamer48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b_Y2d.46872$OZ6.16989@okepread06...
> Are there any 865 or newer boards with on-board IDE RAID, or is my only
> choice SATA RAID?

Why would you want anything but SATA RAID given that Raptors are SATA?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <nm03d.605969$Gx4.385594@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> All [S]ATA RAID is software/firmware RAID except fancy/expensive cards like
> 3Ware and top Promise cards. I know of NO onmobo HW [S]ATA RAID...it's all
> software/firmware.

ASUS PC-DL Deluxe has both Intel RAID 0/1 SATA controller and Promise
RAID 0/1 Controller (This is the better of the two).

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <ZS53d.606995$Gx4.513492@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
rondashreaugh@att.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bb6b3af5978be019896da@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <nm03d.605969$Gx4.385594@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > > All [S]ATA RAID is software/firmware RAID except fancy/expensive cards
> like
> > > 3Ware and top Promise cards. I know of NO onmobo HW [S]ATA RAID...it's
> all
> > > software/firmware.
> >
> > ASUS PC-DL Deluxe has both Intel RAID 0/1 SATA controller and Promise
> > RAID 0/1 Controller (This is the better of the two).
>
> BOTH are software/firmware RAID and not HW RAID however.

The firmware handles the RAID completely on the Promise controller, the
software is just a driver, like the IDE, ATAPI, SCSI, etc... drivers you
need on other motherboards or that are included with the OS. Don't kid
yourself, the only thing that would make the RAID any better is if it
included a slot on the MB for cache.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <uV63d.607179$Gx4.347945@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> The Promise chip on the mobo is nothing more than a fancy ATA controller
> chip with NO significant RAID functionality on it. All on mobo Promise RAID
> is firmware/software in x86 code hosted by the host's x86 CPU.

I would be interested in seeing where you get this information from. In
reviewing the Promise RAID 0/1 controller on the motherboard of the ASUS
PC-DL Deluxe board, I've only seen that the "driver" is a stub that
allows the OS to recognise the controller (much like the SCSI RAID
Controllers that we use in HP or Compaq servers).

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb73f44b8f29ae59896e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uV63d.607179$Gx4.347945@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > The Promise chip on the mobo is nothing more than a fancy ATA controller
> > chip with NO significant RAID functionality on it. All on mobo Promise
RAID
> > is firmware/software in x86 code hosted by the host's x86 CPU.
>
> I would be interested in seeing where you get this information from. In
> reviewing the Promise RAID 0/1 controller on the motherboard of the ASUS
> PC-DL Deluxe board, I've only seen that the "driver" is a stub


Nope. No clue where you see this as there is full driver support there in
two different flavors. One RAID and one NOT.

> that
> allows the OS to recognise the controller (much like the SCSI RAID
> Controllers that we use in HP or Compaq servers).

Any OS install requires a F6 driver load just like any other RAID card that
the OS doesn't already know about.

All my assertions are obvious once one thinks about it. Look at the specs
for a real HW RAID like a 3Ware and notice the onboard uP.

Look at the SATA card:
http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=3#

Look at its nearly identical sibling RAID card:
http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=2#

Both use the same Promise SATA controller. The only significant difference
is the onboard firmware chip, which contains x86 code. One has RAID
functionality and the other doesn't.

Such is well known.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <ocm3d.609845$Gx4.223602@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
rondashreaugh@att.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bb73f44b8f29ae59896e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <uV63d.607179$Gx4.347945@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > > The Promise chip on the mobo is nothing more than a fancy ATA controller
> > > chip with NO significant RAID functionality on it. All on mobo Promise
> RAID
> > > is firmware/software in x86 code hosted by the host's x86 CPU.
> >
> > I would be interested in seeing where you get this information from. In
> > reviewing the Promise RAID 0/1 controller on the motherboard of the ASUS
> > PC-DL Deluxe board, I've only seen that the "driver" is a stub
>
>
> Nope. No clue where you see this as there is full driver support there in
> two different flavors. One RAID and one NOT.
>
> > that
> > allows the OS to recognise the controller (much like the SCSI RAID
> > Controllers that we use in HP or Compaq servers).
>
> Any OS install requires a F6 driver load just like any other RAID card that
> the OS doesn't already know about.
>
> All my assertions are obvious once one thinks about it. Look at the specs
> for a real HW RAID like a 3Ware and notice the onboard uP.
>
> Look at the SATA card:
> http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=3#
>
> Look at its nearly identical sibling RAID card:
> http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=2#
>
> Both use the same Promise SATA controller. The only significant difference
> is the onboard firmware chip, which contains x86 code. One has RAID
> functionality and the other doesn't.

I'll contact promise - I'm interested to really know if the OS/Driver
has to make two writes in RAID-1 or if the firmware handles it on it's
own. Since I have a large number of PC-DL servers with Dual 250GB SATA
in RAID-1 mode it will be interesting to see their response.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb7c95836e5ced99896e9@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <ocm3d.609845$Gx4.223602@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> >
> > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bb73f44b8f29ae59896e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > > In article
<uV63d.607179$Gx4.347945@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > > > The Promise chip on the mobo is nothing more than a fancy ATA
controller
> > > > chip with NO significant RAID functionality on it. All on mobo
Promise
> > RAID
> > > > is firmware/software in x86 code hosted by the host's x86 CPU.
> > >
> > > I would be interested in seeing where you get this information from.
In
> > > reviewing the Promise RAID 0/1 controller on the motherboard of the
ASUS
> > > PC-DL Deluxe board, I've only seen that the "driver" is a stub
> >
> >
> > Nope. No clue where you see this as there is full driver support there
in
> > two different flavors. One RAID and one NOT.
> >
> > > that
> > > allows the OS to recognise the controller (much like the SCSI RAID
> > > Controllers that we use in HP or Compaq servers).
> >
> > Any OS install requires a F6 driver load just like any other RAID card
that
> > the OS doesn't already know about.
> >
> > All my assertions are obvious once one thinks about it. Look at the
specs
> > for a real HW RAID like a 3Ware and notice the onboard uP.
> >
> > Look at the SATA card:
> >
http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=3#
> >
> > Look at its nearly identical sibling RAID card:
> >
http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=2#
> >
> > Both use the same Promise SATA controller. The only significant
difference
> > is the onboard firmware chip, which contains x86 code. One has RAID
> > functionality and the other doesn't.
>
> I'll contact promise - I'm interested to really know if the OS/Driver
> has to make two writes in RAID-1

It does.

> or if the firmware handles it on it's
> own.

The firmware is hosted on the x86 host CPU so if x86 hosted firmware does it
then it PROVES my point.

Have you ever investigated the speed of code running from a ROM which is
where firmware is held vs code in RAM were device drivers are held? Ever
hear of the concept of shadowing the video BIOS or other BIOS segments in
RAM and what that's all about?

> Since I have a large number of PC-DL servers with Dual 250GB SATA
> in RAID-1 mode it will be interesting to see their response.

Why? You are chasing a ghost.

The percentage of writes is usually small so that extra host overhead in
RAID 1 is not very important. To avoid it one must use full hardware RAID
like 3Ware. To avoid it the RAID controller must have onboard buffering and
there is none for the Promise nor other onmobo [S]ATA RAID solutions. All
are firmware/software RAID and all do two host I/O bus writes for RAID 1
writes.

I use P4C800-E Dlx mobos on some SBS2003 sites of mine. I like W2K3's
intrinsic SW RAID 1. I don't even bother with the onmobo RAID but just use
the OS's intrinsic RAID 1. There is NO performance disadvantage compared to
onmobo SW/firmware RAID 1. Little performance would be gained by using a
$350 3Ware card for true HW RAID 1 here but RAID 5 with it's parity calcs is
a horse of a different color. Then I do 3Ware or SCSI HW RAID 5 with
Fujitsu MAS3735s.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <dKn3d.397070$OB3.225082@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> Then I do 3Ware or SCSI HW RAID 5 with
> Fujitsu MAS3735s.

Have you looked at the Promise SX-6000 ATA RAID-0/1/5 controller card.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

From the intel document "Why_Raid.pdf":

"Industries first desktop RAID controller integrated into the chipset"
"RAID BIOS ROM: Integrated system BIOS, enables pre-OS RAID creation,
mapping, and deletion"

From 25272901.pdf:
"... includes an integrated RAID controller that utilizes the dual Serial
ATA ports for high-performance RAID Level 0.... By integrating the Intel
RAID controller into the I/O controller hub there are no PCI bandwidth
limitations..."

From 25251716.pdf, page 17 (addendum to 25251601.pdf):
"RAID Level 1 is supported in addition to RAID Level 0."

From 25267102.pdf page 28 (somewhat offtopic):
"... does not support surprise removals. ... a device can be powered down by
system software... allowing removal and insertion of a new device". Which is
as I said a while back: No SATA Hot Swap - the implementation is incomplete.

82801 *is* hardware. If the RAID controller is "integrated into" the chip,
then are you saying that Intel is deliberately misleading everyone into
thinking this is not actually a RAID controller at all, that it is some
lesser device that only can do individual IO's to individual volumes?

Now, Ron, how about some evidence - real evidence? You have none so far and
your logic is horribly flawed. You have this horrible habit of saying things
like "No", or "Clueless" and so on. You never substantiate any of your
claims, never even offer any reasoning or documentation for your claims. All
you have offered in all the posts I have read from you are the two
hyperlinks below that point to two different controllers that are
"different". How about it? Show us some documentation that proves beyond all
doubt that your own assertions are correct when they run contrary to Intel's
own documentation? How about proving that the ICH5 firmware is *not* held in
the bios? How about proving that the Windows OS actually isses 2 writes from
the OS to the controller to achieve a write onto 2 physical volumes with
Intel's RAID 1? That is what you are claiming. I don't appreciate being
called clueless, and don't appreciate being run down by someone that claims
to have ddk knowledge when there is nothing evident in their thinking at
all. I would like to know the answers, but at the moment your answers are
useless to everyone as they convey no knowledge or reference to any
knowledge whatsoever. Consequently your posts are more akin to flames and
that is how I have treated them to date.

"> Incredible nonsense."? What are microcode updates then? Answer:
proprietary code that is loaded into the Intel CPU at boot time. So why such
nonsense? If the bios can update the microcode at boot time, what is
stopping a bios writer from supplying firmware to an on board manufacturer
designed-in controller such as the ICH5R? Why does this have to be x86 code?
Why does this have to run out of the flash chip (that would be stupid,
memory is cheap remember)? Why does the bios have to contain exclusively x86
code when clearly microcode can be anything that the proprietor of the CPU
decides (it could be x86 code...).

You would do well to read up on the documentation on some of the flash chips
over at atmel. You will find that they have updated quite a bit over the
years and now include support within the chip for 'partitions' so that
different areas of the memory can be erased / updated separately and safely,
can serve different purposes, so that boot blocks can be safe guarded, and
lastly to integrate with the motherboard chips more. IE to serve as the
repository for not just bios but also on board firmware for chips such as
RAID controllers. When you have noted some of these product numbers then go
back and have a look at the difference getweent the two promise cards
previously - the chips may not be atmel or the same as those for your
motherboard bios, but you will find they have similar capabilities and serve
the same purpose. Try a google search on the chips to find out what they
are...

- Tim




"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:Loo3d.397263$OB3.89387@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:cil0oi$3ml$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Ron,
>>
>> I suggest you read a lot more. Go to the intel site and ferret out the
> specs
>> on the ICH5R (82801ER chip). Read there that it states clearly that it is
>> Hardware Raid.
>
> Nope, it states NO such thing.
>
> See the ICH5R datasheet (8 MB):
> ftp://download.intel.com/design/c [...] 251601.pdf
> 5.17.3
> The only special RAID functionality regards RAID 0 and not RAID 1.
>
> Goto the Intel site and select advanced search and search on the exact
> phrase 'hardware RAID'. Study the results. That will give you a good
> idea
> of what HW RAID is. You will NOT find the ICH5R in that search.
>
>> Also note that the manifestation of difference between ICH5
>> and ICH5R is either a) if it is [perhaps] packed as a ICH5 only and so
>> has
>> RAID turned off / omitted within the chip, or b) if RAID is turned on or
> off
>> by the bios at boot time - the chip will report itself as 82801EB if RAID
> is
>> off and 82801ER if RAID is on. IE ICH5R = ICH5 with RAID turned on.
>
> Just a subtle difference not related to the difference between SW/FM and
> hardware RAID and only related to RAID 0 processing.
>
>> The presence of RAID Firmware in the bios is no indication of
>> a) x86 code running in place of RAID functionality (IE soft raid) or
>
> Quite true in the most general sense however in this case that firmware is
> x86 code and it is what handles ALL the RAID functionality until the OS
> device driver takes over.
>
>> b) that the bios performs the RAID functionality, or
>
> True, until the OS's DD takes over.
>
>> c) that all the code is x86 code - it could be a mix of x86 and whatever
>> code set the RAID controller uses internally for its own private firmware
>> that it receives on every boot from the bios.
>
> Incredible nonsense.
>
>> You will see in the Intel documentation that the bios code provides
> specific
>> supporting funcitonality ie:
>> a) configuration and management of RAID volumes,
>> b) boot time access to the RAID drive, and
>> c) detection of RAID status in the event of failure.
>
> It does all that plus all the other RAID functionality.
>
>> The Intel documentation does not say it does anything else. IE it does
>> not
>> state that it implements soft raid.
>
> Nevertheless it does.
>
>> If you also read up about windows drivers you will also learn that bios
>> functionality is not used within Windows XP when the system is running.
>
> DUH! Read my other post where I talk about that in some detail.
>
>> The
>> purpose of device drivers is to provide windows with software interfaces
> to
>> hardware devices that conform to a specific predefined model so that
> Windows
>> knows how to use the device correctly and automatically.
>
> The 2nd purpose is to locate the code in RAM instead of very slow ROM
> where
> firmware lives.
>
>> The responsibility
>> of the device driver writer is to marry the specific device(s) to the
>> interface in conformance with the chosen and stated standard (IE you can
>> take a device that controls SATA drives and implement it as SCSI if you
>> wish).
>
> Ever write a DD? I'm a DD developer and have written disk device drivers.
>
>> You are bound to have noticed that when a SATA RAID controller is
>> configured as RAID the device is present as a SCSI device.
>
> That's purely a function of the device driver.
>
>> This is because
>> the native SCSI functionality is a more appropriate device model for RAID
>> and also that the underlying IDE and SATA interfaces are no longer
>> visible
>> (see the Intel programmers reference for ICH5R for more details, or
> Windows
>> Device Manager). Any functionality provided in the bios (EG boot time
>> support) is minimal functionality - single threaded reading / writing to
> the
>> device, boot time disc access is not a multithreaded high performance
>> environment. Bios support is designed for pre-boot execution (EG checking
>> RAID integrity) or boot: DOS or DOS equivalent access modes (IE boot, and
> EG
>> Nortons Ghost).
>
> Go back and read up in more detail such that you can understand what's
> really said in such places.
>
>> Having a hardware vendor implement soft raid is unheard of here.
>
> HUH, just clueless!
>
> Virtually all ATA RAID was SW/FM and not HW until 3Ware started doin HW
> RAID.
>
>> All reviews
>> of such hardware would be condeming as it would be a poor perfoming,
>
> Pure nonsense. SW/FW RAID performs about as well as HW RAID for RAID 0
> and
> RAID 1.
>
>> deceitful product to claim RAID for a device when the device does not
>> implement it.
>
> Just NO!
>
>> In this country, any vendor of such a product would be legally
>> liable for such deceit.
>
> Clueless.
>
>> If you want soft raid then use the in-built Windows
>> soft raid functionality on *any* stock IDE or SCSI drive - no special
>> controller is needed.
>
> Exactly, the difference is that one can't boot from such a RAID 0 array
> without that RAID firmware but RAID 1 makes most these cards of little
> value
> IF the OS supports RAID 1.
>
>> The OP's original reference was to Intel 865 based motherboards. Making
>> generalisations about Intel 865 or 875 based hardware when someone
> somewhere > *may* have done what you claim on totally different hardware
> is
> misleading
>> at the least. Your references to the Promise hardware indicate your
>> confusion. On one hand you link to a SATA controller and the other a RAID
>> controller. What was your point? Which chips contains the on-board
>> microprocessor? Do you know? "The only difference is the onbaord firmware
>> chip". What is the make and model number of this chip? I suspect you are
>> attributing microprocessor functionality to a Flash RAM chip. Onboard or
>> Onchip controller that needs firmware can be configured to get their
>> firmware out of the BIOS chip (or the bios supplies it to them somehow).
>
> Your background on these issues is very shallow. Go back to school.
>
>> Please, get your facts straight.
>>
>> - Tim
>>
>> You can find Intel at www.intel.com
>> for information on flash memory chips, see www.atmel.com
>> for information on windows device driver model etc. see
>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devt [...] fault.mspx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
>> newscm3d.609845$Gx4.223602@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1bb73f44b8f29ae59896e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> >> In article
> <uV63d.607179$Gx4.347945@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> rondashreaugh@att.net says...
>> >> > The Promise chip on the mobo is nothing more than a fancy ATA
>> >> > controller
>> >> > chip with NO significant RAID functionality on it. All on mobo
> Promise
>> > RAID
>> >> > is firmware/software in x86 code hosted by the host's x86 CPU.
>> >>
>> >> I would be interested in seeing where you get this information from.
>> >> In
>> >> reviewing the Promise RAID 0/1 controller on the motherboard of the
> ASUS
>> >> PC-DL Deluxe board, I've only seen that the "driver" is a stub
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope. No clue where you see this as there is full driver support there
> in
>> > two different flavors. One RAID and one NOT.
>> >
>> >> that
>> >> allows the OS to recognise the controller (much like the SCSI RAID
>> >> Controllers that we use in HP or Compaq servers).
>> >
>> > Any OS install requires a F6 driver load just like any other RAID card
>> > that
>> > the OS doesn't already know about.
>> >
>> > All my assertions are obvious once one thinks about it. Look at the
> specs
>> > for a real HW RAID like a 3Ware and notice the onboard uP.
>> >
>> > Look at the SATA card:
>> >
> http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=3#
>> >
>> > Look at its nearly identical sibling RAID card:
>> >
> http://www.promise.com/product/pro [...] amilyId=2#
>> >
>> > Both use the same Promise SATA controller. The only significant
>> > difference
>> > is the onboard firmware chip, which contains x86 code. One has RAID
>> > functionality and the other doesn't.
>> >
>> > Such is well known.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Let me see, who would I believe?

Intel?

Someone that calls people wacko with no evidence?

Tough choice Ron.

- Tim

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:7mv3d.611537$Gx4.176138@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:ciludd$3tf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> From the intel document "Why_Raid.pdf":
>>
>> "Industries first desktop RAID controller integrated into the chipset"
>> "RAID BIOS ROM: Integrated system BIOS, enables pre-OS RAID creation,
>> mapping, and deletion"
>>
>> From 25272901.pdf:
>> "... includes an integrated RAID controller that utilizes the dual Serial
>> ATA ports for high-performance RAID Level 0.... By integrating the Intel
>> RAID controller into the I/O controller hub there are no PCI bandwidth
>> limitations..."
>>
>> From 25251716.pdf, page 17 (addendum to 25251601.pdf):
>> "RAID Level 1 is supported in addition to RAID Level 0."
>>
>> From 25267102.pdf page 28 (somewhat offtopic):
>> "... does not support surprise removals. ... a device can be powered down
> by
>> system software... allowing removal and insertion of a new device". Which
> is
>> as I said a while back: No SATA Hot Swap - the implementation is
> incomplete.
>>
>> 82801 *is* hardware. If the RAID controller is "integrated into" the
>> chip,
>> then are you saying that Intel is deliberately misleading everyone into
>> thinking this is not actually a RAID controller at all, that it is some
>> lesser device that only can do individual IO's to individual volumes?
>>
>> Now, Ron, how about some evidence - real evidence?
>
> Clueless. You simply posted from the spec sheet similar to what I already
> cited. You provided NOTHING new beyond what I already showed.
>
> Nothing in that spec sheet says anything about HW RAID. The ICH5R does
> NOT
> do HW RAID. There is no uP and NO buffer. Such are requirements of HW
> RAID.
>
>
>> How about proving that the ICH5 firmware is *not* held in
>> the bios?
>
> Wacko...I was the one that said that the ICH5R firmware WAS in the BIOS.
>
>> How about proving that the Windows OS actually isses 2 writes from
>> the OS to the controller to achieve a write onto 2 physical volumes with
>> Intel's RAID 1?
>
> It's intuitively obvious. What does the processing if there's a device
> error or retry on one drive and not the other? Where does that
> functionality live? So when the data must be resent to one drive and not
> the other in RAID 1 then what handles that processing. It's all x86 code.
> It's all done over the x86 I/O bus. Get a clue. Read up on what real HW
> RAID looks like from www.3ware.com
>
>> That is what you are claiming. I don't appreciate being
>> called clueless,
>
> Get use to it when you go out of your depth up against someone who
> actually
> knows something.
>
>> and don't appreciate being run down by someone that claims
>> to have ddk knowledge when there is nothing evident in their thinking at
>> all. I would like to know the answers, but at the moment your answers are
>> useless to everyone as they convey no knowledge or reference to any
>> knowledge whatsoever. Consequently your posts are more akin to flames and
>> that is how I have treated them to date.
>
> Wacko speak....
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <7mv3d.611537$Gx4.176138@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> Nothing in that spec sheet says anything about HW RAID. The ICH5R does NOT
> do HW RAID. There is no uP and NO buffer. Such are requirements of HW
> RAID.

I may be missing something here, but I don't see anything that states
for something to be a raid controller that it must have a CPU or Cache.
As long as the chipset, using any firmware, handles the communications
with the drive and provides RAID 0/1/5 ability, it's Hardware Based
RAID.

If I use a non-RAID chipset and require the OS to process everything,
then it's soft RAID.

If I'm lucky enough to get cache and a CPU on the controller then I get
even faster RAID.

As I see it, the Promise or Intel RAID chipsets on some motherboards
provide the functionality needed to be considered hardware RAID. Sure,
they don't have their own CPU's, but they do have their own BIOS, do
have their own firmware, do take commands from the OS, and do allow the
creation, building, rebuilding of RAID Arrays before the OS is even
installed on the system.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <MPG.1bb8801398c9d84c9896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
Leythos <void@nowhere.org> wrote:

> In article <7mv3d.611537$Gx4.176138@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > Nothing in that spec sheet says anything about HW RAID. The ICH5R does NOT
> > do HW RAID. There is no uP and NO buffer. Such are requirements of HW
> > RAID.
>
> I may be missing something here, but I don't see anything that states
> for something to be a raid controller that it must have a CPU or Cache.
> As long as the chipset, using any firmware, handles the communications
> with the drive and provides RAID 0/1/5 ability, it's Hardware Based
> RAID.
>
> If I use a non-RAID chipset and require the OS to process everything,
> then it's soft RAID.
>
> If I'm lucky enough to get cache and a CPU on the controller then I get
> even faster RAID.
>
> As I see it, the Promise or Intel RAID chipsets on some motherboards
> provide the functionality needed to be considered hardware RAID. Sure,
> they don't have their own CPU's, but they do have their own BIOS, do
> have their own firmware, do take commands from the OS, and do allow the
> creation, building, rebuilding of RAID Arrays before the OS is even
> installed on the system.

My understanding of hardware raid is as follows:

For a mirror:

If the OS prepares precisely one block of memory, with data
to be read or written, and the hardware solution takes that
block of memory and reads or writes to two disks, and only
returns "complete" status to the OS when both disks finish,
that is hardware RAID. If the OS has to issue two commands
to the hardware, saying write this to disk 0, then says write
this to disk 1, that is software RAID.

For a stripe:

If the OS prepares precisely one block of memory, and
issues one command to the hardware, and the hardware
alternates writing stripe-sized chunks of data to the
two drives, that is hardware RAID. If the OS chunkifies
the original large memory block, and alternates commands
to the two channels to write a stripe of data to the drives,
that is software RAID.

The difference is in the overhead. With DMA transfer, the
largest overhead of data movement by the processor is
removed. So, these days, it will be harder to tell whether
the solution is hardware or software based underneath. It
will be hard to tell from the remaining level of overhead,
to what extent the hardware hides the details of how the
disk subsystem is wired up, and what it is
(mirror or stripe).

The quality of any solution will be measured in two
parameter - max steady state bandwidth (HDTach) and
percent CPU while doing it. So, experiment and find out.

Whether RAID is hardware or software is based on the
level of abstraction. If the OS/driver, when viewing
the hardware, thinks it is dealing with a single disk,
when in fact the controller handles all the details of
running the RAID, that is a hardware controller. If the
OS is aware of the details underneath, to achieve basic
data transport, then it is a software based controller.

Notice that my definition doesn't cover implementation,
so you don't need to know the private details of how it
is done, to have a definition.

Just my two cents,
Paul

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8801398c9d84c9896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <7mv3d.611537$Gx4.176138@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > Nothing in that spec sheet says anything about HW RAID. The ICH5R does
NOT
> > do HW RAID. There is no uP and NO buffer. Such are requirements of HW
> > RAID.
>
> I may be missing something here, but I don't see anything that states
> for something to be a raid controller that it must have a CPU or Cache.

"RAID controller" is a generic term that could mean most anything. The
issue at hand is the precise and specific meaning of "hardware RAID".

I have already provide the specific criteria required to qualify as
"hardware RAID" earlier in this thread.

> As long as the chipset, using any firmware, handles the communications
> with the drive and provides RAID 0/1/5 ability, it's Hardware Based
> RAID.

That is flat FALSE!

> If I use a non-RAID chipset and require the OS to process everything,
> then it's soft RAID.

Nope.

> If I'm lucky enough to get cache and a CPU on the controller then I get
> even faster RAID.

Nope, then you have true hardware RAID.

> As I see it, the Promise or Intel RAID chipsets on some motherboards
> provide the functionality needed to be considered hardware RAID.

That's flat FALSE.

> Sure,
> they don't have their own CPU's, but they do have their own BIOS, do
> have their own firmware, do take commands from the OS,

Nope, during OS operation ALL the RAID functionality is handled by OS
device drivers and the firmware does nothing. The firmware is only used
during boot an pre OS activity.

> and do allow the
> creation, building, rebuilding of RAID Arrays before the OS is even
> installed on the system.

Exactly...."before".

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-2009041448140001@192.168.1.177...
> In article <MPG.1bb8801398c9d84c9896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
> Leythos <void@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <7mv3d.611537$Gx4.176138@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > > Nothing in that spec sheet says anything about HW RAID. The ICH5R
does NOT
> > > do HW RAID. There is no uP and NO buffer. Such are requirements of
HW
> > > RAID.
> >
> > I may be missing something here, but I don't see anything that states
> > for something to be a raid controller that it must have a CPU or Cache.
> > As long as the chipset, using any firmware, handles the communications
> > with the drive and provides RAID 0/1/5 ability, it's Hardware Based
> > RAID.
> >
> > If I use a non-RAID chipset and require the OS to process everything,
> > then it's soft RAID.
> >
> > If I'm lucky enough to get cache and a CPU on the controller then I get
> > even faster RAID.
> >
> > As I see it, the Promise or Intel RAID chipsets on some motherboards
> > provide the functionality needed to be considered hardware RAID. Sure,
> > they don't have their own CPU's, but they do have their own BIOS, do
> > have their own firmware, do take commands from the OS, and do allow the
> > creation, building, rebuilding of RAID Arrays before the OS is even
> > installed on the system.
>
> My understanding of hardware raid is as follows:
>
> For a mirror:
>
> If the OS prepares precisely one block of memory, with data
> to be read or written, and the hardware solution takes that
> block of memory and reads or writes to two disks, and only
> returns "complete" status to the OS when both disks finish,

Exactly. And no host based x86 code nor host I/O bus structure is involved
in between. The block gets busmastered DMA-ed just once.

> that is hardware RAID. If the OS has to issue two commands
> to the hardware, saying write this to disk 0, then says write
> this to disk 1, that is software RAID.

Exactly...that's what happens for both the ICH5R and onmobo Promise but not
the 3Ware nor other true HW RAID.

> For a stripe:
>
> If the OS prepares precisely one block of memory, and
> issues one command to the hardware, and the hardware
> alternates writing stripe-sized chunks of data to the
> two drives, that is hardware RAID.

Exactly.

> If the OS chunkifies
> the original large memory block, and alternates commands
> to the two channels to write a stripe of data to the drives,
> that is software RAID.

Exactly and is what the ICH5R and Promise do.

> The difference is in the overhead.

Right and for RAID 0 and RAID 1 that SW RAID overhead isn't that big.

> With DMA transfer, the
> largest overhead of data movement by the processor is
> removed.

Right, but DMA does use bus bandwidth which can slow CPU and other I/O
operations.

> So, these days, it will be harder to tell whether
> the solution is hardware or software based underneath.

The first order way to tell is the presence of a uP on/in the RAID
controller that hosts a full low level full robust disk driver and that's
not x86 code most often. Also there'll be significant buffering onboard
that RAID controller where the data is held while the RAID processes operate
as you describe above.

> It
> will be hard to tell from the remaining level of overhead,
> to what extent the hardware hides the details of how the
> disk subsystem is wired up, and what it is
> (mirror or stripe).

Exactly, the difference between SW/firmware RAID and hardware RAID for
simple RAID 0 and RAID 1 is SMALL. For RAID 10 and especially RAID 5 then
hardware RAID becomes distinctly superior.

What you didn't describe above is RAID 5. RAID 5 can be thought of as RAID
0 plus parity. True hardware RAID 5 uses its onboard uP to calculate the
parity using code hosted in the controller memory and nothing in the x86
host. That onboard uP access the data from its onboard cache thus adding NO
additional host bus structure overhead.

> The quality of any solution will be measured in two
> parameter - max steady state bandwidth (HDTach) and
> percent CPU while doing it. So, experiment and find out.

Right.

> Whether RAID is hardware or software is based on the
> level of abstraction. If the OS/driver, when viewing
> the hardware, thinks it is dealing with a single disk,
> when in fact the controller handles all the details of
> running the RAID, that is a hardware controller.

Yes.

> If the
> OS is aware

You mean any x86 host based code or driver involved in regular I/O to the
array.

> of the details underneath, to achieve basic
> data transport, then it is a software based controller.

Right.

> Notice that my definition doesn't cover implementation,
> so you don't need to know the private details of how it
> is done, to have a definition.

Right but the reality of the real world provides some rather good litmus
tests to differentiate hardware from software/firmware RAID.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message newsGG3d.402387

> > If I use a non-RAID chipset and require the OS to process everything,
> > then it's soft RAID.
>
> Nope.

Correction: YES!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Try a google search on "Ron Reaugh", peruse the results and check that the
posts on the numerous news groups are from rondashreaugh@att.net.

So Ron, you write device drivers do you? Seems to me your a beginner in the
industry.

- Tim


"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:7dH3d.613571$Gx4.391672@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message newsGG3d.402387
>
>> > If I use a non-RAID chipset and require the OS to process everything,
>> > then it's soft RAID.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Correction: YES!
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:ciniq8$cc1$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Try a google search on "Ron Reaugh", peruse the results and check that the
> posts on the numerous news groups are from rondashreaugh@att.net.

A clear technique of a troll and stalker. When you can't carry the day
technically then attack the person.

You've been outclassed and are a FRAUD!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Ron, where was the personal attack?
You have been given a lot of opportunity to provide evidence for your
arguments and have not produced any.

Since you claimed to be a device driver writer, my thinking was that perhaps
in prior posts elsewhere you may actually have furnished evidence and
information to support this. In the few I looked at (there were 10 pages of
results), I saw nothing to support any of your arguments or claims. I have
also researched your side of the argument and have nothing that I could add
or give to your to support what you are claiming. Is that balanced? Is it
fair?

Me, a fraud? One thing I have learnt in life is that when a person makes a
baseless accusation such as this, is that they are generally talking about
themselves, either that or they are being irrational as they have some other
major problem. I am not too sure why you insist on calling people names and
not providing any support for your claims... You do have the google toolbar
don't you?

The really big irony here is that there is the remote possibility that you
*could* have been right. However you have lost all opportunity at gaining
credit for exposing a Major Deceipt. You can flit around news groups for the
rest of your life if you wish, or you can learn to argue your case clearly
and cleanly and be of great benefit to all and gain something for yourself.
If you need an example of how to do that, then take a look at Paul's work.

It does annoy me when I see responses come from people such as yourself that
claim to be authoritative, but are wrong. Novices have a hard enough job
digesting what is in front of them without deliberately misleading
information. Calling people Wrong or Wacko is deliberately misleading.

BTW: I suggest you check with Adaptec about your definition of RAID. Adaptec
has made many RAID cards in the past that have not had cache memory as
standard.

Also, how do you know that the 82801 chip does not contain a processor? If
it doesn't contain a processor of some sort then what is the firmware for?
It seems you don't know what firmware is. If Intel wants to put a processor
of some time inside such a chip and not tell anyone then thats their
business. If Intel has not and has implemented their RAID purely in hardware
then that is there business.

Paul's definition of RAID is solid IMHO.

So, again Ron, come clean. How about some evidence? Show us some evidence
that supports your assertion that the OS has to issue (via the supplied
driver) multiple IO's when the application thinks it is dealing with 1
physical volume? Try Windows Performance Monitor for a start and write a
test app with IO's above and below the stripe size and look for a
correlation between reported physical IO's and logical IO's taking into
account that not all IO's are actually IO's. Since you have HDD ddk
experience, then surely you can write a layered device driver to intercept
the IO's from Intel driver and the physical device? I know this can be done
as this is how one can implement device level encryption - PGP Disk does /
used to do it. You could implement a custom Perfmon object to show counts of
reads and writes etc. If you need the source code for this I can help your
out.

- Tim



"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:bnI3d.402875$OB3.262656@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:ciniq8$cc1$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Try a google search on "Ron Reaugh", peruse the results and check that
>> the
>> posts on the numerous news groups are from rondashreaugh@att.net.
>
> A clear technique of a troll and stalker. When you can't carry the day
> technically then attack the person.
>
> You've been outclassed and are a FRAUD!
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb93252e3b6aad69896fb@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <tkI3d.613781$Gx4.130624@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> >
> > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bb90ba9ae233f729896f8@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > > In article
<Y8H3d.613559$Gx4.480118@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > > > > So, if the idea that the OS thinks it dealing with 1 drive leads
one
> > to
> > > > > assume it's a real hardware raid solution, then the Promise RAID
0/1
> > > > > controller on the "ASUS PC-DL Deluxe" board is a hardware raid
> > solution.
> > > >
> > > > NO! The Promise has an OS level driver that knows it's talking to
> > different
> > > > disks. That means the Promise is specifically a SW/firmware RAID.
> > > >
> > > > > The OS doesn't see it as more than a single drive.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong, the OS at the Promise x86 basedf driver level does see it
as
> > more
> > > > than one disk and that OS level Promise driver in RAID 1 does do two
> > writes.
> > > > Re-read Paul's or my earlier posts. The two x86 based data transfer
and
> > > > writes is the critical issue.
> > >
> > > I would love to know where you've determined, in a Promise document,
> > > that the controller used on the PC-DL requires the OS to handle all
the
> > > data to both drives instead of sending it to the controller and the
> > > controller handling the actual communications with the drives. If you
> > > can post a link to the Promise document or some source other than you
> > > own typing I would appreciate it.
> >
> > Re-read the whole thread. There is no place in that Promise chip nor in
the
> > ICH5R for all the things that would have to be there for it to be true
HW
> > RAID.
> >
> > http://www.3ware.com/products/pdf/AMCC_MPG_0519.pdf
>
> Interesting "All 3ware products incorporate an onboard processor for
> true hardware RAID performance." Notice, they only mention their product
> as factoring performance, not that it's anything more than any other
> RAID (except for performance).
>
> They do say this "Software RAID schemes use the system processor, occupy
> host memory, and consume CPU cycles." But they don't say what
> constitutes "software raid" - from their own documents it appears that
> they describe software RAID as the standard OS RAID, having nothing to
> do with onboard RAID controllers. The firmware and chipset interface for
> the Promise RAID controller on the PC-DL Deluxe clearly meets the
> hardware requirement as based in this document.

That's flat FALSE! From your own quote above "Software RAID schemes use the
system processor, occupy host memory, and consume CPU cycles." The
Promise and ICH5R both do all those things..ergo SW/firmware RAID.

> I would also imagine
> that the Promise SX-6000 ATA 6 channel RAID card (which you said didn't)


Nonsense. What I said was "don't know" and I went on to say that some
Promise cards are semi-HW RAID.

> clearly is hardware RAID, even in your mind it would be, if we used your
> logic.

Clueless.

> > http://graphics.adaptec.com/pdfs/raid_soft_v_hard.pdf
>
> This document clearly makes NO distinction between onboard RAID
> controllers and other boarded RAID controllers.

HUH? The issue at hand is SW vs HW RAID and NOT overboard where you've
jumped.

> In fact, it only talks
> about a RAID CARD and a SCSI non-RAID card in testing. If you look at
> the document closely it does talk about dedicated processors and
> firmware, but it clearly separates software RAID as being something that
> is not based around a chipset, the talk about it being OS driven. The
> firmware and chipset interface for the Promise RAID controller on the
> PC-DL Deluxe clearly meets the hardware requirement as based in this
> document.

Pure CARP as anyone who reads it can see for themselves.

> I would also imagine that the Promise SX-6000 ATA 6 channel
> RAID card (which you said didn't) clearly is hardware RAID, even in your
> mind it would be, if we used your logic.

Clueless.

> > http://nas.darma.com/support/hcl.html
> > Note the column where "not true HW RAID" is shown vs various RAID
products.
> > Both Promise and the ICH5R get "not true HW RAID".
>
> So, it looks like a vendor is saying that the Promise is not "true"
> hardware RAID, but I don't see anything other than their linux variant
> that suggest where it doesn't meet the RAID spec, in fact, it only
> suggests that you use a different driver. I don't believe that this
> vendor is credible in this discussion.


Wacko.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb93d659707d8e59896fd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <0pK3d.614156$Gx4.32368@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > Clueless.
>
> Nice response Ron, I've added you to the list of people I place no
> credit with (like some of the others here have done with you).

Always the same pattern. When outclassed technically then attack the
person...transparent.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, Ron Reaugh gave forth on Re: IDE RAID

}
} "Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
} news:MPG.1bb93d659707d8e59896fd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
} > In article <0pK3d.614156$Gx4.32368@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
} > rondashreaugh@att.net says...
} > > Clueless.
} >
} > Nice response Ron, I've added you to the list of people I place no
} > credit with (like some of the others here have done with you).
}
} Always the same pattern. When outclassed technically then attack the
} person...transparent.
}
Err..... Pot Kettle Black I think