1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:18:39 +0400, Yahya Mohammad wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> I'm setting up a new desktop machine with RAID 0. The motherboard I |
6 |
>> bought supports the so-called "Fake" RAID, which offloads most of the |
7 |
>> processing to the system CPU. What are the pros and cons of using this |
8 |
>> as opposed to pure software RAID? |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> The advantage of FakeRAID is that you get to depend on a Windows-only |
12 |
> driver that only works with your motherboard and will prevent the RAID |
13 |
> working if the motherboard files and you try to connect the drives to a |
14 |
> different system. For some reason,this gives Windows users a warm, fuzzy |
15 |
> feeling. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
> |
19 |
Maybe you want pure hardware raid that's a pci(-e) slot that has a chip |
20 |
doing all the parity calculations plus a battery keeping data that |
21 |
didn't manage to write in case of a power failure. That's the best option. |
22 |
For a mb in order to have fake raid capabilities from my understanding |
23 |
it has to have a raid chip itself but still most of the calculation is |
24 |
done by the CPU. |
25 |
Software raid can be done OS dependant... and you don't need any |
26 |
hardware or chips for that, it's a form of OS fooling itself instead of |
27 |
the MB fooling the OS (fake one). |
28 |
|
29 |
From my experience with fake raid 0 on 2 hdd's the speeds would be very |
30 |
nice when talking about small files, but for files with 1gb or more the |
31 |
writing speed would decrease as the parity calculations get more |
32 |
complicated. |