raid0 on motherboard chipset

[OhYou_]

Can I see a theoretical 2x disk speed by buying a second disk for the other sata port and putting them in software raid 0 using the bios?
Or do both ports share the bandwidth?

Pic is chipset and what it's got so far. sata 1.0 speed (

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, OhYou_ said:

software raid 0 using the bios?

That would be considered hardware RAID. It's running in the firmware for the hardware itself, not in software. 

 

It should do RAID 0 fine given that's an intentional feature of the SATA controller: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1274/8. It allows for hot spares and such as well, if you want to do hardware RAID then it seems a capable chip. 

 

[tkitch]

no it can't.

 

your controller has a max throughput, and one good SSD Can cap that.  So RAID won't help. 

[Agall]

14 minutes ago, OhYou_ said:

Can I see a theoretical 2x disk speed by buying a second disk for the other sata port and putting them in software raid 0 using the bios?
Or do both ports share the bandwidth?

Pic is chipset and what it's got so far. sata 1.0 speed (

Why does this look like Windows XP? Why does it say Nvidia at the top for the SATA controller? What hardware are you using that only has SATA1 speeds?

[Zando_]

8 minutes ago, tkitch said:

no it can't.

 

your controller has a max throughput, and one good SSD Can cap that.  So RAID won't help. 

Oh that's a good point, hadn't considered that. Where is the max throughput stated? I can only find the throughput for the whole thing (not just the SATA bit), seems to be 6.4GB/s for the higher end chip. Wikipedia claims up to 8GB/s for the later versions. 

7 minutes ago, Agall said:

Why does this look like Windows XP? Why does it say Nvidia at the top for the SATA controller? What hardware are you using that only has SATA1 speeds?

Should be an Athlon 64 system, given the nForce 3 chipsets were made for that platform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NForce3. Isn't fully compatible with Windows Vista, likely why OP appears to be on Windows XP. 

[OhYou_]

10 minutes ago, tkitch said:

no it can't.

 

your controller has a max throughput, and one good SSD Can cap that.  So RAID won't help. 

well thats what I dont know, what the max throughput is.
I only know the max throughput of the HT bus, which is the chipset connection to the cpu, and its shared with the gpu and other expansion.

11 minutes ago, Agall said:

Why does this look like Windows XP? Why does it say Nvidia at the top for the SATA controller? What hardware are you using that only has SATA1 speeds?

it is windows xp and the motherboard uses a nvidia chipset

[tkitch]

16 minutes ago, OhYou_ said:

well thats what I dont know, what the max throughput is.
I only know the max throughput of the HT bus, which is the chipset connection to the cpu, and its shared with the gpu and other expansion.

it is windows xp and the motherboard uses a nvidia chipset

SATA has a max throughput of ~600MBps on the latest SATA 3 controllers.

 

And if this is a winXP era box?

Probably slower than that, so you will extra special not get more speed from SATA SSD RAID

[OhYou_]

11 minutes ago, tkitch said:

SATA has a max throughput of ~600MBps on the latest SATA 3 controllers.

 

And if this is a winXP era box?

Probably slower than that, so you will extra special not get more speed from SATA SSD RAID

well yes its sata 1.0
it has a max theoretical throughput of 150MB/s
but I dont know if that is per port or 150MB/s per port when you put them together in raid 0 makes it 300MB/s, which is much faster.

I only ask because it will take like 2 hours to test it and I dunwana also I'd have to find two of the same ssds

[Needfuldoer]

1 hour ago, OhYou_ said:

well thats what I dont know, what the max throughput is.

SATA 1 tops out at 1.5 Gbit/sec, or about 150 MB/sec. That EVO 970 is easily saturating the bus.

 

Honestly I'm a little surprised it's working at all. Some early SATA controllers turned out to be not perfectly forward-compatible.

 

32 minutes ago, OhYou_ said:

but I dont know if that is per port or 150MB/s per port when you put them together in raid 0 makes it 300MB/s, which is much faster.

I think it's per device.

 

However, depending on how that SATA controller is integrated, you might not see much of an improvement regardless. If it's logically a PCI device, you're stuck at 133 MB/sec. If it's even PCI3 Gen1 x1, that jumps to 250 MB/sec.

 

A PCIe SATA controller would let the SSD stretch its legs, but then the rest of the system will be a bottleneck anyway.

[manikyath]

why do you have a windows XP machine in such sore need of disk speed that you're considering RAID0?

 

i've got a windows XP machine booting in 3 seconds off a compactflash card...

[OhYou_]

4 minutes ago, manikyath said:

why do you have a windows XP machine in such sore need of disk speed that you're considering RAID0?

idk because why not
im all for maxing out hardware if it costs almost nothing but effort
the thing has a 4670 in it, it game pretty hard. better load times is always a plus on older hardware

 

27 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

depending on how that SATA controller is integrated,

nearest I can tell it is built into the chipset which is then connected to the cpu with a HT bus. no idea how within the chipset its laid out but its not like other boards wheich just had yeah a sata controer separate on the board somewhere running off pci
evo 970 is not gonna stay in the pc, but yeah it is a bottleneck demonstrator for sure. I've got some older intel 500gb ssds for it or even a period correct force gt though its kinda small

[Kilrah]

4th gen is pcie3, so there should be plenty of bandwidth to aggregate between the drives but that'd depend on mobo. List all components if you want insight.

[OhYou_]

15 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

4th gen is pcie3, so there should be plenty of bandwidth to aggregate between the drives but that'd depend on mobo. List all components if you want insight.

ati 4670, gpu.
the board is a decently rare board made as a sort of backwards compatible board so people could upgrade to ddr2 and better cpus and keep their old AGP gpu.

the gpu is a sorta backwards compatable agp gpu, made so people could put a newer gpu in their older pc.
when you combine the two, you get something quite stupid.
for reference, the cpu is a phenom II x4 955 black edition, or will be when it arrives. it should support the two sticks of ddr2 1066mhz ram too with that cpu.
pretty much the ultimate agp computer, I dont believe there even exists a faster combination