Best Motherboard with On-Board Raid Advice

[FredBear]

Can anyone tell me what the best P4 motherboard with on-board raid is.
I'd like to use it with my existing 40 Gig ATA Maxtors? I've been
reading posts about the Abit KT-7, but those posts are pretty old.

Thanks in advance

[erik©]

Can anyone tell me what the best P4 motherboard with on-board raid is. I'd like to use it with my existing 40 Gig ATA Maxtors? I've been reading posts about the Abit KT-7, but those posts are pretty old. Thanks in advance

The abit KT-7 is a atlon board

[Ray]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:32:00 -0500, Tom <> wrote: Can anyone tell me what the best P4 motherboard with on-board raid is. I'd like to use it with my existing 40 Gig ATA Maxtors? I've been reading posts about the Abit KT-7, but those posts are pretty old.

IMHO don't get on-board raid, just get a seperate raid card for whatever
motherboard you want or use software raid if your OS supports it.

--
Ray

[Rob Stow]

Ray wrote: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:32:00 -0500, Tom <> wrote:Can anyone tell me what the best P4 motherboard with on-board raid is.I'd like to use it with my existing 40 Gig ATA Maxtors? I've beenreading posts about the Abit KT-7, but those posts are pretty old. IMHO don't get on-board raid, just get a seperate raid card for whatever motherboard you want

On board RAID controllers do just fine for simple things like
stripe sets and mirroring. For more sophisticated RAIDs, a
good caching RAID card only costs as much as another large
drive.
or use software raid if your OS supports it.

You definitely only want to do that *only* when hardware RAID
is not available to you. A two-drive software mirror or stripe
set typically triples the load put on your CPU compared to the
load imposed by even a cheap Promise or HighPoint RAID controller.
Most systems don't have the horsepower to both run a heavy
app like video encoding and also drive a software RAID - so trying
to do something like encoding video to a partition that is part of
a software RAID often reduces performance below what you would get
if you just used a single-drive system.

[Douglas Bollinger]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:12:02 -0600, Rob Stow wrote:

<snip> You definitely only want to do that *only* when hardware RAID is not available to you. A two-drive software mirror or stripe set typically triples the load put on your CPU compared to the load imposed by even a cheap Promise or HighPoint RAID controller. Most systems don't have the horsepower to both run a heavy app like video encoding and also drive a software RAID - so trying to do something like encoding video to a partition that is part of a software RAID often reduces performance below what you would get if you just used a single-drive system.

Eh, this isn't correct, by any means.

I hate to break this to you, but those cheap Promise and HighPoint RAID
cards are not hardware RAID cards by any means, they are simply IDE
controller cards with enough BIOS glue to fool a OS (Windows) to think you
have one drive instead of two. That's why you need special OS driver's to
use them, because _all_ the RAID logic is performed by the CPU, not the
RAID card.

Also, a modern UDMA drive has almost a zero effect on a modern CPU; with
software RAID all the CPU has to do is the RAID logic, which isn't that
bad. It certainly won't change the RAID performance.

--
Love tells us many things that are not so.
-- Krainian Proverb

[DaveW]

Asus P4C800-E Deluxe is the best raid enabled P4 motherboard currently
available.

--
DaveW



<Tom> wrote in message news:dbaeuvcg40hg7vbs50oh41nrfbr48dv4jd@4ax.com... Can anyone tell me what the best P4 motherboard with on-board raid is. I'd like to use it with my existing 40 Gig ATA Maxtors? I've been reading posts about the Abit KT-7, but those posts are pretty old. Thanks in advance

[Ray]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:12:02 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote: Ray wrote: IMHO don't get on-board raid, just get a seperate raid card for whatever motherboard you want On board RAID controllers do just fine for simple things like stripe sets and mirroring.

Right, they do just as well as a seperate raid card with the same chipset at
a SLIGHTLY lower cost but you're giving up a fair bit of flexability. If
that's the approach you want to take why bother building a system at all,
just buy a Dell and be done with it.
or use software raid if your OS supports it. You definitely only want to do that *only* when hardware RAID is not available to you. A two-drive software mirror or stripe set typically triples the load put on your CPU compared to the load imposed by even a cheap Promise or HighPoint RAID controller.

That's just plain bull. The cheap "raid" controllers whether they are built
into the MB or as add-ons ARE software raid. If you're seeing 3x more cpu
load with software raid (for RAID 0 or RAID 1) you're doing something wrong or
there is some other factor at work.
Most systems don't have the horsepower to both run a heavy app like video encoding and also drive a software RAID - so trying to do something like encoding video to a partition that is part of a software RAID often reduces performance below what you would get if you just used a single-drive system.

Encoding video wouldn't even push the limits of a single low end drive 2
years ago in most cases. In most cases we're only talking about a couple MB
(or less depending on what you're generating) of fresh data being generated
per second, hell you could pipe that over ethernet if you wanted to.

In a sense, software raid has the same advantage as a cheap pci raid card,
in both cases if you have a system failure you can transplant your data to a
different machine and have access to it almost immediately. Likewise it's
possible to upgrade your motherboard without disrupting your RAID array.

--
Ray

[George Macdonald]

On 23 Dec 2003 07:04:01 GMT, Ray <nmos@sonictech.net> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:12:02 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote: Ray wrote: IMHO don't get on-board raid, just get a seperate raid card for whatever motherboard you want On board RAID controllers do just fine for simple things like stripe sets and mirroring.Right, they do just as well as a seperate raid card with the same chipset ata SLIGHTLY lower cost but you're giving up a fair bit of flexability. Ifthat's the approach you want to take why bother building a system at all,just buy a Dell and be done with it. or use software raid if your OS supports it. You definitely only want to do that *only* when hardware RAID is not available to you. A two-drive software mirror or stripe set typically triples the load put on your CPU compared to the load imposed by even a cheap Promise or HighPoint RAID controller.That's just plain bull. The cheap "raid" controllers whether they are builtinto the MB or as add-ons ARE software raid. If you're seeing 3x more cpuload with software raid (for RAID 0 or RAID 1) you're doing something wrong orthere is some other factor at work.

And yet those are the kinds of differences reported for even different
"cheap" RAID controllers a couple of years back.
Most systems don't have the horsepower to both run a heavy app like video encoding and also drive a software RAID - so trying to do something like encoding video to a partition that is part of a software RAID often reduces performance below what you would get if you just used a single-drive system.Encoding video wouldn't even push the limits of a single low end drive 2years ago in most cases. In most cases we're only talking about a couple MB(or less depending on what you're generating) of fresh data being generatedper second, hell you could pipe that over ethernet if you wanted to.

2MB/s effective over 10Base2/T? I think not.... not even close.
In a sense, software raid has the same advantage as a cheap pci raid card,in both cases if you have a system failure you can transplant your data to adifferent machine and have access to it almost immediately. Likewise it'spossible to upgrade your motherboard without disrupting your RAID array.

Even the cheap RAID cards support things like hot swap/rebuild and there
*are* times when you may want to change the RAID config *before* the OS and
drivers get to do their thing on the drives. There may not be a lot of
hardware assist but it doesn't take much to make a difference.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[The little lost angel]

On 23 Dec 2003 07:04:01 GMT, Ray <nmos@sonictech.net> wrote:
You definitely only want to do that *only* when hardware RAID is not available to you. A two-drive software mirror or stripe set typically triples the load put on your CPU compared to the load imposed by even a cheap Promise or HighPoint RAID controller.That's just plain bull. The cheap "raid" controllers whether they are builtinto the MB or as add-ons ARE software raid. If you're seeing 3x more cpuload with software raid (for RAID 0 or RAID 1) you're doing something wrong orthere is some other factor at work.

I thought we had this argument a few weeks back on the NG already?
The cheap raid controllers are firmware controllers and are
OS-independent to some extent. You can't say the same for pure
software RAID.
In a sense, software raid has the same advantage as a cheap pci raid card,in both cases if you have a system failure you can transplant your data to adifferent machine and have access to it almost immediately. Likewise it'spossible to upgrade your motherboard without disrupting your RAID array.

How is the software RAID going to work if your OS screws up because of
the new motherboard? Especially for RAID 0?

Cheap firmware RAID are good enough that they work even in DOS. No
drivers :)

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

[chrisv]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:20:37 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
Encoding video wouldn't even push the limits of a single low end drive 2years ago in most cases. In most cases we're only talking about a couple MB(or less depending on what you're generating) of fresh data being generatedper second, hell you could pipe that over ethernet if you wanted to.2MB/s effective over 10Base2/T? I think not.... not even close.

????? Isn't 100Mb/s Ethernet quite common these days? He did not
restrict his statement to "10Base2/T".

[Ray]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:10:05 GMT, The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote: On 23 Dec 2003 07:04:01 GMT, Ray <nmos@sonictech.net> wrote:That's just plain bull. The cheap "raid" controllers whether they are builtinto the MB or as add-ons ARE software raid. If you're seeing 3x more cpuload with software raid (for RAID 0 or RAID 1) you're doing something wrong orthere is some other factor at work. I thought we had this argument a few weeks back on the NG already? The cheap raid controllers are firmware controllers and are OS-independent to some extent. You can't say the same for pure software RAID.

The only difference is where the RAID software is stored, on a flash rom
chip vs on disk. This software is still running on your Pentium/Athlon
since these cards don't have processors of their own. If I store my OS on a
flash drive rather than a hard drive that doesn't change the nature of my OS
does it? Since the work (such as it is with the simpler raid schemes) is
being done by your cpu the load imposed by both methods is going to be about
the same.
In a sense, software raid has the same advantage as a cheap pci raid card,in both cases if you have a system failure you can transplant your data to adifferent machine and have access to it almost immediately. Likewise it'spossible to upgrade your motherboard without disrupting your RAID array. How is the software RAID going to work if your OS screws up because of the new motherboard? Especially for RAID 0?

I'm not sure why the OS would screw up just because of a new motherboard,
I have a number of stock Linux images that I install on random machines all
the time without any real problems. In any event you could always take your
raid disks and put them on a secondary/tertiary controller of a working
system and pull the data off from there. Another option would be to boot
off one of the many bootable Linux CDs that has RAID support (or a Windows
CD if you're using Windows). One nice thing about software raid is that you
can put the OS on an un-raided (is that a word?) portion of one of the disks
so you get your OS up and running first before mounting the raid array.
Cheap firmware RAID are good enough that they work even in DOS. No drivers :)

Agreed, I don't really have a problem with firmware RAID cards, I just don't
like tying my data to a particular motherboard. It just seems like way too
many eggs in one basket (and one more compromise to make when choosing a MB)
to me.

--
Ray

[Ray]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:20:37 -0500, George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote: On 23 Dec 2003 07:04:01 GMT, Ray <nmos@sonictech.net> wrote:On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:12:02 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote: Ray wrote:That's just plain bull. The cheap "raid" controllers whether they are builtinto the MB or as add-ons ARE software raid. If you're seeing 3x more cpuload with software raid (for RAID 0 or RAID 1) you're doing something wrong orthere is some other factor at work. And yet those are the kinds of differences reported for even different "cheap" RAID controllers a couple of years back.

Reported by who? I've seen a few benchmarks comparing Windows SW raid using
the motherboard's built in controller and Win drivers vs. a cheap Promise
card using it's own drivers but that's as much a matter of the driver
writers' benchmarketing ability as anything else.
Encoding video wouldn't even push the limits of a single low end drive 2years ago in most cases. In most cases we're only talking about a couple MB(or less depending on what you're generating) of fresh data being generatedper second, hell you could pipe that over ethernet if you wanted to. 2MB/s effective over 10Base2/T? I think not.... not even close.

No but 100BaseT is pretty common these days. With video encoding there's no
problem with buffering the c**p out of the writes if there is a bit of
network congestion.
In a sense, software raid has the same advantage as a cheap pci raid card,in both cases if you have a system failure you can transplant your data to adifferent machine and have access to it almost immediately. Likewise it'spossible to upgrade your motherboard without disrupting your RAID array. Even the cheap RAID cards support things like hot swap/rebuild and there *are* times when you may want to change the RAID config *before* the OS and drivers get to do their thing on the drives. There may not be a lot of hardware assist but it doesn't take much to make a difference.

There's no law that says you have to mount your array every time you boot
the OS. If you want to make changes to your array, you boot, make your
changes, THEN mount the array. If the OS is giving problems, boot from a CD
or the network to do your repairs.

--
Ray

[George Macdonald]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:36:10 -0600, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:20:37 -0500, George Macdonald<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:Encoding video wouldn't even push the limits of a single low end drive 2years ago in most cases. In most cases we're only talking about a couple MB(or less depending on what you're generating) of fresh data being generatedper second, hell you could pipe that over ethernet if you wanted to.2MB/s effective over 10Base2/T? I think not.... not even close.????? Isn't 100Mb/s Ethernet quite common these days? He did notrestrict his statement to "10Base2/T".

I, and I believe the industry in general, understands "Ethernet" alone to
mean 10Base2/T and which is further handicapped by CSMA/CD. All the rest
are variations which need qualification to specify their characteristics,
e.g. "switched Ethermnet" which is a bit of an oxymoron as a term. IOW if
he meant 100BaseTX he should have said so.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[George Macdonald]

On 23 Dec 2003 16:30:35 GMT, Ray <nmos@sonictech.net> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:20:37 -0500, George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote: On 23 Dec 2003 07:04:01 GMT, Ray <nmos@sonictech.net> wrote:On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:12:02 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:> Ray wrote:That's just plain bull. The cheap "raid" controllers whether they are builtinto the MB or as add-ons ARE software raid. If you're seeing 3x more cpuload with software raid (for RAID 0 or RAID 1) you're doing something wrong orthere is some other factor at work. And yet those are the kinds of differences reported for even different "cheap" RAID controllers a couple of years back.Reported by who? I've seen a few benchmarks comparing Windows SW raid usingthe motherboard's built in controller and Win drivers vs. a cheap Promisecard using it's own drivers but that's as much a matter of the driverwriters' benchmarketing ability as anything else.

Well some have apparently been taken down but here's one
http://www.3dretreat.com/reviews/idecompare/index.shtml which compares two
different "controllers". Obviously the devil is in the details - knowing
how the hardware works and writing appropriate drivers to get the best
performance whether it be from benchmarks or real-world use.
Encoding video wouldn't even push the limits of a single low end drive 2years ago in most cases. In most cases we're only talking about a couple MB(or less depending on what you're generating) of fresh data being generatedper second, hell you could pipe that over ethernet if you wanted to. 2MB/s effective over 10Base2/T? I think not.... not even close.No but 100BaseT is pretty common these days. With video encoding there's noproblem with buffering the c**p out of the writes if there is a bit ofnetwork congestion.

"Switched" ethernet is also pretty common. Sorry, but to me, the term
Ethernet alone implies 10BaseX.
In a sense, software raid has the same advantage as a cheap pci raid card,in both cases if you have a system failure you can transplant your data to adifferent machine and have access to it almost immediately. Likewise it'spossible to upgrade your motherboard without disrupting your RAID array. Even the cheap RAID cards support things like hot swap/rebuild and there *are* times when you may want to change the RAID config *before* the OS and drivers get to do their thing on the drives. There may not be a lot of hardware assist but it doesn't take much to make a difference.There's no law that says you have to mount your array every time you bootthe OS. If you want to make changes to your array, you boot, make yourchanges, THEN mount the array. If the OS is giving problems, boot from a CDor the network to do your repairs.

Not the same thing at all.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[JT]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:41:00 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:36:10 -0600, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:20:37 -0500, George Macdonald<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:>Encoding video wouldn't even push the limits of a single low end drive 2>years ago in most cases. In most cases we're only talking about a couple MB>(or less depending on what you're generating) of fresh data being generated>per second, hell you could pipe that over ethernet if you wanted to.2MB/s effective over 10Base2/T? I think not.... not even close.????? Isn't 100Mb/s Ethernet quite common these days? He did notrestrict his statement to "10Base2/T".I, and I believe the industry in general, understands "Ethernet" alone tomean 10Base2/T and which is further handicapped by CSMA/CD. All the restare variations which need qualification to specify their characteristics,e.g. "switched Ethermnet" which is a bit of an oxymoron as a term. IOW ifhe meant 100BaseTX he should have said so.Rgds, George Macdonald

Of course, at one time ethernet was undersood to mean AUI's and Thicknet. I
think it is fair to say that any "ethernet" sold as current in the current
millenium is at least 100base ;-)

JT

[Nate Edel]

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald wrote: I, and I believe the industry in general, understands "Ethernet" alone to mean 10Base2/T and which is further handicapped by CSMA/CD. All the rest are variations which need qualification to specify their characteristics, e.g. "switched Ethermnet" which is a bit of an oxymoron as a term. IOW if he meant 100BaseTX he should have said so.

In practice, most people shorthand "Ethernet" for "Fast Ethernet" (which is
actually typically "Switched 10/100") these days, since it is the successor
to "classic Ethernet" (10Base5/2/T) that most people are actually using.
It takes digging to even _buy_ 10mbps-only or 100mbps-only equipment these
days, and hubs rather than switches seem to be disappearing too.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"But Marge! I've never felt so accepted in my life. These people looked deep
into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."

[RusH]

Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in
news:vuenf02p5ej11f@corp.supernews.com:
or use software raid if your OS supports it. You definitely only want to do that *only* when hardware RAID is not available to you. A two-drive software mirror or stripe set typically triples the load put on your CPU compared to the load imposed by even a cheap Promise or HighPoint RAID controller.

not true, more like a lie :)
show test or hide yourselfe in some deep hole (I tested promise and
soft raid under Linux - same cpu load under bonnie)
Most systems don't have the horsepower to both run a heavy app like video encoding and also drive a software RAID - so trying to do something like encoding video to a partition that is part of a software RAID often reduces performance below what you would get if you just used a single-drive system.

Promise and Highpoint ARE software raids



--
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

[Al Bundy]

In practice, most people shorthand "Ethernet" for "Fast Ethernet" (which
is actually typically "Switched 10/100") these days, since it is the
successor to "classic Ethernet" (10Base5/2/T) that most people are actually using. It takes digging to even _buy_ 10mbps-only or 100mbps-only equipment these days, and hubs rather than switches seem to be disappearing too.

Then what do you call gigabit ethernet? "Faster Ethernet" ???

: )

[daytripper]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:31:33 GMT, "Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
In practice, most people shorthand "Ethernet" for "Fast Ethernet" (whichis actually typically "Switched 10/100") these days, since it is thesuccessor to "classic Ethernet" (10Base5/2/T) that most people are actually using. It takes digging to even _buy_ 10mbps-only or 100mbps-only equipment these days, and hubs rather than switches seem to be disappearing too.Then what do you call gigabit ethernet? "Faster Ethernet" ???

If he calls it "New Ethernet", let's hope that doesn't kill it...

[The little lost angel]

On 23 Dec 2003 16:02:01 GMT, Ray <nmos@sonictech.net> wrote:
Cheap firmware RAID are good enough that they work even in DOS. No drivers :)Agreed, I don't really have a problem with firmware RAID cards, I just don'tlike tying my data to a particular motherboard. It just seems like way toomany eggs in one basket (and one more compromise to make when choosing a MB)to me.

Agreed... as it's a problem I face now :P

I've got a faster chip and motherboard for almost free. Now I've to
dig for a RAID card since my current one uses an integrated Promise
firmware :/

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

[RusH]

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
news:nl0huvcjkp7qukndmklvm29n7ufo8fnc8m@4ax.com:
????? Isn't 100Mb/s Ethernet quite common these days? He didnot restrict his statement to "10Base2/T". I, and I believe the industry in general, understands "Ethernet" alone to mean 10Base2/T and which is further handicapped by CSMA/CD. All the rest are variations which need qualification to specify their characteristics, e.g. "switched Ethermnet" which is a bit of an oxymoron as a term. IOW if he meant 100BaseTX he should have said so.

yes, and when I say "a plain" I mean Wrights Flier ..

--
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

[RusH]

a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel)
wrote in news:3fe813db.60188907@news.pacific.net.sg:
How is the software RAID going to work if your OS screws up because of the new motherboard? Especially for RAID 0?

new motherboard ? what kind of OS would go belly up on the new
motherboard ? oh wait - windows :D ROFL
Software raid can be mounted on ANY motherboard on ANY other machine
with matching raid sfw package.
Cheap firmware RAID are good enough that they work even in DOS. No drivers :)

yes, off course - on the new motherboard with different "raid" chip
:) (we are talking stripping or 5, mirroring is mirroring and I see
no point in mambling about how would new motherboard influence
mirroring when you simply can turn it on later when the OS swap is
done)


--
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

[The little lost angel]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:59:20 +0000 (UTC), RusH
<rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote:yes, off course - on the new motherboard with different "raid" chip:) (we are talking stripping or 5, mirroring is mirroring and I seeno point in mambling about how would new motherboard influencemirroring when you simply can turn it on later when the OS swap isdone)

Ah, but most "cheap" firmware RAID don't do Raid 5 :PpPPp
They usually only do Raid 0 or 1, which is why I said especially for
Raid 0.

Though in SiS's case (I think) they have got some proprietary Raid 0.5
or 1.5 thing, but anybody using proprietary non-standard stuff should
expect compatibility problems.



--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

[George Macdonald]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:31:47 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald wrote: I, and I believe the industry in general, understands "Ethernet" alone to mean 10Base2/T and which is further handicapped by CSMA/CD. All the rest are variations which need qualification to specify their characteristics, e.g. "switched Ethermnet" which is a bit of an oxymoron as a term. IOW if he meant 100BaseTX he should have said so.In practice, most people shorthand "Ethernet" for "Fast Ethernet" (which isactually typically "Switched 10/100") these days

Most people where though - at home or in business? Obviously I don't
(follow your "shorthand" in practice, because to me, it's wrong) and
there's a lot of legacy BNC and non-cat-5 still stuck in the walls of
businesses... despite what you can "typically" buy in the store right now.
NICs are still sold as Ethernet/Fast Ethernet or 10/100/1000 and if you
want to extend to *very* recent technology, there's Wi-Fi which is another
form of Ethernet and in its 802.1b form is slower than even 10Base2/T -
Ethernet... Schmethernet!:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[George Macdonald]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:59:18 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net>
wrote:
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote innews:nl0huvcjkp7qukndmklvm29n7ufo8fnc8m@4ax.com:????? Isn't 100Mb/s Ethernet quite common these days? He didnot restrict his statement to "10Base2/T". I, and I believe the industry in general, understands "Ethernet" alone to mean 10Base2/T and which is further handicapped by CSMA/CD. All the rest are variations which need qualification to specify their characteristics, e.g. "switched Ethermnet" which is a bit of an oxymoron as a term. IOW if he meant 100BaseTX he should have said so.yes, and when I say "a plain" I mean Wrights Flier ..

<snigger>Sorry but the language excuse doesn't work for gratuitous
smart-ass comments.:-( Oh and BTW, last week the Wrights' Flier didn't...
fly that is.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[George Macdonald]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:51:48 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net>
wrote:
Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote innews:vuenf02p5ej11f@corp.supernews.com:
Most systems don't have the horsepower to both run a heavy app like video encoding and also drive a software RAID - so trying to do something like encoding video to a partition that is part of a software RAID often reduces performance below what you would get if you just used a single-drive system.Promise and Highpoint ARE software raids

Now you've gone off and gotten imprecise.... AGAIN!

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Nate Edel]

Noozer <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote: Then what do you call gigabit ethernet? "Faster Ethernet" ??? : )

Gig-E, typically.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"But Marge! I've never felt so accepted in my life. These people looked deep
into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."

[Liquidvacuum]

What ever you choose stay away from Gigabyte's version. Their "Giga Raid"
truly sucks. It will drag down your cpu. You might want to consider the Epox
4PDA2+ (ver 2.0) they claim 0,1 and 1.5 configurations. The Albatron PX865PE
Pro II is another good board, and if you do want the 875 chipset the Epox
4PCA3+ is reasonable. I have the Epox 4PDA2+ and a couple of old 120's in a
raid 0 and there is no noticeable hit. It does use the Highpoint but I've
used the Promise version on an AMD board and the performance was the same.

lqv