nope the 4-port is PCI 66mhz, http://www.addonics.com/products/host_controller/adsa4r5.asp taken from their parts lists so 15 drives will be all running through that 133Mbytes/sec they will see a bottleneck. Me I would get a 3 slot pcie 4x and use two 8 port sata controllers and save the other for a dual port 10gige card I however don't agree with your 60MB/s on gige I have seen up to 85MB/s with a decent TOE and quick disks, take this from multiple hosts (multiple nics) and you will see bottleneck issues with the disks...
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Jake Anderson <ya...@vapourforge.com>wrote: > On 03/09/09 10:37, Mark Walkom wrote: > >> I was thinking the same, but I reckon because they are just backing >> up/archiving data it wouldn't be too bad. >> ie They aren't looking for huge performance, just huge, cheap storage. >> >> >> 2009/9/3 Morgan Storey<m...@morganstorey.com> >> >> >> >>> I know I am a geek but that is hot. >>> I am wondering if they see any throughput issues with the sata backplanes >>> and pci sata cards. >>> >>> >> The backplanes are probably fine, each sata cable is good for > ~300mbytes/sec most physical disks couldn't hope to hit that. > lesse what their maximum xfer rate is. > each drive can hit 103mb/sec average (better than I thought) > each sata channel will max out at 250mbyte/sec > > so they are going to be loosing some bandwidth there. > their backplanes take 5 disks, so a potential bandwidth of well call it > 500mbyte/second > so 50% is out the window there actual bandwidth per 5 disks is going to be > 250mbyte > > they have 9 of these channels for a total bandwith available of > 2250mbyte/sec (2 gigabytes a second, that'll rip some dvds fast) > > standard PCI tops out at 133mbyte/sec so thats out ;-> > > it looks like they are using PCI-E SATA cards > the mbo they have and the cards they are using indicate they have 3x of > something like this > http://www.syba.com/index.php?controller=Product&action=Info&Id=861 > which maxes out at 250mbyte/sec per (1x PCI-E 1x lane) > and one 4 port card which if it comes from that mob must be a PCI by the > look of things. > but I'll assume that its PCI-E and at least 4 lanes. > > so the total xfer rate is 1750mbyte/sec > (or 883 if they are using the PCI card) > > Vs the total possible xfer rate of 4500 > they aren't doing *too* badly > > given that on a gigabit ethernet connection you are lucky to push > 30mbyte/sec (or 60 if you tweak it), I think its not going to be a big issue > ;-> > > > If they wanted more oomph their best bet would be to put 2x 16 port PCI-E > 16x cards into a motherboard that supported it (most decent SLI motherboards > will do that) > > better still one with 4x pci-E 16 slots so that you can put some 10gigE > cards in as well something like > > http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Motherboards/Socket+AM3+(AMD)/MSI+790FX-GD70+AM3+Motherboard+with+4+x+PCIe+x+16+?productId=36604<http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Motherboards/Socket+AM3+%28AMD%29/MSI+790FX-GD70+AM3+Motherboard+with+4+x+PCIe+x+16+?productId=36604> > say (but with intel of course ;->) > > That should net you (assuming you use dual port 10gig-E nics) an xfer rate > out of the box of around 2400mbytes/sec > almost fast enough to spy on teh entirez intarwebz!! > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
