I believe he is waiting for the CPU.
Alexander.
on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,
Are u saying your laptop has more memory bandwith then my i7-920 triple channel as well? If so what model laptop and i7 chip? Or u talking memory read speeds instead of write, my i7-3770k came up as 27809 read speed.. None tha less these i7 cpu are nice, this memory controller tech all started with tha Athlon64, next to tha i7 cpu and of course back when things moved slower, tha Athlon64 would of been tha cpu I used tha longest, it was a great cpu for its time..
on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,
Are u saying your laptop has more memory bandwith then my i7-920 triple channel as well? If so what model laptop and i7 chip? Or u talking memory read speeds instead of write, my i7-3770k came up as 27809 read speed.. None tha less these i7 cpu are nice, this memory controller tech all started with tha Athlon64, next to tha i7 cpu and of course back when things moved slower, tha Athlon64 would of been tha cpu I used tha longest, it was a great cpu for its time..
its an intel ibex peak-m hm55 chipset+i7 740qm cpu+8gigs of 1333mhz hynix rams, but its fulctuates between 15gb/s and 20 depending on the state of the os and the overall temp of the laptop, best what i measured when it was new the above stated numbers
Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..
Oh, and I just read your post above, u don't wanta do software raid, tha ICH inside Z77 is very very powerfull for a chipset, u can do RAID 0,1 or 10 just fine, but not RAID5.. I am running RAID0, 2x Plex M5P256 as my boot volume on Z77 ICH, and getting 1100 MB/s.. Also running some old 4x 500G WD hardrives in RAID10 as my Scratch volume, don't have to worry about losing any fresh downloads etc , think im getting around 125 MB/s average on that volume, didn't bother to test it..
Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..
Yes, I thought it would be their most popular CPU. Was surprised they didn't have it. Everything else they had in-stock at one of their stores, even the case which isn't listed on their website.
Still waiting, won't be in until at least tomorrow at best.
Oh, and I just read your post above, u don't wanta do software raid, tha ICH inside Z77 is very very powerfull for a chipset, u can do RAID 0,1 or 10 just fine, but not RAID5.. I am running RAID0, 2x Plex M5P256 as my boot volume on Z77 ICH, and getting 1100 MB/s.. Also running some old 4x 500G WD hardrives in RAID10 as my Scratch volume, don't have to worry about losing any fresh downloads etc , think im getting around 125 MB/s average on that volume, didn't bother to test it..
Spoiler: You're using software RAID.
Within Windows (or whatever other OS you run), a mass storage driver is responsible for RAID operation. This is your software layer. The BIOS also implements the RAID driver, allowing the boot loader and dump OSes like DOS to access the RAID array.
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?
Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?
Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..
.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?
Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..
.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?
I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times..
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?
Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..
.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?
I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times..
How about you provide some evidence to back your claims?
Code would be really nice.
Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it..
Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it..
I use 'Matrix RAID', too. And if there were any serious, useful hardware offloading done.. Intel would probably document it. But they don't.
It's just software RAID. The firmware only handles stupid things like bootloaders and DOS. Once Windows boots, the driver figures out the array from the headers on the drives and assembles it like any other software RAID solution.
Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..
Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..
Actually, the firmware has been known to go nuts and delete arrays for no reason. My OS doesn't do that. It will also pretend the array is unsupportable if you upgrade the firmware, even though it's perfectly functional. Still works once in the OS, though, funny that.
I can take any array from a Matrix RAID setup and plug it into.. ANY controller and access the array. Probably not from Windows, though.
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?
Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?
Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.
I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?
Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.
I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..
Nothing to do with the controller: It's software RAID. If you run an OS which doesn't require a vendor supplied driver (ie. NOT WINDOWS) which supports the array, you can access it just fine with it plugged into any old controller. Intel use a standard, well supported header, so with a Linux or BSD system, at the very least (Can't speak for others) you can access an Intel Matrix RAID array from any controller. I'm pretty much certain it won't work from Windows, because the Intel driver will only install and run when you have a supported chipset.
There's also DDF, but I don't know who (if anyone) actually uses it.