You don't have many choices, since you will be using 7 out of 8 connections. The BD of course on one of the slower ports, possibly the hot swappable there too. That leaves you with 2 x SATA 6, 2 x SATA 3 and 2 x Marvell for 5 disks. You did not mention if Raid0 is supported on the SATA 6 ports or only on the SATA 3 ports. If Raid0 is also supported on the SATA 6 ports, put one Raid0 in the Marvell and one on the SATA6 ports, if not, then put the second raid on the slower SATA 3 ports.
Raid0 is supported on both the SATA 6 and SATA 3 ports. Something that I do not know is if the Marvell SATA 6 controller is as good as the Intel SATA 3 controller. That could make some difference in my choices.
Harm or if anyone else has experience with this Marvell controller, I would appreciate your feedback.
My gut feeling is that is better to have one raid on the Intel and the other one on the Marvell chip. Have no hands on test results to support this, however.
That's my gut feeling also. Probably comes from the old days when you set HDD's up that way so you weren't reading and writing through the same controller. I'll give it a try that way and see what happens. If the transfer rates are that much different, I'll change them around then.
Thanks for your feedback.
hi BJKad and Harm, sorry to interupt ;)
I am rebuilding my system around the exact same setting (os ; 2 sets of Raid0 ; and swappable disk for backups) and of course am running into the same problem regarding available ports.
Do you recommend any particular brand for additional (2x SataIII) Raid0 controller? (Areca doesn't seem to have one in their lineup)
Generally buying a raid controller is similar to buying a tripod or a mic. You may change your camera every few years, but a good tripod lasts a long time. Same with mics. They outlast several generations of cameras, unless the specs were meager to begin with. When I started with raid controllers, back in the dark ages, I started with a 2-port Promise software card, then changed to a 4-port 3Ware hardware card, then a 12-port Areca hardware card and for the next system am looking at a 16 or 24-port PCIe 3.0 card, expected in Q1 2012. I know, the cost of such a card may be prohibitive in comparison to the rest of the system, just as a $ 2-3 K tripod may seem extravagant in combination with a $ 2-5 K camera, but if you can use it with the next three or more generations of cameras it is a whole different story.
What is the message? I was penny wise-pound foolish trying to save a few $$$ by buying the Promise card in the first place. It was slow and did not give me expansion options. The 3Ware card was highly regarded at that time, but in trying to save money, I limited myself to too few ports. The consequence was that those cards never lasted more than one generation of a system, not like an expensive tripod. I don't need more than 12-ports yet, so I can use my current card in the next system, and I may do that, depending on budgetary constraints, but the lure of PCIe 3.0 is nice, if the funds permit it. But then my choice would be even more ports, to avoid problems in the future. The additional cost of more ports is small in comparison to the base price of a certain model.
LSI and Intel have nice hardware cards for raid5 configurations that do not bankrupt you, but only look at models with at least 4-ports is my suggestion. If you want raid3, then Areca is the only option.
Thank you Harm, i think this is a wise advice.
As a matter of fact, i 've just run into the "Tripod" issue a couple months ago (with a...tripod !) , so i'm being extra carefull now