I am looking at building a dedicated purpose server for a few users. It is
to address an issue when a Quickbooks company file gets large (It seems that
the DATA file is one big flat file). Currently there are 4 machines on a
peer to peer network. One has the 150 MB company file. From my reading it
seems that using a windows terminal server helps because the application is
running on the same box where the data is located.

I am interested in RAID 1 for security and thought about using a SCSI RAID
controller and a pair of small drives. I also noticed that there are various
ATA RAID methods. The cheaper cards are not true hardware RAID so the CPU
must do more work and there may be issues with drivers. I am looking at an
ASUS P4C800 and it has an onboard ICH5R RAID controller connected directly
with the southbridge. However I can't find out how it would compare with say
a LSI Logic SATA 150-4 or similar card.

Any suggestions about the pros or cons of various ATA RAID devices?

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:25:19 -0500, "George" <George@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I have an Intel D865 mb that I just migrated to SATA RAID1 using the
intel onboard controller. The drives are Seagate 80mb barracuda with
8MB cache. I have no degradation to performance with this setup. In
fact, as reported, reads can actually be faster. I have not
benchmarked a write-intensive process, say copying a DVD using a temp
file, but in my day to day use, I would say that the added sense of
security is a payback that is well worth it.

YMMV -- if you are doing write-intensive, time-intensive processes,
you may have justification for the true SCSI RAID. Or, if not having
the very, very best is going to eat away at you, and you have money to
burn that wouldn't be better spent supporting, say, campaign
advertising to get Dick Cheney's-Richard Perl's-Paul
Wolfowitz's-Donald Rumsfeld's-William Kristol's marionette out of the
white house (just for example) then, it might make sense to blow your
bucks on the SCSI. (IMHO).

KC

"Kierkecaat" <tobe@nottobe.org> wrote in message
news:v1o440tdnkr2pkgelap90qchmph3qrcmr0@4ax.com...
No, I don't have money to burn but will spend what is necessary. That is why
I am considering the SATA RAID1. The usage is not likely to be much more
than I described.

One big difference is that an add-on SATA Raid controller would allow
you to have a third drive as a hot spare. You could also add a fourth
drive as a backup device for your network. Performance difference
between onboard and after-market is likely to be minimal.

George wrote: