PCI-X RAID card in a PCI 64-bit slot

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Ray Greene, Mar 2, 2010.

  1. Ray Greene

    Ray Greene Guest

    I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere that
    this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the bus speed
    will be lower than PCI-X.

    Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive performance
    I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full 3Gb/sec?

    --
    Ray Greene
    Ray Greene, Mar 2, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ray Greene

    EMB Guest

    On 2/03/2010 10:52 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    > I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    > standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere that
    > this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the bus speed
    > will be lower than PCI-X.


    There's no such thing as a 33MHz 64-bit PCI slot.
    >
    > Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive performance
    > I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full 3Gb/sec?
    >

    Assuming you mean a 133MHz, 64-bit PCI-X slot then maximum throughput is
    ~ 1GB/s
    EMB, Mar 2, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ray Greene

    David Empson Guest

    EMB <> wrote:

    > On 2/03/2010 10:52 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    > > I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    > > standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere that
    > > this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the bus speed
    > > will be lower than PCI-X.

    >
    > There's no such thing as a 33MHz 64-bit PCI slot.


    Apple's PowerMac G3, G4 and (low end) G5 used them from 1999 until 2005
    and the developer documentation describes them as an "industry
    standard". (Apple used to PCI-X in higher end PowerMac G5 models from
    2003 to 2005, and moved to PCI Express in 2005.)

    Wikipedia mentions 64-bit and 33 MHz as a supported combination, but
    suggests that in the Windows/Intel world, 64-bit was rare outside of
    server configurations.

    The 64-bit slot is of course compatible with 32-bit PCI cards.

    Ray - I don't know know if PCI-X cards are always compatible with PCI
    slots. It may depend on the specific card, i.e. whether it is designed
    to cope with the lower clock speed of PCI.

    (I have a SATA/eSATA card in my PowerMac G4 that says it is designed to
    work with both PCI and PCI-X slots.)

    > > Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive performance
    > > I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full 3Gb/sec?


    64-bit 33 MHz slots will give maximum throughput of about 2.1 Gbps,
    assuming the PCI bus is otherwise unused. 64 bits x 33MHz = 2112 Mbits
    per second.

    You can't get the full throughput of a single SATA-2 channel via 33 MHz
    PCI. (You could do it if you had 64-bit 66 MHz PCI, but that is probably
    very rare.)

    --
    David Empson
    David Empson, Mar 2, 2010
    #3
  4. Ray Greene

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:04:51 +1300, EMB <> wrote:

    >On 2/03/2010 10:52 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    >> I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    >> standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere that
    >> this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the bus speed
    >> will be lower than PCI-X.

    >
    >There's no such thing as a 33MHz 64-bit PCI slot.


    HP would disagree -
    http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...skId=101&prodSeriesId=316599&prodTypeId=15351

    >> Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive performance
    >> I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full 3Gb/sec?
    >>

    >Assuming you mean a 133MHz, 64-bit PCI-X slot then maximum throughput is
    >~ 1GB/s


    Thanks.

    --
    Ray Greene
    Ray Greene, Mar 2, 2010
    #4
  5. Ray Greene

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:47:50 +1300, (David
    Empson) wrote:

    >EMB <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2/03/2010 10:52 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    >> > I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    >> > standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere that
    >> > this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the bus speed
    >> > will be lower than PCI-X.

    >>
    >> There's no such thing as a 33MHz 64-bit PCI slot.

    >
    >Apple's PowerMac G3, G4 and (low end) G5 used them from 1999 until 2005
    >and the developer documentation describes them as an "industry
    >standard". (Apple used to PCI-X in higher end PowerMac G5 models from
    >2003 to 2005, and moved to PCI Express in 2005.)
    >
    >Wikipedia mentions 64-bit and 33 MHz as a supported combination, but
    >suggests that in the Windows/Intel world, 64-bit was rare outside of
    >server configurations.
    >
    >The 64-bit slot is of course compatible with 32-bit PCI cards.
    >
    >Ray - I don't know know if PCI-X cards are always compatible with PCI
    >slots. It may depend on the specific card, i.e. whether it is designed
    >to cope with the lower clock speed of PCI.
    >
    >(I have a SATA/eSATA card in my PowerMac G4 that says it is designed to
    >work with both PCI and PCI-X slots.)


    OK, I'll see if I can find the specs of the RAID card.

    >> > Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive performance
    >> > I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full 3Gb/sec?

    >
    >64-bit 33 MHz slots will give maximum throughput of about 2.1 Gbps,
    >assuming the PCI bus is otherwise unused. 64 bits x 33MHz = 2112 Mbits
    >per second.


    That would be a respectable speed all the same. I'd be quite happy
    with 1.5 Gb/sec.

    >You can't get the full throughput of a single SATA-2 channel via 33 MHz
    >PCI. (You could do it if you had 64-bit 66 MHz PCI, but that is probably
    >very rare.)


    Thanks for the info. I'll probably go to PCI-e at some point but for
    now I'm just trying to build a cheap NAS box from parts that are lying
    around.

    --
    Ray Greene
    Ray Greene, Mar 2, 2010
    #5
  6. Ray Greene

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Ray Greene wrote:
    > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:04:51 +1300, EMB <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2/03/2010 10:52 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    >>> I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    >>> standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere
    >>> that this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the
    >>> bus speed will be lower than PCI-X.

    >>
    >> There's no such thing as a 33MHz 64-bit PCI slot.

    >
    > HP would disagree -
    > http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...skId=101&prodSeriesId=316599&prodTypeId=15351


    I was building a few systems and poking around in even more about then and
    never saw one of those in the wild. So they actually let a few go huh?

    >>> Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive performance
    >>> I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full 3Gb/sec?
    >>>

    >> Assuming you mean a 133MHz, 64-bit PCI-X slot then maximum
    >> throughput is ~ 1GB/s

    >
    > Thanks.


    Do you already have the card (or have a place where you can get it)? As I
    understand it the slots weren't common so likely the cards weren't either.
    If you don't already have it and you're building a NAS box it might be best
    going for a cheap[ish, it never pays to go too cheap IME] mATX socket 775
    board with PCIe from the start. Those dual-core Celerons are unbelieveable
    value / processing power for the money and have a very low thermal output.
    In fact the HDDs are likely to need more cooling than the CPU.
    --
    Cheers,
    Shaun.

    Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day...
    ~misfit~, Mar 2, 2010
    #6
  7. Ray Greene

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:22:01 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs Ray Greene wrote:
    >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:04:51 +1300, EMB <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2/03/2010 10:52 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    >>>> I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    >>>> standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere
    >>>> that this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the
    >>>> bus speed will be lower than PCI-X.
    >>>
    >>> There's no such thing as a 33MHz 64-bit PCI slot.

    >>
    >> HP would disagree -
    >> http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...skId=101&prodSeriesId=316599&prodTypeId=15351

    >
    >I was building a few systems and poking around in even more about then and
    >never saw one of those in the wild. So they actually let a few go huh?


    Well, two made it to my place anyway. I've seen a few others around.
    They're not flash but they're bulletproof.

    >>>> Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive performance
    >>>> I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full 3Gb/sec?
    >>>>
    >>> Assuming you mean a 133MHz, 64-bit PCI-X slot then maximum
    >>> throughput is ~ 1GB/s

    >>
    >> Thanks.

    >
    >Do you already have the card (or have a place where you can get it)? As I
    >understand it the slots weren't common so likely the cards weren't either.
    >If you don't already have it and you're building a NAS box it might be best
    >going for a cheap[ish, it never pays to go too cheap IME] mATX socket 775
    >board with PCIe from the start. Those dual-core Celerons are unbelieveable
    >value / processing power for the money and have a very low thermal output.
    >In fact the HDDs are likely to need more cooling than the CPU.


    There are some cards available dirt cheap, and that would be my only
    expense in getting started. Once I start spending on stuff I don't
    absolutely need I'll end up with the biggest, fastest, most expensive
    NAS box you've ever seen. That's what I'm trying to avoid :)

    --
    Ray Greene
    Ray Greene, Mar 3, 2010
    #7
  8. Ray Greene

    Richard Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    > Do you already have the card (or have a place where you can get it)? As I
    > understand it the slots weren't common so likely the cards weren't either.
    > If you don't already have it and you're building a NAS box it might be best
    > going for a cheap[ish, it never pays to go too cheap IME] mATX socket 775
    > board with PCIe from the start. Those dual-core Celerons are unbelieveable
    > value / processing power for the money and have a very low thermal output.
    > In fact the HDDs are likely to need more cooling than the CPU.


    There were several quite cheap cards based on the marvell chipset a few
    years back.


    Worked well so long as only one drive was being accessed at a time in a
    33MHz 32 bit slot, too slow otherwise for raid-5 in windows.
    Richard, Mar 3, 2010
    #8
  9. Ray Greene

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:19:40 +1300, Richard <> wrote:

    >~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> Do you already have the card (or have a place where you can get it)? As I
    >> understand it the slots weren't common so likely the cards weren't either.
    >> If you don't already have it and you're building a NAS box it might be best
    >> going for a cheap[ish, it never pays to go too cheap IME] mATX socket 775
    >> board with PCIe from the start. Those dual-core Celerons are unbelieveable
    >> value / processing power for the money and have a very low thermal output.
    >> In fact the HDDs are likely to need more cooling than the CPU.

    >
    >There were several quite cheap cards based on the marvell chipset a few
    >years back.
    >
    >
    >Worked well so long as only one drive was being accessed at a time in a
    >33MHz 32 bit slot, too slow otherwise for raid-5 in windows.


    The ones I'm looking at use a Silicon Image chipset. They seem to work OK,
    the only problem for me is that FreeNAS doesn't have drivers for them.
    OpenFiler does though so I guess I can lower my standards and use that
    instead :)

    --
    Ray Greene
    Ray Greene, Mar 3, 2010
    #9
  10. Ray Greene

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Ray Greene wrote:
    > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:22:01 +1300, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Ray Greene wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:04:51 +1300, EMB <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2/03/2010 10:52 p.m., Ray Greene wrote:
    >>>>> I'm thinking of putting a PCI-X SATA-2 RAID card in a mobo with a
    >>>>> standard PCI 64-bit 33MHz 3.3v slot. I think I've read somewhere
    >>>>> that this will work, but I'm happy to be corrected. Obviously the
    >>>>> bus speed will be lower than PCI-X.
    >>>>
    >>>> There's no such thing as a 33MHz 64-bit PCI slot.
    >>>
    >>> HP would disagree -
    >>> http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...skId=101&prodSeriesId=316599&prodTypeId=15351

    >>
    >> I was building a few systems and poking around in even more about
    >> then and never saw one of those in the wild. So they actually let a
    >> few go huh?

    >
    > Well, two made it to my place anyway. I've seen a few others around.
    > They're not flash but they're bulletproof.


    Ahh, OK.

    >>>>> Assuming it does work, does anyone know what hard drive
    >>>>> performance I'm likely to get, any chance I'll get the full
    >>>>> 3Gb/sec?
    >>>>>
    >>>> Assuming you mean a 133MHz, 64-bit PCI-X slot then maximum
    >>>> throughput is ~ 1GB/s
    >>>
    >>> Thanks.

    >>
    >> Do you already have the card (or have a place where you can get it)?
    >> As I understand it the slots weren't common so likely the cards
    >> weren't either. If you don't already have it and you're building a
    >> NAS box it might be best going for a cheap[ish, it never pays to go
    >> too cheap IME] mATX socket 775 board with PCIe from the start. Those
    >> dual-core Celerons are unbelieveable value / processing power for
    >> the money and have a very low thermal output. In fact the HDDs are
    >> likely to need more cooling than the CPU.

    >
    > There are some cards available dirt cheap, and that would be my only
    > expense in getting started. Once I start spending on stuff I don't
    > absolutely need I'll end up with the biggest, fastest, most expensive
    > NAS box you've ever seen. That's what I'm trying to avoid :)


    Hehee! Yeah, that's a trap alright. However from what I've read about the
    speed of most consumer-level NAS boxes most anything you make will trounce
    an off-the-shelf unit. It just likely won't be as pretty.
    --
    Cheers,
    Shaun.

    Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day...
    ~misfit~, Mar 4, 2010
    #10
  11. Ray Greene

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Richard wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> Do you already have the card (or have a place where you can get it)?
    >> As I understand it the slots weren't common so likely the cards
    >> weren't either. If you don't already have it and you're building a
    >> NAS box it might be best going for a cheap[ish, it never pays to go
    >> too cheap IME] mATX socket 775 board with PCIe from the start. Those
    >> dual-core Celerons are unbelieveable value / processing power for
    >> the money and have a very low thermal output. In fact the HDDs are
    >> likely to need more cooling than the CPU.

    >
    > There were several quite cheap cards based on the marvell chipset a
    > few years back.


    Ok, something I missed completely. Then again, it's hardly the sort of thing
    that I was working with. I mainly made gaming rigs for friends.

    > Worked well so long as only one drive was being accessed at a time in
    > a 33MHz 32 bit slot, too slow otherwise for raid-5 in windows.


    Yeah, standard PCI is quite a bottle-neck, slowing down even a single SATA
    drive using a PCI controller. PCI-X is something I have no knowledge of. I
    guess I should have just STFU in the first place. However with *real*
    computer threads being so rare here these days it's hard not to get excited
    when I see one. ;-)
    --
    Shaun.

    Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day...
    ~misfit~, Mar 4, 2010
    #11
  12. Ray Greene

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:54:06 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Hehee! Yeah, that's a trap alright. However from what I've read about the
    >speed of most consumer-level NAS boxes most anything you make will trounce
    >an off-the-shelf unit. It just likely won't be as pretty.


    Whaddya mean?? There's nothing prettier than a Compaq server! :)

    Actually I've got a very ugly old server case here that'll take 10
    drives. I'm thinking about putting the Compaq mobo in it and just
    adding more drives as finances allow. I could end up with some serious
    storage capacity.

    You're right about performance. We've been using D-Link NAS boxes at
    work, but as they got fuller they got slower until the point where a
    backup was taking nearly a full day, even when there were very few
    files to copy. Just doing a file compare on nearly a terabyte worth of
    files overloaded it. Apparently it's the CPU that can't keep up, they
    have a 1Gb/s NIC.

    I built a couple of boxes from old PIII 800s with Gb NICs running
    OpenFiler or FreeNAS and they'll happily do the same backup in around
    two hours.

    The wee D-Links are great but they just don't have the grunt for
    serious work.

    --
    Ray Greene
    Ray Greene, Mar 5, 2010
    #12
  13. Ray Greene

    Ray Greene Guest

    On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:17:34 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs Ray Greene wrote:
    >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:54:06 +1300, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hehee! Yeah, that's a trap alright. However from what I've read
    >>> about the speed of most consumer-level NAS boxes most anything you
    >>> make will trounce an off-the-shelf unit. It just likely won't be as
    >>> pretty.

    >>
    >> Whaddya mean?? There's nothing prettier than a Compaq server! :)

    >
    ><g> I'd hate to see your SO. ;-)
    >
    >> Actually I've got a very ugly old server case here that'll take 10
    >> drives. I'm thinking about putting the Compaq mobo in it and just
    >> adding more drives as finances allow. I could end up with some serious
    >> storage capacity.
    >>
    >> You're right about performance. We've been using D-Link NAS boxes at
    >> work, but as they got fuller they got slower until the point where a
    >> backup was taking nearly a full day, even when there were very few
    >> files to copy. Just doing a file compare on nearly a terabyte worth of
    >> files overloaded it. Apparently it's the CPU that can't keep up, they
    >> have a 1Gb/s NIC.
    >>
    >> I built a couple of boxes from old PIII 800s with Gb NICs running
    >> OpenFiler or FreeNAS and they'll happily do the same backup in around
    >> two hours.
    >>
    >> The wee D-Links are great but they just don't have the grunt for
    >> serious work.

    >
    >Yeah, I read an article about NAS boxes recently and it is indeed the CPUs.
    >Most have 400MHz or 500MHz [relatively gutless passively cooled] CPUs and
    >the Gb NIC soon overloads them with big file transfers and multiple HDDs.
    >That's why I mentioned back up the thread that the most basic <$150 socket
    >775 mATX board (with a x16 PCI-e slot, or even paying slightly more for the
    >mobo and just using an ICHRx southbridge for RAID duties initially) and one
    >of the dirt-cheap ~2GHz dual core Celerons (E3300, 2.5GHz dual-core, retail
    >box with fan, [from Ascent*, not the cheapest place but good service] $96
    >delivered) would make a rocking good basis for a NAS box. Heck, even the
    >single core Skt 775 1.6GHz Celeron 420 that I used for a while in one of my
    >boards that's just sitting here would do the job with aplomb.
    >
    >* :-( So much for my 'heavy iron' being an 'up-to-date' machine. Ascent
    >don't even list my C2D CPU anymore. Their list starts with the next fastest
    >model (and it's half the price I paid for mine). I feel so left behind.
    ><sob>


    Here, use my hankie :)
    If there's one thing in the world that's guaranteed to be futile, it's
    trying to keep up to date with computer hardware. The last time I
    tried I blew nearly $5000 on a reeeally fast 486...
    These days I just select my software carefully and don't install any
    crap, and my old dunger is generally nearly as fast as and more
    reliable than most PCs I see that are 6 months old or more. They
    always start off fast but seldom stay that way for long.

    >[Note to self: Before they get expensive or obsolete, buy a decent
    >45nm C2Q for this machine, even though it only gets turned on to be updated,
    >so that it has better resale value at the least, or is more useable if /
    >when my laptop doesn't cut it or I need more horsepower.] Or would that be
    >false economy? (Unless anyone has one for sale [obviously cheaper than
    >retail]?)


    --
    Ray Greene
    Ray Greene, Mar 7, 2010
    #13
  14. Ray Greene

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Ray Greene wrote:
    > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:17:34 +1300, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >> * :-( So much for my 'heavy iron' being an 'up-to-date' machine.
    >> Ascent don't even list my C2D CPU anymore. Their list starts with
    >> the next fastest model (and it's half the price I paid for mine). I
    >> feel so left behind. <sob>

    >
    > Here, use my hankie :)


    Thanks. ;-)

    > If there's one thing in the world that's guaranteed to be futile, it's
    > trying to keep up to date with computer hardware. The last time I
    > tried I blew nearly $5000 on a reeeally fast 486...


    Heh! The last new computer I bought was a $5K 486! Since then I've pretty
    much either used second-hand machines or built my own.

    > These days I just select my software carefully and don't install any
    > crap, and my old dunger is generally nearly as fast as and more
    > reliable than most PCs I see that are 6 months old or more. They
    > always start off fast but seldom stay that way for long.


    Agreed. However this machine was bought with an eye to the future, built
    with a pretty good mobo. The C2D was only supposed to be temporary, to be
    replaced with a fast C2Q when they got cheaper but before they got phased
    out, I guess I need someone in the industry watching prices to let me know
    when / before Skt 775 stuff starts going up in price as it'd no longer
    cutting-edge.

    In the past I wouldn't have needed anyone to tell me but now I'm no longer
    building machines and have migrated to laptops myself I no longer 'have my
    finger on the pulse' as it were. It would be nice though to have this
    desktop machine achieve it's destiny, what I designed it to achieve; Run
    with a fast 45nm quad-core CPU. The case, the cooler, the mobo, the PSU...
    Everything was chosen with that in mind.
    --
    Cheers,
    Shaun.

    Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day...

    >> [Note to self: Before they get expensive or obsolete, buy a decent
    >> 45nm C2Q for this machine, even though it only gets turned on to be
    >> updated, so that it has better resale value at the least, or is more
    >> useable if / when my laptop doesn't cut it or I need more
    >> horsepower.] Or would that be false economy? (Unless anyone has one
    >> for sale [obviously cheaper than retail]?)
    ~misfit~, Mar 7, 2010
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. SFF11
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    856
  2. Jack

    RAID Card in PCI slot datarate?

    Jack, Oct 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    541
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Oct 13, 2003
  3. SFF11
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,260
  4. boysr2003
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    687
    boysr2003
    Dec 18, 2006
  5. Rick
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,010
Loading...

Share This Page