INTEL does it again!

[Cybercraig]

Boy, just how good are the new 925 chipsets? Tell me, PC WORLD:

With this launch, Intel brings RAID (for Redundant Array of Independent Disks) technology to the masses. The technology, which essentially lets a PC use two hard disks as one, has long been a favorite of savvy users.

Concerned that nontechies will associate the name with killing bugs, Intel executives renamed their version "Matrix Storage Technology" (which carries a less negative connotation only if you skipped the second two movies in the Matrix trilogy). The technology itself is better than its moniker: It offers easy access to RAID through a nonintimidating interface. The technology supports RAID 0 and RAID 1. RAID 0 interleaves data between two drives to create a double-size drive with about twice the effective throughput; RAID 1 writes all data to two drives at once, ensuring the information survives if one drive fails.

Better still, the Matrix technology includes built-in support for Serial ATA's new Native Command Queuing. This technology effectively makes NCQ-ready hard drives work smarter by reordering commands into a more efficient sequence on the fly. The drive ends up spinning less to access the same amount of information, which should speed performance. For more on NCQ

MST, a new acronym for the ages!


Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.4 - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT, MSI!

 

[Mephistopheles]

Concerned that nontechies will associate the name with killing bugs, Intel executives renamed their version "Matrix Storage Technology" (which carries a less negative connotation only if you skipped the second two movies in the Matrix trilogy).

ROFL!!! :lol:

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

 

[Zoron]

Wasn't the big deal about Matrix RAID the fact that you could create a RAID 0 array AND a RAID 1 array on the same 2 hard drives? The downside was, of course, that it only supports 2 drives.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[Mephistopheles]

Yes, Matrix RAID does look interesting!

RAID 0 executed this way still has to share bandwidth with the other RAID 1 logical volume, unfortunately...

But it is interesting technology nonetheless!!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

 

[trooper11]

i dont, its interesting, but not very useful. anyone that really wants raid 0+1 or vice versa would prefer to have physical drives, i know i would. if you compare this with nvidia's raid solution that allows ide drives to be raided with sata drives, i find that to be alot more useful then intel's matrix raid.

 

[ChipDeath]

I agree. It's interesting, but I wouldn't want to use it myself. I can't imagine anyone who seriously wants to use RAID wanting this solution....

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740

 

[Zoron]

The main advantage would be the performance of RAID 0 with the security of RAID 1. If one drive fails, then not all is lost... unlike with a strict RAID 0 setup.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[Cybercraig]

The real question is "does NCQ speed it up enough" Trying to stripe & mirror the same drives at once could be slower than running a traditional 0 + 1 config.

Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.4 - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT, MSI!

 

[ZER0]

matrix raid is a great idea. so i can have 2x120 gb drives and have 40gb raid 0 for my os/programs and 100gb raid 1 for my data that i don't want to lose. this way i don't have to buy 4 drives.

 

[P4Man]

>anyone that really wants raid 0+1 or vice versa would
>prefer to have physical drives,

Why ? I see nothing wrong with being able to have RAID 0+1 on a two disk setup. I would like it in fact, if I read it correctly, it gives you the exact same benefits as a conventional 4 disk 0+1 setup with half the number of disks.What is there to dislike ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[trooper11]

well ok for me, i use raid for such i/o intesive applications as databse/webserver work or video/audio work. the limitation i see here is that i need mroe storage capacity. i will always use more then 2 drives becuase i know i have to scrifice almost half of the space to mirroring, which in the case of htis system, would limit me too much.

another thing i want to see, is how this affects performance. how does it stack up against traditional 0+1 performance. also, does it support 1+0 and 0+1 or just one of the modes?

i guess this is a nice thing for the average joe, i just dont find it useful for me. and anyone that uses raid situations for work i would htink would prefer the physical drives and the need for more space. in that scenario, the max you oculd hope for is 250gbs of space total on the system.

i think it would be nicer if it supported multiple raid groupings. one grouping wouldnt be enough for me.