felixrosbergen
Senior Member
Hi All,
I have the Gigabyte EP45-UD3P Main board for my server.
LINK TO BOARD
I have an Intel E8500 (3.16ghz Dual Core) in there and 2GB ram for the moment since the Hauppage 500 tuner card doesnt work if there's more ram in the system (unresolvable driver issue apparently).
As far as i know this board sort of 2 raid controllers and i can't figure out the best way to configure it.
The server is currently nto running any raid, but i want to change to RAID 1 for the system drives ( 2 * 500GB) and possibly raid 5 for the mass storage (video, music, etc).
There is the South bridge (Intel ICH 10R) with 6 SATA connectors. Will this support 2 arrays at the same time? i.e. the RAID 1 system array and the raid 5 mass storage? From my math this woudl max out the 6 ports (2 drivers for RAID1 and 4 drives for RAID5) on that bridge for drives, leaving no ports for DVD writer and connection for e-sata.
Then there is the "GIGABYTE SATA2 chip" which has 2 connections are supposedly also supports RAID 0,1 and JBOD. (purple connectors in the picture).
What I am pondering is which is the better chip to use or whether to run the RAID1 system array on the "GIGABYTE SATA2 chip" and the storage array on the South Bridge. However...if the South bridge is the 'better' controller i may want to put the system array there since i don't know for sure if I will do do an araay for the mass data ( may just do regular backups to external drive). Woudl running each array on a seperate chip improve the overall performance of the system?
Currently the box is running Windows Home Server and the simple act of enabling SATA or even enabling the RAID functions in the bios make it impossible to install WHS (this is apparently a known issue).
I'm planning to switch to Windows Server 2003 now which shoudl support these chips i hope.
Another question is what happens in you get a controller/mainboard failure? is the array lost at that point? Can i get the exact same mainboard and somehow move the drives and not loose my data?
After some initial issues with this board (problems getting it to start initially) I love this board, due to it's use of more copper it seems impossible to overheat this thing. I ran an hour long burn in test yesterday with all the case fans turned off and only the CPU fan running...no matter what i did i could't get the temperature above 48C which is pretty good i think. Under normal loads (which is mostly idle) the CPU reports 25C and the heatsinks on the CPU, capacitors and Chipset coolers ( this board has big heatsinks instead of fans on the chipset) actually feel cool to the touch. During the burn in the hardly warmed up.
After getting the drive configuration sorter out i need to start looking at ways to make this thing consume less power. I regreat having purchased the E8500 now since under typical loads (SageTV recording and comskip proccesing of 2 recordings) the CPI load barely registers. Maybe a lower speed CPU would consuming less power? I'm hoping to essntialy 'underclock' this thing to make it more efficient.
Currently it's eating 85watts idle and typical loads. During the burn-in test it went up to 115watts. Since it's on 24/7 every watt helps...
I have the Gigabyte EP45-UD3P Main board for my server.
LINK TO BOARD
I have an Intel E8500 (3.16ghz Dual Core) in there and 2GB ram for the moment since the Hauppage 500 tuner card doesnt work if there's more ram in the system (unresolvable driver issue apparently).
As far as i know this board sort of 2 raid controllers and i can't figure out the best way to configure it.
The server is currently nto running any raid, but i want to change to RAID 1 for the system drives ( 2 * 500GB) and possibly raid 5 for the mass storage (video, music, etc).
There is the South bridge (Intel ICH 10R) with 6 SATA connectors. Will this support 2 arrays at the same time? i.e. the RAID 1 system array and the raid 5 mass storage? From my math this woudl max out the 6 ports (2 drivers for RAID1 and 4 drives for RAID5) on that bridge for drives, leaving no ports for DVD writer and connection for e-sata.
Then there is the "GIGABYTE SATA2 chip" which has 2 connections are supposedly also supports RAID 0,1 and JBOD. (purple connectors in the picture).
What I am pondering is which is the better chip to use or whether to run the RAID1 system array on the "GIGABYTE SATA2 chip" and the storage array on the South Bridge. However...if the South bridge is the 'better' controller i may want to put the system array there since i don't know for sure if I will do do an araay for the mass data ( may just do regular backups to external drive). Woudl running each array on a seperate chip improve the overall performance of the system?
Currently the box is running Windows Home Server and the simple act of enabling SATA or even enabling the RAID functions in the bios make it impossible to install WHS (this is apparently a known issue).
I'm planning to switch to Windows Server 2003 now which shoudl support these chips i hope.
Another question is what happens in you get a controller/mainboard failure? is the array lost at that point? Can i get the exact same mainboard and somehow move the drives and not loose my data?
After some initial issues with this board (problems getting it to start initially) I love this board, due to it's use of more copper it seems impossible to overheat this thing. I ran an hour long burn in test yesterday with all the case fans turned off and only the CPU fan running...no matter what i did i could't get the temperature above 48C which is pretty good i think. Under normal loads (which is mostly idle) the CPU reports 25C and the heatsinks on the CPU, capacitors and Chipset coolers ( this board has big heatsinks instead of fans on the chipset) actually feel cool to the touch. During the burn in the hardly warmed up.
After getting the drive configuration sorter out i need to start looking at ways to make this thing consume less power. I regreat having purchased the E8500 now since under typical loads (SageTV recording and comskip proccesing of 2 recordings) the CPI load barely registers. Maybe a lower speed CPU would consuming less power? I'm hoping to essntialy 'underclock' this thing to make it more efficient.
Currently it's eating 85watts idle and typical loads. During the burn-in test it went up to 115watts. Since it's on 24/7 every watt helps...