Wow, looks cool. If I'll find it here - it will be excellent setup .Best way could be two of these. Main advantage is, you would even get along with the two available power connectors.
The cases i use are SilverStone too.
Wow, looks cool. If I'll find it here - it will be excellent setup .Best way could be two of these. Main advantage is, you would even get along with the two available power connectors.
The cases i use are SilverStone too.
Point 21 of the main menu of the utility shown here, the same that has to be used to set the minimum link speed, looks promising in that case. But checking would involve swapping the card back to the PC. And at the moment i am happy having everything set up nicely and PC is in the basement again. 😕since having a hardware RAID card would remove the CPU overhead of a software raid
Try true SAS SSDs for this .So might easily be one of the fastest storages ever to boot a Powermac into Mac OSX!
Given that the Quad tops out at 800 MB/s using the four-lane Samsung SM951 (which can do much more in a PCIe 2.0/3.0 system), I don’t think the SAS card will be faster than that. But... what kind of "total" speeds do you get when testing both the SAS array and the SM951 at the same time?So, if anybody has four spare disks, one of these cards and a little time to waste, 1.000 MB/s, bootable in a Quad G5 should be the mark to hit!
since having a hardware RAID card would remove the CPU overhead of a software raid
This SAS card doesn't have a CPU of its own, i.e. it's not a hardware RAID card.Point 21 of the main menu of the utility shown here, the same that has to be used to set the minimum link speed, looks promising in that case.
Oh yes! Completely forgot about this limitation. Thanks for mentioning. So it wouldn't make any sense to add more disks to the RAID than one more max.Given that the Quad tops out at 800 MB/s using the four-lane Samsung SM951 (which can do much more in a PCIe 2.0/3.0 system), I don’t think the SAS card will be faster than that.
Sadly cannot check anymore at the moment as i went back to the optical drive. But is this possible anyway? At least in the SpeedTools i can not run more than one disk-benchmark at a time.But... what kind of "total" speeds do you get when testing both the SAS array and the SM951 at the same time?
Is this really the case? My thinking was, the chipset would be doing this. So why does it offer RAID-settings in the utility?This SAS card doesn't have a CPU of its own, i.e. it's not a hardware RAID card.
Not at the moment. I'm at the limit of wasting time and money just to play around again...Try true SAS SSDs for this .
...after not beeing able to resist ordering one of those supernice SilverStone boxes! 😁BTW, as I suspected - there are no SilverStone enclosures at our local markets,...
Yes, that's a more simple way. But don't they hold only one 2.5"-drive each? So it will get you only two drives into the HDD-area of a G5 while you asked for a solution to mount four?so I've got 2 sets of this things https://gembird.nl/item.aspx?id=4840 (Gembird MF-321, if link broken). Hope to try them today (Friday evening) or on weekend .
You can make a copy ofAt least in the SpeedTools i can not run more than one disk-benchmark at a time.
QuickBench.app
and lauch two instances of it that way. I haven't checked if this allows bench'ing two disks at the same time yet.It would help establish whether 800 MB/s is the limit for just one four-lane slot, i.e. if transfers using the other four-lane slot would simply be added to that, if that makes sense.Also would such a test, if even possible, make any sense? Does this ever happen in real life: The machine trying to access two differend storage sources at the very same time?
I was wrong (sorry!). This whitepaper says the card does have "hardware RAID", i.e. doesn't use the host's CPU. But this thread reports OS X (Lion) doesn't recognise the RAID volumes defined in the utility, so...Is this really the case? My thinking was, the chipset would be doing this. So why does it offer RAID-settings in the utility?
I went some other way (okay, in the end similar, but using existing stuff):You can make a copy ofQuickBench.app
and lauch two instances of it that way. I haven't checked if this allows bench'ing two disks at the same time yet.
So my conclusion would be yes, it would just add up!It would help establish whether 800 MB/s is the limit for just one four-lane slot, i.e. if transfers using the other four-lane slot would simply be added to that,...
I am afraid, not really!...if that makes sense.
I have some doubts in this making that much of a difference anyway. I was positively surprised of the single disk speed nearly exactly scaled up for the RAID, just created with the Mac's disk utility. So what more could be expected than double of what a single disk offers?I was wrong (sorry!). This whitepaper says the card does have "hardware RAID", i.e. doesn't use the host's CPU. But this thread reports OS X (Lion) doesn't recognise the RAID volumes defined in the utility, so...
Thanks for posting the links anyway! 👍I was wrong (sorry!). This whitepaper says the card does have "hardware RAID", i.e. doesn't use the host's CPU. But this thread reports OS X (Lion) doesn't recognise the RAID volumes defined in the utility, so...
So - in theory - plugging two of this cards in the Quad with three SSDs connected to each and then creating a striped RAID of these 6 disks "should" get you 1.5 GB/s (overhead allready deducted) able to boot a G5.
It doesn't make much sense. I was just interested in seeing what kind of results you get to be honest.[...] To my opinion, just to much effort, just to see some "impressive" numbers in some benchmarks.
Yeah, an on-board CPU would make more sense when you're running RAID 5... which the card can't do. So it seems a bit gimmicky to me, just to be able to say "Even our low-cost HBAs have a CPU!".I have some doubts in this making that much of a difference anyway. I was positively surprised of the single disk speed nearly exactly scaled up for the RAID, just created with the Mac's disk utility. So what more could be expected than double of what a single disk offers?
Just searchin' the interwebzI wonder where you keep finding all that stuff all the time. 😛
Looks trustworthy like you had been following all those threads for years! 😂Just searchin' the interwebz
What's even the real advantage of RAID 5 over RAID 0? You need at least three disks and, if two of them fail, you ar still f**ed! Even with the disadvantages in writespeed and capacity.Yeah, an on-board CPU would make more sense when you're running RAID 5...
One disk can fail without any data loss. That's about it really.What's even the real advantage of RAID 5 over RAID 0? You need at least three disks and, if two of them fail, you ar still f**ed!
Thery are declared as 2x2,5" drives in 1 3,5" bay. It really so, but you'll need 2 notebook sized drives\SSDs or 1 full-height SAS HDD + 7mm. other drive (HDD\SAS). Pics included . (Sorry for poor quality, something happened to phone camera software). (I'll look for powered SAS cable to avoid adapter sas+power->sata+power, the one I used is not reliable.)only one 2.5"-drive each?
Ah, so the pic on the shop's site not showing "the real thing", just having one line of screwholes.Thery are declared as 2x2,5" drives in 1 3,5" bay. It really so, but you'll need 2 notebook sized drives\SSDs or 1 full-height SAS HDD + 7mm. other drive (HDD\SAS). Pics included . (Sorry for poor quality, something happened to phone camera software). (I'll look for powered SAS cable to avoid adapter sas+power->sata+power, the one I used is not reliable.)
I'm installing 10.5.4 onto the SAS connected SATA SSD now, seems to be going without issue so far.So here is a little news on the LSI SAS card in the G5 with a PCI to PCI-E bridge.
10.5.8 Kernel Panics and a bunch of stuff scrolls by too fast to be read, but I assume the the LSI driver probing the device. However no useful info for any extension in the backtrace that maybe causing the panic.
The device does show up in Open Firmware and the FCODE ROM is loaded. However OPT-boot( boot-picker ) does not detect a bootable SATA SSD ).
10.5.4 Install DVD image does boot and the SATA SSD connected to the SAS card does show up in the Disk Utility.
More to come later........
I see you are using 10.5.9 here so the issue I'm having with 10.5.8 is likely related to the PCI to PCI-E bridge in my G5.So playing continues... ...with some news! 😎
Couldn't hold back to take these two crappy SanDisk "Ultra"s and create a RAID Zero with them connected to the two free ports of the SAS-card.
So here are the numbers...
View attachment 2152550
View attachment 2152549
View attachment 2152552
Not quite as impressive in xBench...
View attachment 2152551
...compared to a single disk.
View attachment 2152553
...but maybe the more important message: This thing also boots! 🤩
View attachment 2152548
So might easily be one of the fastest storages ever to boot a Powermac into Mac OSX!
In my case it wasn't very reliable. Rebooted once with no reason before it reached the desktop. And another time had a hang and lost the booting device alltogether. But this again is more likely a thing with those crappy SanDisks, which the LSI does not seem to like to much. I bet, with some more quality in case of SSDs, it would boot every time without any issues.
So, if anybody has four spare disks, one of these cards and a little time to waste, 1.000 MB/s, bootable in a Quad G5 should be the mark to hit!
The SSD connect to the SAS card booted just fine into 10.5.4.I'm installing 10.5.4 onto the SAS connected SATA SSD now, seems to be going without issue so far.
Will update in about 30 min..............
The drive connected doesn't show up in the boot-picker, but you can select it in the Startup Disk app in OS X and it will boot from the drive connect to the SAS card.
Did you see this post? I got quite close to this with a flashed 3114 Card in my Quicksilver.Just a quick and dirty in QuickBench shows 95 MB/s reads and 77/s MB writes as peeks, but spotlight is indexing the drives so I'll try and update those numbers if they change once SL is done.
That's far better than I've seen with the SIL3112 and this drive in any PPC system.