Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About UhClem

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Gender
  • Location
    NH, US

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Maybe ... maybe not. Consider that the 9211-8i (and its LSI SAS2008-based brethren) appear to have an ultimate bottleneck of their internal CPU/memory/firmware which precludes them achieving the maximum (real-world/measurable) PCIe Gen2 x8 throughput of 3200 MB/s. Your tests, on the H310, show 2560 (8x320) MB/s. Whereas the 9207-8 (and its SAS2308 brethren) do have the "muscle-power" to achieve, and exceed, full Gen2x8 throughput (3200); you measured, on a Gen3x8, 4200 (8x525) MB/s--and that is limited, not by the 2308, but by maxing out the Sata3 (real-world) speed of ~525 [I suspect that SAS-12Gb SSDs would do better, no?***] So, for 9211 vs 9207, using Gen2, it comes down to a cost/benefit decision (plus, an appropriate degree of future-proof factor; re-use following a mobo upgrade). *** [Edit] Actually, NO -- it looks like 12G SAS connectivity was not offered until the 93xx series.
  2. Wouldn't the max throughput be (slightly) limited by the PCIe Gen2 of the R710? [ie, to ~400 MB/s each for 8xSata3-SSDs]
  3. Bad way to test for bandwidth limits/bottlenecks. ===== Fud's First Law: "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
  4. [my mistake] Yes, all those "generic" references to the Sonnet Allegro Pro card clouded my thinking. [Note: the one hyper-link to the Pro card (on first page) now 404's--shame on Sonnet--they should have "preserved" the link, redirecting it to its new "home", under their LegacyProducts, and suggested the new "Pro".] I totally agree with you regarding the need for documented specificity before taking action on a reference/suggestion for a functioning solution. And, NO, I'm not using any of these cards--just a passing interest in atypical "solutions". [I was aware of this thread, but never actually dug into it--then I was trying to find out more about the Pericom Semiconductor PI7C9X2G608GP switch for this UnRAID thread ... and here we are. I don't know what chips are used on the Allegro Pro 3.0 card, but the 3.1 card uses the Pericom PI7C9x2G308GP (can see it in the picture @ the Amzn lnk) [4<==>2x2]. I'm real curious to know which chip is used for the (2) USB controller chips. If anyone does get one to try, please do post a relevant snippet from either the kernel meggages or from lspci. tnx [Edit] Just found it--the 3.1 Pro uses 2 Asmedia ASM1142 Sorry for the confusion/distraction. Good luck to all on your quest.
  5. Amazon link Something interesting about the Sonnet card: it uses a PCIe switch chip to split a PCIe_V2 x4 connection into two x2's each going to one of two USB controller chips. Apparently, each of those USB chips has two "sub-devices" each of which can be passed (as desired here). Compare that to the Startech card, which also has a PCIe switch chip (from the same company), but its switch splits a PCIe_V2 x4 connection into four x1's, each going to its own USB chip. Yet, this one causes grief. In addition to working as you all desire, the Sonnet card has the advantage of higher maximum single-port throughput, since its (2) x2 chips can share their two-lane bandwidth on-demand/as-needed to its two "sub-devices". Whereas, the Startech, even if it worked for you, would limit each "sub-device" to an x1 lane of throughput. [I realize that connectivity (vs bandwidth) is more the goal here, but ... just saying ...] --UhClem "How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all."
  6. Benson is correct. (I "guessed" wrong, based on assumptions about the on-screen messge. [The term "PM" triggered "port multiplier" when there aren't any; there are 4 ASM106x controller chips.] Also, I didn't realize the OP only had 2 drives connected--I thought the others were "missing" and grasped for a reason.)
  7. From the above screen shot, I would guess that your controller card has a single (2-port) ASM1062 Sata-controller chip, and each of those 2 ports is connected to one (of 2 [PM 0 & PM 1]) port-multiplier chip. Since that is a POST screen, only the first port/drive on each PM chip is seen (by the BIOS). That is not a problem. The problem is that the kernel does not recognize these specific port-multiplier chips, and never "activates" them--this results in none of the PM-connected drives going active. As stated by others, switch to a card known to work with the hardware (your mobo) and software (unRaid) in play.
  8. With 20+ data drives, and upgrading from one-parity to two-parity, there could be a prior/intervening performance bottleneck. Do you have sufficient (single-core/thread) CPU power? I.e., can you generate enough parity data (fast enough) to justify/validate your stated question? -- "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
  9. It looks like you are going in a very sub-optimal direction. You are putting 2 x 550 MB/sec SSDs (860 evo) onto a PCIe v2 x1 (ASM1061) interface (max 350-400 MB/sec total). Why not use 2 of these mSata-to-Sata adapters [ https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-2-5-Inch-Aluminum-Enclosure-EC-MSSA/dp/B01MS6669V or https://www.amazon.com/ELUTENG-Enclosure-3050mm-Adapter-Compatible/dp/B07258BJJF ] for your mSata SSDs, connecting them to 2 of your Mobo's Sata ports (for full Sata3/6Gbps speed), and get any ASM1061/2-port card for the two "replaced" Mobo-port HDDs. Surely, you can find a place to Velcro (or duct tape) the two adapter-ed mSata's, and deal with the added cables. (It's a computer, not jewelry--so Function >> Form ...kluges are cool.)
  10. Well, that "Amazon page" is, of course, the responsibility of the seller, GoHardDrive. Are they incompetent, or dishonest? [Remember, drives are their specialty--they should be held accountable for correctness.] Yes. From a 4 yrs ago press release [Link], [ That SM863 link on AMZN is also sold by GoHardDrive.] I have no evidence, or direct experience, but my gut tells me to question their integrity. Keep in mind that, while I (and probably you) am (are) not able to modify/reset SMART data, it is definitely possible. A perusal of Google results for <<goharddrive honest>> is enlightening (though not ALL bad). Who did you buy from on ebay? Good luck with your new toys.
  11. But, is newer actually better? Is there really any "upside" to choosing 4kn (vs 512e)? There is (at least) one actual "downside" -- when the drive(s) purchased today are ultimately re-purposed, the 512e drives are guaranteed compatible (by the ATA specifications). I've been pondering this 512e vs 4kn thing, and the above is my current "state of mind". What am I missing?
  12. That is my understanding -- based on reading/research (no hands-on experience) -- seems to have been spurts of interest/discussion over at forums.servethehome.com. Note: The very important point is that it is known to work ONLY on S2600 boards (possibly a few other Intel server boards). It is a LSI 2308-based board, but Intel has locked its interoperability, ... but not the general functionality. Need?? I don't know, but considering that, even if they already had IT firmware, it's probably old version and might benefit from an update. The important thing is that it looks like updating to (newer) IT firmware is possible, and follows the standard Modus Operandi-- see [Link] (posts by "Marsh", toward the end). Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. [Or, better, "Trust, but verify."] Also, [Intel doc for the board] No promises, but there's even a chance it is PCIe v3.0.
  13. http://www.madepc.com/Intel-8-Ports-SAS-RAID-Controller-PCI-Express-2-0-p/301005654-08.htm Price: $8.14 each - Free shipping (Geez, I can't even use this, but I "want" to buy one at this price---must resist ...) (very reliable seller - but can use AmazonPAY if u want) Manufacturer:Intel Corp Mfr.Part Number:RMS25KB080 MadePC SKU:301005654-08 Condition:New Notes:RMS25KB080, 1 Year Warranty, Hight Profile Bracket, Low Profile Bracket Thought: Folks using other LSI-based cards in their S2600's might want to buy these, and free-up/repurpose their "unlocked" cards. win-win
  14. Better yet, get your tech info first-hand: From LSI (white paper on Databolt) [to borrow an old Unix joke: "Use the source, Luke."] This paper also gives a good overview on expanders. Oh, as for the queried controller in the OP ... if Chiney-fakes weren't bad enough, this one must also be avoided on moral grounds. To make such a denigrating reference/inference on the most innovative and impactful OS is pure blasphemy ... Unicaca ... feh!!!!
  15. A week and a half ago ... To which, you replied: That 10-second test demonstrates that your system supports a concurrent bandwidth of at least 2100 MB/s; far exceeding your observed 1000-1250 MB/s bottleneck. Therefore, the "~1GB/s ceiling" is not replicated, and, as I stated, the remaining candidate is your CPU (based on 2-parity, single-thread, and an "uninspired" implementation). Regardless, you stated: Lesson: When you are digging deep and trying to solve a perplexing puzzle (such as you were--in this thread), it is very important to question ALL of your own assumptions, for that is where blind spots lurk.