nmX.Memnoch

The 2TB limit seems to be taken care of with the latest controllers. Well, the latest 3ware controllers anyway. I haven't looked at the specs for the latest LSI Logic or Adaptec controllers lately.

You're very welcome. You won't be disappointed with the decision.I guess I should've also asked what your reasoning was behind choosing the Areca controller. I've never even heard of them. I did notice that it comes with a BBU...you can get that as an addon for the 3ware 9650SE. That's what I thought as well but I was told by more than one major OEM (Dell, HP and IBM) that the reason for the controller limitation was some Windows limitation. My guess is that the salesperson didn't completely understand the issue. At any rate, the latest 3ware controllers can handle larger than 2TB arrays. I would never setup such a creature either. I am 100% against software RAID setups.

To be completely honest, my exposure to SAS is pretty limited. SAS drives are of course faster, come in higher spindle speeds and made for the enterprise so they're of the highest reliability. I have two Dell PE6850's that have 2.5" SAS drives and I've done two PE2900's with SAS controllers...one with a pure SAS setup and another with a mixture (the one mentioned above). I'm not sure if the speed increase was from using the SATA drive on the SAS controller, the drives being optimized for enterprise usage (probably the likely answer) or just the sheer fact that we had eight drives in the array so the I/O was spread out. I was basically throwing that out there as another option, especially considering that some of the controllers run in the same price range. The one thing you're going to want to look into if you're planning on using drives that large is controllers that support arrays larger than 2TB. The majority of controllers will cut you off at a 2TB limit. I've heard this is because of some partition limitation with Windows but I've never been able to find any documetation from Microsoft stating there's such a limit. I've always seen it that NTFS4 and NTFS5 can support 16EB (exabyte) partitions...but that doesn't mean the OS itself can. AFAIK, you're correct on the multilane controllers in that you don't have to use all lanes in a cable at once. As a matter of fact, I know that to be true of SAS controllers. I don't see any reason why you would be required to fill a channel. That'd be a HUGE step backwards from PATA...even from the early days of SCSI. BTW...nmX is my gaming clan tag. 'Memnoch' is my gaming nick (my friends shorten it to 'Mem' most of the time) and Curtis is my real name.

If the computer is a member of a domain it will logoff the console user if you remote into it. You can't have multiple sessions (disconnected or otherwise) on an XP Pro machine that is a member of a domain. However, if you're remoting in as the same user, then you will simply connect to the console session (and the console will be locked so no one else can login). You can, however, still be booted out by another administrator.

-- Stability: I've used seven different cards (three different models) in different systems over the past few years. None of them have ever given us any stability or reliability issues. -- Support: Drivers are updated frequently enough. They support all the major OSes as well. They also have a very nice web management interface that will allow you to configure controller settings, create/delete/reconfigure arrays and monitor the health of everything. You can even setup email alerts in case there's a problem with anything (overheating, drive died, array rebuild start/finish etc). Dunno about warranty support...I haven't had to use it. -- Ease Of Use: They probably have the most brain-dead controller BIOS I've seen yet. There's nothing you can do wrong in the BIOS and setting up arrays couldn't be any easier. I'd say it's even easier than the Intel Matrix RAID BIOS. -- Performance: Pair it up with the right drives and you won't beat the performance. The controllers we have in each of our Precision 650's at work are a 9550SX-4LP SATA 3Gbps controller in 64-bit/66MHz slots with 4x400GB 7200.10 drives (two RAID1 arrays). It performs VERY well. I have two controllers in my file server at home. One is an eight-channel 7506-8 PATA controller in a 64-bit/66MHz slot with 2x80GB RAID1 7200.8 drives (it used to have 6x250GB 7200.8 RAID5 drives as well). The other is a 9550SX-4LP SATA 3Gbps controller in a 64-bit/133MHz PCI-X slot with 4x400GB 7200.10 RAID5. I've never found myself saying "gee...that file should've copied faster than that". I've never really ran any benchmarks because I don't put too much stock in them. I'm more about real world usage. Honestly at this point I know that I can purchase a 3ware controller and it'll just work, and work well. Don't forget that you can also look at SAS controllers. SATA drives will also work on those controllers. We have a Dell PowerEdge 2900 that we ordered with a SAS controller. One channel has 2x73GB 15K RPM SAS drives for the OS. The other channel has 8x750GB 7200.10 (the enterprise version) drives. That's one of the fastest setups I've ever seen. We did a 3GB file copy test back onto the same drive set (open a directory with a bunch of files, select some of them and choose copy, then paste right back into the same directory). It took less than a minute! NewEgg shows a PCIe LSI Logic eight-port SAS controller for $500US. The four port version lists at about $180US. Dell's PERC SAS controllers are rebranded LSI Logic controllers.

I knew they were close to coming out but wasn't sure if they were or not. That's a pretty hefty claim for sustained transfer rates. If it's true I'll be upgrading my drives as soon as I can. Have you seen any reviews yet? I'm sure the 250GB/platter helps...as does the additional cache. Of course, Samsung just put out drives with 334GB/platter. Not that I would buy a Samsung drive (personal preference), but it's hard to believe they beat both Seagate and Hitachi to the milestone.

It's not Intel's choice on how the port multipliers are limited. That's up to the SATA International Organization. I think it's going to be more like SCSI instead of PATA. One of the advantages of SCSI was that it allowed the controller to talk to each drive individually instead of in turn (like PATA). Even at that, for desktop implementations I don't think there's going to be a performance penalty at all, even if it's four drives per channel. I'm thinking they'll probably implement it at 2 drives per channel.The port multipliers have always been part of the eventual goal of the SATA spec. I remember talk of it from years ago. No, it´s still 300MB/s, and in your words 3Gbps sata 3, not 2 *sigh* Read this...again. SATA 6Gbps isn't going to be out for a while. The latest newsletter says "by the end of the decade" and that they "expect to deliver a viable spec by mid-2008". If the spec doesn't come out until the middle of next year, that means the earliest we'll probably see products will be beginning to mid-2009. http://www.sata-io.org/SATA_IO_Newsletter_may_2007.htm

You do know that Ultra320 SCSI is 320MB/s per channel and not per drive...right? The introduction of SAS made it 300MB/s per drive. It's 6Gb/s...bits, not bytes. And it has everything to do with the drives. The actual throughput comes from the drives. The controller provides the bandwidth for the drives. But the drives, being mechanical in nature, simply cannot spin the platters or move the heads around fast enough to read/write the data fast enough to fill the available bandwidth. That's why the other technologies like NCQ and massive cache buffers are there to help with the read/write speeds. It's also why you see faster spindle speeds and larger cache sizes give better performance.

www.sitekiosk.com It's made specifically for those environments, doesn't break anything and locks down WAY more than you're locking down...I guarantee it.

I don't understand your questions about reviews. One site may have a good review while another may have a mediocre or bad review. Reviews are sometimes opinionated and should only be used as a guide to aid in your purchase decision. Try to stick to reputable sites. CPU makers (i.e. Intel or AMD) make incremental updates and small fixes to the CPUs over time. When these changes are made they release them as new "steppings", or "versions" of the CPU. It's the same basic overall CPU, but they may have made some changes so that it uses less power (which means run cooler) or fixed a minor glitch. The G0 stepping is the latest version of the current Core 2 CPU family.

That's a decent motherboard. However, I think I would look for a 965G based motherboard that has a true X16 slot (that one is physically X16 but electrically X4). PCIe is downwards compatible so you can run a X1, X4, X8 or X16 device in a X16/X16 slot. I know the RAID controller still won't use the other 12 lanes, but you have it for future upgrades (see recommendations below). I really have to give a strong recommendation for a 3ware controller...especially if you're already going to spend that much. I've been using their PATA/SATA RAID controllers for the last few years and couldn't be happier with them. Not to mention that all of their newer controllers have 64-bit LBA support...so the largest drives to come for the foreseeable future will work on the controllers. You're pretty much going to have to get a workstation/server class power supply for more than 4 connectors. I have a Thermaltake 680W PSU in my Dual Xeon system that has 8 SATA connectors. But to answer your other question...yes, they do make SATA power splitters. Another thing you can get is a drive cage. 3ware has a good one and Supermicro makes several as well. That 8x2.5" drive enclosure looks interesting...especially since you can get 7200RPM 2.5" SATA drives. Of course, the cost will go through the roof and the biggest drive right now is 200GB...but it's still interesting.

If you're not going to overclock just stick with the stock cooler. It'll provide adequate cooling at adequate sound levels. I have my X6800 slightly overclocked (to 3.2GHz via a multiplier change) and I'm using the stock cooling without any problems. Of course, I have a decent case (Antec Sonata II) and my cables are routed to maximize air flow...

That's what I'm waiting on as well...even though I can't justify replacing my X6800 yet.

I can only make assumptions, but my first guess would be power usage. Second would be silicon space in the ICH. Most people do it because it's a marketing term...and then they see other hardware enthusiasts/professionals (who know better) use the same terms. Ever use SCSI? It never hurt the performance there. SAS is already using the same type of technology as this. What you're seeing is a convergence of SCSI and SATA technologies to get the best of both worlds (which is what SAS already is). I think there may be a bit more to it than just marketing...but no one has ever said that Intel wasn't a marketing machine. I would assume so but it's way too early to tell yet. This is post X38 stuff for next year.

I think we did about half way through the thread...

If it's Volume then you only need one key. You purchase additional licenses from there. With Volume keys you have to use Volume media. Volume media and keys don't require activation. Currently on Windows XP and 2003 you kind of self-police your licenses. In other words you can install your servers now safe in the knowledge that you've already purchased the additional licenses. Also, If I understand Volume licensing correctly...if these are replacing other servers you shouldn't have to purchase anymore licenses. Again if I understand it correctly, under a Volume Licensing scheme you purchase licenses for the number of machines you have online at any given moment.

I understand your question. It's not because the other workstations are searching for drivers, it's because they're searching for a connection to the printer. That connection isn't there anymore because the workstation is offline. One way to prevent that is to remove the ability for "Users" to shutdown the workstation (this can be done with Group Policy...put the workstations with printers in their own container and apply a "No Shutdown" GPO to them). Of course, that wouldn't prevent them from just holding the power button...but that can be changed in the Power settings on the workstation as well. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as easy to control the Power settings with a GPO so you'd have to change that manually on each workstation (open the Power Options control panel, go to the Advanced tab and change 'When I press the power button on my computer' to 'Do nothing'). There's a million different ways you could handle that. Your best bet is to just get them hung off of the server as soon as you can. It shouldn't be a problem anymore since your server should be running all the time.

%SYSTEMDRIVE%\Documents and Settings\<backup user>\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Windows NT\NTBackup\data It only keeps the last 10 logs though...and it rotates them. So when it gets to backup10.log it'll start back over at backup01.log. Sort them by modified date to find the latest one.

Yes, I've used it. I have an MSDN Premium Volume License subscription...I get access to all of the OSes. I tested Vista x64 and decided it wasn't right for my uses. I've also tested Windows XP x64 and came to the same conclusion. After researching and reading other articles/forums a lot of other people have come to the same conclusion. 'Nuff said.And that's the same reason I don't/won't use nLite on my XP systems. Have you noticed that the nLite forum has more topics than any other forum besides Windows XP and Unattended Windows 2000/XP/2003? And half of the ones in the Windows XP forum probably belong in the nLite forum. A good number of those nLite topics are people having problems with their system(s) after using nLite. No thanks. Besides...I have a 500GB OS drive. Why do I need to worry about drivers taking up a couple hundred MB? You should've typed a few more words stating you specifically meant our reason for going to 64-bit. People following the thread might have been confused by the vague statement...I know I was and I'm participating in the thread! Not because the OS is superior, but because the memory capabilities are superior. They're making the move because the 2GB virtual memory limit is becoming more and more of a problem for professionals (and eventually even gamers).It's already know that Vista doesn't start performing adequately until you have 2GB of RAM in the system. I'm sure there's a lot more optimization that could've been done there...as I've stated before, the OS was rushed out the door at the last minute. We'll see what SP1 does. I guess the point jcarle and I are both making is that you need to do a lot more research. Just because something works fine for you for a couple of months doesn't mean it'll fit the bill for everyone else. Also, when you post something, post and explenation with it. Don't just make a recommendation, state your reason for making the recommendation. Links to reliable sources for backup information are also helpful.

It's a known fact that a single SATA drive doesn't use the entire bandwidth of a single channel anyway. I don't think having four drives on a single channel is going to hurt the performance of a desktop computer. The only time lots of data will get written to multiple drives is with RAID arrays, and most enthusiasts (small part of the market) generally only have two drive arrays (whether it be RAID0 or RAID1). You could eliminate any sort of problem by splitting the array drives up between channels. For example...I have two arrays in my system. I could put one 250GB drive and one 400GB drive on one multiplexed port, and the other 250GB and 400GB drives on another. Then the arrays would be split across channels. There's 1000 different ways it could be setup so that it wouldn't impact performance at all. Also, please let's not start calling it SATA "3" since there's no such thing as SATA "2" or SATA "II". Calling it SATA3 will only confuse people into thinking "3Gb/s".

DailyTech had some good information on Intel's next chipset series posted. http://www.dailytech.com/More+Intel+Eaglel...article8077.htm This bit sounds really interesting: Following their link on the FIS-based (Frame Information Structure) port multipliers for the SATA controllers provided some cool info:

It's hard to tell what we're talking about...you keep switching back and forth. My main point is 64-bit and Vista just got thrown in for good measure. Yes, they're charging $10 for Audigy owners. It's free for X-Fi owners (which you specifically mentioned several posts back). So as an Audigy owner I can either spend $10 to get ALchemy or I can spend ~$100 to get an X-Fi to get ALchemy for free. Which one do you think I'd choose? They fact that they're still supporting the Audigy cards at all is encouraging. That's better than being told "if you use Windows Vista we're not going to provide drivers your high-dollar product that otherwise still works just fine, you have to buy a new one". I'm not defending Creative, but I'm not condemning them either. The 2GB virtual memory limit isn't even close to a good enough reason for most people to move over. How many people do you know that hit that limit on a daily basis? I consider myself a power user and I've never hit the limit. Granted I'm no graphics designer or programmer, but neither are most PC users. The requirement to change is coming in the next few years though. Windows Server 2008 will be the last Windows OS released in both 32- and 64-bit versions. All future Windows desktop and server OSes will be 64-bit, at least for the foreseeable future. The lastest version of Exchange Server (2007) is already only available in 64-bit.

Just happened to be looking through Zxian's profile and came across this thread.... I've got the exact same setup you're looking at setting up. I have a Linksys WRT54GL router with a Netgear GS105 GigE switch attached to it. The cable modem is, of course, attached to the WAN port on the router. The Netgear uplink port is connected to port 1 of the router's switch. All of my wired computers have GigE NICs so they're connected to the GigE switch. The additional network throughput was immediately noticeable when I first hooked up the GS105. Netgear makes (or used to anyway) a GigE switch that will stack perfectly on top of (or under) the WRT54G line of routers. That little Netgear switch gets HOT sometimes so you may want to look for something else. The only reason I got the Netgear is because Best Buy had them mis-marked @ $15! Also, just a little information...from what I've read neither the Netgear I have nor the Linksys models support jumbo frames in case that's a consideration for you. Again, $15 for a GigE switch was impossible to resist. I'm actually thinking about replacing the GS105 with either a Dell PowerConnect 2708 (8-port web managed) or 2716 (16-port web managed). The prices on them are really good for psuedo managed switches.

I believe you can install it without putting in the key. You'll have a 30 day grace period to enter a key and activate. Just keep in mind that patching it will be difficult until it's activated. Are the licenses you're purchasing Volume licenses?

well you still decided to go with a 64bit OS.. why would you do it if it was such a pain? some programs may have problems but most do not. i'm not sure what your talking about with drivers tho.. the nvidia drivers for vista are good now, only real problems were with the betas. xp x64 there are no issues that i know of for nvidia drivers. as far as creative goes, they are know for horrible driver support. they could care less about their x-fi drivers or the people who wasted 200$ on an x-fi.. To answer your question as to why we went with 64-bit...pay attention to the parts I bolded. Would you rather limit SQL (which is very memory hungry) to a 2GB virtualy memory limit or allow it have as much as the system has installed (which is 20GB on the new servers BTW). The more memory SQL can grab the better it runs. We have one instance that routinely runs at about 12GB or so usage. Also, the cluster runs more than one SQL instance. In the example the benefits far outweighed the initial problems we had. The NVIDIA (and for that matter AMD/ATI) Vista drivers, 32- or 64-bit, are not optimized nearly to the level of the XP drivers yet. They're getting there...but again, I'm not sacrificing performance just to move to the latest OS. Generally I'm on the bleeding-edge bandwagon. I was running Windows 2000, even at work, when it was still called Windows NT 5.0. I was running Windows XP before they had any idea they were going to call it Windows XP. But this time I'm holding off. Way too much has changed and it got rushed at the end of the development cycle. Creative is also not as bad as some people make them out to be. IIRC, their latest drivers added a lot of functionality back to the card. And if I'm not mistaken, they've basically had to write their own API (ALchemy) so that legacy games work correctly with multichannel audio in Vista. People tend to forget, or don't understand, that the entire driver model has changed in Windows Vista. That requires all drivers to pretty much be completely rewritten from the ground up. The change was both stability and security oriented. Drivers now run in user mode instead of kernel mode. This is supposed to keep a bad driver from completely crashing the kernel (and in turn the system). Printer drivers are notorious for this...