7N400Pro / Pro2

My experience with the 7N400 Pro 2 has been a mixed bag. The board is
extremely stable and I got Crucial PC2700 memory (2 x 256MB) and an Athlon
XP 2500+ to run @ 400MHz FSB with no problems. The RAID story was a
different matter.

I bought the board because of the IDE RAID features. I wanted to stripe my
existing WD800JB drives for better performance. However, the RAID0
performance on the ITE8212 IDE connection was no better than single disk
performance. I lot of searching of the forums showed that other people had
experienced the same problems.

I next bought two Rockethead 100 PATA to SATA adapters so that I could use
the WD drives as a RAID0 array on the SiL SATA connectors. I was able to get
everything installed but after about 3 days the system froze and numerous
reboots would not get the drives recognized again by the SATA subsystem. I
lost a bit of data that hadn't been backed up before the freeze.

I am now running the WD drives as a RAID1 array on the ITE8212 IDE
subsystem. It has worked fine as a RAID1 array but that's not what I wanted
to do initially. SiSoft Sandra reports that write times on the array are
slow. But at least it hasn't died on me.

So, you might be happy with RAID1 or not. In all other aspects, the board
has been fine.

--
John

"Kryten" <No_replies DeleteThis @email.please> wrote in message
news:brmueb$p63$1@visp.bt.co.uk...
 > I am considering upgrading my motherboard - I currently have an aging Abit
 > VP6 which, generally speaking, has served me well over the years
 > Have looked at some reviews and am looking at the Gigabyte 7N400 Pro / Pro
2
 >
 > My plans are to continue using my current 2 x WD1200JB drives (probably
 > RAID1) and Creative GeForce 5 FX5600 Ultra (although this may be going
back
 > as I am having problems with it)
 >
 > Both boards seem to come out well in most reviews I have read
 > Has anyone had much experience or have any views on either of these
boards?
 > Whats the difference between the Pro and the Pro 2?
 >
 > Anyone got any suggestions as to a better board?
 >
 > Thanks
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

Just to mention, I also had VP6 and now I bought nFroce2 based mainboard.
All I can say, don't buy ABIT, they have huge problems with power management
and BIOS. I have seen Gigabyte nForce2 based 7N400 Pro2 board and it works
very stable.

I didn't try IDE raid options, but I have seen many articles on
TomsHardware.com where it is mentioned that speed depends on booth HD and
controller, and you have to find the best match in order to get best
results.

bye.


"Kryten" <No_replies.TakeThisOut@email.please> wrote in message
news:brmueb$p63$1@visp.bt.co.uk...
 > I am considering upgrading my motherboard - I currently have an aging Abit
 > VP6 which, generally speaking, has served me well over the years
 > Have looked at some reviews and am looking at the Gigabyte 7N400 Pro / Pro
2
 >
 > My plans are to continue using my current 2 x WD1200JB drives (probably
 > RAID1) and Creative GeForce 5 FX5600 Ultra (although this may be going
back
 > as I am having problems with it)
 >
 > Both boards seem to come out well in most reviews I have read
 > Has anyone had much experience or have any views on either of these
boards?
 > Whats the difference between the Pro and the Pro 2?
 >
 > Anyone got any suggestions as to a better board?
 >
 > Thanks
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:59:14 +0100, "Petar Banicevic" <petar.DeleteThis@usa.net>
wrote:

 >Just to mention, I also had VP6 and now I bought nFroce2 based mainboard.
 >All I can say, don't buy ABIT, they have huge problems with power management
 >and BIOS. I have seen Gigabyte nForce2 based 7N400 Pro2 board and it works
 >very stable.
 >

Would respectfully like to disagree with your commets abit ("Don't Use
ABIT").

I've been using/have 'gone through' (for Upgrade reasons ONLY) many
(actually, precisely *TEN*) Abit MBs over the past several years and
frankly, they have ALL been EXCELLENT!!!

I have NEVER had a problem (Period!) with ANY of them.,

In fact, three of the four MBs in systems that I am currently running
on my home LAN are ABIT and they are all on 24/7 and run for WEEKS at
a time without problems, needing a reboot, spontaneously rebooting,
etc.

The only non-ABIT MB I own is a GB 7N400 Pro 2 which I bought because,
features for the dollar, it seemed to be the best thing out there. It
has also, as far as I have used it (the features) proven to be
excellent also BUT many of the comments/reports of poor perf and/or
stability with attempts to use IDE/RAID and/or Serial ATA RAID are
discouraging, even though I'm not using either yet...

Overall, may expereince with ABIT products to date (10 MBs!) has been
EXCELLENT and I would not hesitate in the slightest to buy and/or
recommend their MBs.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:26:18 GMT, John Bissell <bissell.TakeThisOut@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
 > I bought the board because of the IDE RAID features. I wanted to stripe my
 > existing WD800JB drives for better performance. However, the RAID0
 > performance on the ITE8212 IDE connection was no better than single disk
 > performance. I lot of searching of the forums showed that other people had
 > experienced the same problems.

Hi John -

What OS are you running? Have you tried setting up a software RAID partition?

I've had reasonable successes running software RAID0 on Windows XP and
RAID5 on Linux. The RAID5 performance is outstanding. All of my arrayed
drives are on their own IDE channels. I've noticed very little load on
the CPU due to software RAID. In fact, my RAID5 (on five disks) draws
a maximum of 10% on a 1300MHz Athlon.

I haven't benchmarked the 7N400's RAID0 vs. WinXP's RAID0, but may try
that if I get a chance (takes so damn long to reformat).

Just curious if you've tried letting the OS do the striping.

-Dave<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

Dave,

I'm running Win2K. From what I've read, you can set up a RAID array in Win2K
but Windows itself can't be booted from that array. Anyway, I wanted h/w
RAID and this board looked to have plenty of it. Just wish the IDE drivers
were competent or the SATA subsystem worked with the converters (I've not
tried buying a SATA drive).

I got a recent update to the drivers from Windows Update and it improved
performance slightly.

--
John Bissell

"Dave-tx" <df_usenetREMOVE RemoveThis @NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbu8daa.o8s.df_usenetREMOVE@localhost.localdomain...
 > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:26:18 GMT, John Bissell <bissell RemoveThis @alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
  > > I bought the board because of the IDE RAID features. I wanted to stripe
my
  > > existing WD800JB drives for better performance. However, the RAID0
  > > performance on the ITE8212 IDE connection was no better than single disk
  > > performance. I lot of searching of the forums showed that other people
had
  > > experienced the same problems.
 >
 > Hi John -
 >
 > What OS are you running? Have you tried setting up a software RAID
partition?
 >
 > I've had reasonable successes running software RAID0 on Windows XP and
 > RAID5 on Linux. The RAID5 performance is outstanding. All of my arrayed
 > drives are on their own IDE channels. I've noticed very little load on
 > the CPU due to software RAID. In fact, my RAID5 (on five disks) draws
 > a maximum of 10% on a 1300MHz Athlon.
 >
 > I haven't benchmarked the 7N400's RAID0 vs. WinXP's RAID0, but may try
 > that if I get a chance (takes so damn long to reformat).
 >
 > Just curious if you've tried letting the OS do the striping.
 >
 > -Dave<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

John Bissell wrote:
 > Dave,
 >
 > I'm running Win2K. From what I've read, you can set up a RAID array
 > in Win2K but Windows itself can't be booted from that array. Anyway,
 > I wanted h/w RAID and this board looked to have plenty of it. Just
 > wish the IDE drivers were competent or the SATA subsystem worked with
 > the converters (I've not tried buying a SATA drive).
 >
 > I got a recent update to the drivers from Windows Update and it
 > improved performance slightly.
 >
 >
 > "Dave-tx" <df_usenetREMOVE.DeleteThis@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
 > news:slrnbu8daa.o8s.df_usenetREMOVE@localhost.localdomain...
  >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:26:18 GMT, John Bissell <bissell.DeleteThis@alum.mit.edu>
 > wrote:
   >>> I bought the board because of the IDE RAID features. I wanted to
   >>> stripe my existing WD800JB drives for better performance. However,
   >>> the RAID0 performance on the ITE8212 IDE connection was no better
   >>> than single disk performance. I lot of searching of the forums
   >>> showed that other people had experienced the same problems.
  >>
  >> Hi John -
  >>
  >> What OS are you running? Have you tried setting up a software RAID
  >> partition?
  >>
  >> I've had reasonable successes running software RAID0 on Windows XP
  >> and RAID5 on Linux. The RAID5 performance is outstanding. All of
  >> my arrayed drives are on their own IDE channels. I've noticed very
  >> little load on the CPU due to software RAID. In fact, my RAID5 (on
  >> five disks) draws
  >> a maximum of 10% on a 1300MHz Athlon.
  >>
  >> I haven't benchmarked the 7N400's RAID0 vs. WinXP's RAID0, but may
  >> try that if I get a chance (takes so damn long to reformat).
  >>
  >> Just curious if you've tried letting the OS do the striping.
  >>
  >> -Dave

In order for you to get the max capabilities of RAID, you need a hardware
RAID card, onboard RAID is better than software, but still is system board
dependant. If you get a RAID card, then you will see better results. The
card will process and cache its own data, therefore relieving the system
bus, system cpu and memory of any additional loads.

Dan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

In order for you to get the max capabilities of RAID, you need a hardware
RAID card, onboard RAID is better than software, but still is system board
dependant. If you get a RAID card, then you will see better results. The
card will process and cache its own data, therefore relieving the system
bus, system cpu and memory of any additional loads.

Dan


   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This true,the the CPU and memory on the raid card might not be as good as
the CPU and memory in your system,unless your talking about one of those
highend server SCSI systems. A built in raid controller with a system CPU
like a 2.8c and 1 gig of some 3500 memory in dual channel mode will give
better performanve tha most raid cards.
Or the new INTEL ICH5R SATA controller with 2 WD 10000 rpm SATA drives in
raid, will give you pretty outstanding performance with a reasonable cost.
DOUG<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

Courseyauto wrote:
 > In order for you to get the max capabilities of RAID, you need a
 > hardware RAID card, onboard RAID is better than software, but still
 > is system board dependant. If you get a RAID card, then you will see
 > better results. The
 > card will process and cache its own data, therefore relieving the
 > system
 > bus, system cpu and memory of any additional loads.
 >
 > Dan
 >
 >
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 > This true,the the CPU and memory on the raid card might not be
 > as good as the CPU and memory in your system,unless your talking
 > about one of those highend server SCSI systems. A built in raid
 > controller with a system CPU like a 2.8c and 1 gig of some 3500
 > memory in dual channel mode will give better performanve tha most
 > raid cards. Or the new INTEL ICH5R SATA controller with 2 WD 10000
 > rpm SATA drives in raid, will give you pretty outstanding performance
 > with a reasonable cost. DOUG

Yes, but your cache then has to be controled by the onboard RAM and CPU.
When you use a controller card, it will cache, and write while allowing the
system to move on to other tasks. I do agree that this is minimal, but if
you are trying to sqeeze out more performance, every little bit helps. Thats
why I am pissed about all these new boards with onboard everything. Give me
6 to 8 pci slots, 2 being 64bit, no onboard lan, sound, video, or raid, and
a good well built board with a solid BIOS, and I will show you one hell of a
system.

Dan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

I wasn't looking for the ultimate in performance or I'd be running an
Athlon64 or Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading. I certainly expected the onboard IDE
RAID 0 to benchmark well above a single IDE drive. And it would have been
even better if the onboard SATA actually worked reliably with the Rockethead
100 adapter.

I think the ITE8212 just needs a competent driver. Don't know what the SiL
problem is.

--
John

"Angry American" <ddooley.TakeThisOut@foolfox.com> wrote in message
news:bs2gp6$9be$1@news.netins.net...
 > Courseyauto wrote:
  > > In order for you to get the max capabilities of RAID, you need a
  > > hardware RAID card, onboard RAID is better than software, but still
  > > is system board dependant. If you get a RAID card, then you will see
  > > better results. The
  > > card will process and cache its own data, therefore relieving the
  > > system
  > > bus, system cpu and memory of any additional loads.
  > >
  > > Dan
  > >
  > >
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  > >
  > > This true,the the CPU and memory on the raid card might not be
  > > as good as the CPU and memory in your system,unless your talking
  > > about one of those highend server SCSI systems. A built in raid
  > > controller with a system CPU like a 2.8c and 1 gig of some 3500
  > > memory in dual channel mode will give better performanve tha most
  > > raid cards. Or the new INTEL ICH5R SATA controller with 2 WD 10000
  > > rpm SATA drives in raid, will give you pretty outstanding performance
  > > with a reasonable cost. DOUG
 >
 > Yes, but your cache then has to be controled by the onboard RAM and CPU.
 > When you use a controller card, it will cache, and write while allowing
the
 > system to move on to other tasks. I do agree that this is minimal, but if
 > you are trying to sqeeze out more performance, every little bit helps.
Thats
 > why I am pissed about all these new boards with onboard everything. Give
me
 > 6 to 8 pci slots, 2 being 64bit, no onboard lan, sound, video, or raid,
and
 > a good well built board with a solid BIOS, and I will show you one hell of
a
 > system.
 >
 > Dan
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

I wasn't looking for the ultimate in performance or I'd be running an
Athlon64 or Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading. I certainly expected the onboard IDE
RAID 0 to benchmark well above a single IDE drive. And it would have been
even better if the onboard SATA actually worked reliably with the Rockethead
100 adapter.
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The sil image raid controller should be considerably better than 1 drive,you
must have something seriuosly wrong for it to be worse. DOUG<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

It was the ITE8212 that is equal or worse. I can't use the SiL SATA
connection reliably with the Rockethead 100 and my IDE drives.

--
John
"Courseyauto" <courseyauto.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031221133013.26304.00001302@mb-m15.aol.com...
 >
 > I wasn't looking for the ultimate in performance or I'd be running an
 > Athlon64 or Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading. I certainly expected the onboard
IDE
 > RAID 0 to benchmark well above a single IDE drive. And it would have been
 > even better if the onboard SATA actually worked reliably with the
Rockethead
 > 100 adapter.
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 >
 > The sil image raid controller should be considerably better than 1
drive,you
 > must have something seriuosly wrong for it to be worse. DOUG<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

t was the ITE8212 that is equal or worse. I can't use the SiL SATA
connection reliably with the Rockethead 100 and my IDE drives.

--
John
"Courseyauto" <courseyauto.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031221133013.26304.00001302@mb-m15.aol.com...
 >
 > I wasn't looking for the ultimate in performance or I'd be running an
 > Athlon64 or Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading. I certainly expected the onboard
IDE
 > RAID 0 to benchmark well above a single IDE drive. And it would have been
 > even better if the onboard SATA actually worked reliably with the
Rockethead
 > 100 adapter.
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 >
 > The sil image raid controller should be considerably better than 1
drive,you
 > must have something seriuosly wrong for it to be worse. DOUG

   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That one too should be better.........<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2 

Yes, it was better by far for the three days that it actually recognized the
drives. It was what I expected RAID 0 performance to be. Maybe some time
I'll break down and buy a real SATA drive to see if it will work correctly.

--
John

"Courseyauto" <courseyauto.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031221160937.29555.00000607@mb-m02.aol.com...
 > t was the ITE8212 that is equal or worse. I can't use the SiL SATA
 > connection reliably with the Rockethead 100 and my IDE drives.
 >
 > --
 > John
 > "Courseyauto" <courseyauto.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
 > news:20031221133013.26304.00001302@mb-m15.aol.com...
  > >
  > > I wasn't looking for the ultimate in performance or I'd be running an
  > > Athlon64 or Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading. I certainly expected the onboard
 > IDE
  > > RAID 0 to benchmark well above a single IDE drive. And it would have
been
  > > even better if the onboard SATA actually worked reliably with the
 > Rockethead
  > > 100 adapter.
   > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  > >
  > >
  > > The sil image raid controller should be considerably better than 1
 > drive,you
  > > must have something seriuosly wrong for it to be worse. DOUG
 >
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 > That one too should be better.........<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 7N400Pro / Pro2