SAS expander and RAID 10 throughput confusion

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

s3ntro

Member
Apr 25, 2016
56
13
8
39
Hi all, I'm hoping you can help me understand the throughput of my intended storage build.

I'd like to get 12 SATA HDDs in a RAID 10 configuration to get closer to 10gb write. This will be on a consumer motherboard but with an Intel SAS 3 controller (Intel® RAID Controller RS3DC080 77346). One question I'm struggling with is whether to go with a SAS2 or SAS 3 expander, which would be connected directly to the hard drives via breakout cables.

Here's what I'm thinking: the spinning hard drives probably won't hit 187.5 MBps each but if they did, each group of 4 hard drives would hit 6 gbps. In RAID 10, this means a real/unique data throughput of 3 gbps (due to mirroring). So, I need 12 hard drives to get 9 gbps.

Assuming I aquire a SAS2 expander, I will have two 6 gb links from the RAID card to the expander. Here's where my question about unique data throughput comes in. If the RAID controller has to do the mirroring then half of the 12 gbps throughput to the expander card is wasted. If the expander can handle the mirroring then the full 12gbps of the link can potentially be used for unique data. I have no idea if this is how it works. Please tell me more!
 

Aestr

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2014
967
386
63
Seattle
Each cable from your RAID card to your SAS expander will carry 4 lanes, so if your expander is SAS2 you'll get 24gbps per cable. If your goal is only to saturate 10gb the bandwidth between your expander and the controller will not hold you back at SAS2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: i386 and s3ntro

s3ntro

Member
Apr 25, 2016
56
13
8
39
Each cable from your RAID card to your SAS expander will carry 4 lanes, so if your expander is SAS2 you'll get 24gbps per cable. If your goal is only to saturate 10gb the bandwidth between your expander and the controller will not hold you back at SAS2.
Oh I thought the ports themselves were limited to 6gb (not each link). Thank you for the clarification.