250GB Matrix slice, 6X Seagate 7200.11's, ICH9, RAID0
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5828/hd2jx7.jpg
Printable View
250GB Matrix slice, 6X Seagate 7200.11's, ICH9, RAID0
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5828/hd2jx7.jpg
HD Tune is confused and is performing the benchmark in the controller's cache. BTW HD Tune's resolution is 1/10 ms so the smallest value for access time it can display is 0.1 ms. Unless the time is zero which is impossible.
When run on a clean boot it's about 800MB/S average with ~5.5 mS access time. (posted previously) 10 Fujitsu MBA3147RC SAS drives on ARC1680ix24 RAID0 128kB stripe size.
HD Tach has lots of problems (heck both of these programs do!) measuring host transfer speed (commonly called burst speed). The ICH9 ACHI rates are greatly exaggerated and often reflect disk cache (os) values, etc.
Used for 2 years now... Decided to upgrade soon, and this is a 7200.10 250GB Seagate. :up:
http://img29.picoodle.com/img/img29/...em_8a50f9d.png
FIXED LINK :)
congratulations, I would like to officially declare you the winner of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubycon
All my HDD's are 7200rpm sata2 Seagate Barracudas
In raid-0 I've got dual 250GB's with 16mb cache on each:
http://xs129.xs.to/xs129/08304/raidhdd192.jpg
and for data backup I've got a single 160GB with 8mb cache:
http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08304/singlehdd171.jpg
Here´s my Western Digital Caviar 500gb 7200rpm, 16mb cache, sata2.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3...ne12342jz8.jpg
This is 4xWD3200AAKS on a 50gb Slice
http://www.fileshack.us/get_file.php...4&file=7_7.jpg
Here is a 100gb slice
http://www.fileshack.us/get_file.php...file=395_5.jpg
hmm areca setup, so its not an ioDrive raid...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubycon
2 ARC-1680ix-24s with 36GB drives?
or 2 ARC-1680ix-16s with 73GB drives? that would need a per-drive read speed of close to 200MB/s though so probably not...
those read speeds have saturated the equivalent of 16 pcie lanes, and 1.4TB is achievable with 24 drives each on 2 HBAs. Quite an impressive setup!
(its actually slightly over 16x pcie bandwidth, but not by much... pcie overclock or maybe just due to software aggregation of data in bursts? or 3 HBAs?)
Afaik there arent any x16 pcie or x8 pcie2.0 raid cards... shame...
4gb Fiber Channel based Array enterprise level stuff probably, given that it maintains 4000MB/s i'd say it might be a ramsan?Quote:
Originally Posted by minijb
4Gbps Fiber manages 400MB/s per channel, so thats still couple of very decent Fiber HBAs. As far as I can see, Areca only have 2 fiber product families, and both are 2x 4Gbps Fiber ports. I agree that beyond the HBAs is very impressive (and could be a RAMSAN), just trying to figure out which areca cards were used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Levish
edit: those seek times are impressive too!, gotta be something ram-based...
http://www.superssd.com/products/ramsan-440/Quote:
Originally Posted by minijb
almost sure its a texas memory ramsan or something very similar
3x raptor 150 raid 0 on an adaptec 2405.
Attachment 83177
Getting third Mtron next week, will eventually get an areca I think the ICH7R chipset is slowing the RAID down alittle.
i think Intel chip sets in general have issues with SSD's, not necessarily Intel chip based adapters on the other hand.
Ya I have heard that the ICH9R set-up stinks for RAID. If you ask me I think thats pretty crappy, I mean you spend good money on a mobo and they have shotty controllers. Mine does alright but, it is lower than the manufacturer benchmarks. (supposed to be 100mb/s read and 80mb/s write and .1ms access times)I want to add more drives eventually than my mobo based raid will support anyhow.
I know with a dedicated CPU and a nice cache on a controller card that my throughput will jump.
The integrated stuff was never intended to be a high end controller replacement, it was intended to be better than "software raid" which in some cases might be better than hardware raid :pQuote:
Originally Posted by james bennett
You just cannot beat the 800-1200mhz dual core adapters with a onboard chip on a 200-300$ motherboard when the adapter you are comparing to costs more than the motherboard and thats the very low end of the good adapter market.
Adapters are so important I went from one adapter to another generation on the same array and picked up a consistent 15MB/s (older SCSI stuff that was 75 before and 90 after) and better performance all round and it seems to be heavily influenced by the software as well as the speed of the on board processor.
I was able to test some old HDD's .
here is the result :
http://xtupload.com/usr/61/i_Untitled.jpg
http://xtupload.com/usr/61/i_Untitled2.jpg
http://xtupload.com/usr/61/i_Untitled3.jpg
12x1TB seagate 7200 RPM HDs in raid5. Areca-1231ML controller:
HDtach:
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/hdtach.png
HDTune (which always gives a spike somewhere, duno why:
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/hdtune.png
I never thought about it like that. I wonder if the newer high end boards are better. Anyhow I just installed my third Mtron in a striped array heres the benchmark:[QUOTE=Levish;3207953]
You just cannot beat the 800-1200mhz dual core adapters with a onboard chip on a 200-300$ motherboard when the adapter you are comparing to costs more than the motherboard and thats the very low end of the good adapter market.
QUOTE]
if you mean the motherboard stuff, sure from ich7,8,9 and so on there are improvements but you'll still never come close to the performance of a Adaptec RAID 5405 (for example) which is fairly "cheap" as far as high end adapters are concerned and with SSD's you can definately saturate a on board solution pretty easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by james bennett
WD 640GB
http://i33.tinypic.com/105rxcp.png
Most definately have a controller card on my wish list. I want one with 8 ports though and I think the 5405 has four, right? The ICH7R is what I have right now. From what I have heard its better than the ICH9.Quote:
Originally Posted by Levish
Pretty respectable for your money. I dropped some SERIOUS change to get my set-up. About seventeen bucks a gigabyte for the solid states and $1.25 a gig for the Raptor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loser777
for some reason mine looks so low for Raid0 raptor 160GB don't understand why.
You don't list your operating system if its XP try the suggestion below:Quote:
Originally Posted by mr2sw21
Actually thats about where its supposed to be. If you are expecting your transfer rates to double when you use a striped volume it doesn't. I mistakenly thought the same thing. Although your benchmark IS close to double mine. (when I did a benchmark with my raptor pg.11)Other than getting a controller card you can improve performance by enabling cache writing and enabling the advanced performance feature on the RAID set-up.
To do this go into right click the "my computer icon" choose manage. Click on device manager then click on the plus sign next to disc drives on the right. You will see your RAID set-up. Right click that and choose properties. click on the policies tab. Check the box "enable cache writing on this disc"
and also check "enable advanced performance"
Make sure you read the notes under these settings unless you have a UPS (battery back-up) you risk data corruption or loss.