ok is there a posibility that if u r using different firmwares in ssd to get bad results?? espesially when u have 2 drives of 7?
Printable View
ok is there a posibility that if u r using different firmwares in ssd to get bad results?? espesially when u have 2 drives of 7?
ok ive done upgrade my drives from HA to HD something do u think that we will see any differents in random speeds??
@ anvil man i have bad news for u the excel file gone with a glass of water dont ask how lol. so if u can just use the table or wait till i make a new one :S
Tiltevros,
What you can do is to test them separately. (G1's in one array and the G2's in a second array)
I'm quite keen on seeing your scores using only G2's even if its just 2-3 drives.
I'll see what I can do without your spreadsheet.
new speeds for me almost 1,9GB/s without any cache ;)
Nice results Tiltevros
32K, 100%read, 0%random it looks like.
What is the size of the file and at what queue depth are you running the test?
its 64k :P
same as before but
almost 1,95GB/s 64k file sequential read @ 32 outstandings IO/s 4GB test file
@ Tiltevros
Which drives?
Post your results here too. You´re... :welcome:
@ all
Is there anyone with 3x Acard 9010 + this LSI?
@ fear
I dont speak german mate :/ and u dont speak english there :S can u help me through ??
The main-language is german, but is no problem to write a few sentences in english ;)
The only little problem is to register in our forum.
Or you write me a message with all your benches and with discription, and i will copy this.
ok im there i bookmarked the site and im looking forword to answer to ur questions :)
Google is your friend :D
http://translate.google.com/translat...ty%2Findex.php
RANDOM 64k file @ 128 outstandings IO/s
Tilt what are you using for a controller these days - the 9260 or the 9211 - excellent numbers in either case!
9211 im waiting the 9260 from day to day
I was wondering if anyone could help me, with my doubt:
It's the "Workstation" test in the IOmeter (8KB, 80% Read, 80% Random) and the 30GB "short-stroked" HDD (single or striped no matter) ...
Can anyone do a little test with the IOmeter measuring area limited to the first 30GB ("Maximum disk size" set to 30GB) and after that do a bench of a normal (non-stroked) empty HDD with a first partition of 30GB (IOmeter also set to 30GB "Maximum disk size").
Reason: I have a hypothesis to prove
TNX M8's :)
which is???????????????????????Quote:
Originally Posted by dh41400
Which is ... are there any significant benefits with "Short-stroking" HDDs when we are observing only first 30GB.
Many reviews and comparations of "Short-stroking" techniques are only based on measuring full capacity of HDD vs. short-stroked capacity ... which is IMHO wrong, it should be based on the same HDD area (ex. first 30GB).
Many benchmarks can not measure only one portion (ex. 30GB) of an non-stroked HDD, but only the hole area (full capacity) and that is why the performance difference is so huge.
As we all know, HDD doesn't perform equally on every part of his capacity.
IOmeter is a good tool (one of rare) for measuring performance of any part of HDD capacity that we desire (first 30GB in this case) without the need for short-stroking.
That's my hypothesis and I would like someone to test it, please (cus I don't have any empty HDD right now) :)
well you have come to the wrong place:ROTF:
j/k, however most of the stuff here lately has been with ssd, hopefully someone will help you though. If i recall correctly tilt doesnt even have a HDD, just tons and tons of intels:yepp:
Oh I couldn't wait so I dug up some older WD HDD and began to test it.
Hypothesis was correct ... no significant difference between "short-stroking" and partitioning first xy GB of the drive.
There was no difference even if the second part (partition) was filled with data, the first partition was running flawlessly - almost identical to the "stroked" drive (and I was a little surprised with this).
Next thing that I was planning to test is the "short-stroked" Striping vs. some cheap MFT'ed SSD ... the results should be interesting (regardless to the non-bootability of the MFT).
here is some updates working out with my latency i will post some iometer times later
wow .05 that is spectacular! looks nice :)
That is some great performance!
One question though. Aside from HEAVY server usage...why would a home/single user ever care to see queue lengths on IO meter greater than say 24 or 32?
because they are fun?
:)
dh41400
can't see u'r point with testing a short-stroked HDD vs a partitioned non short-stroked one through IOMeter,
there obviously shouldn't be any difference at all,
the HDD works the same as when it short-stroked to 30GB or u'r checking the last 30GB in it through IOMeter,
there is no difference at all at arm movement, this test is definitely superfluous.
lol, because it's interesting :).Quote:
Aside from HEAVY server usage...why would a home/single user ever care to see queue lengths on IO meter greater than say 24 or 32?
now for the main reason for this post,
didn't anyone notice the huge difference in 512B IO's from anvil 4*x-25v 183,000 on the ICH10R to this G2&G1 mutation?
why this 250$ dedicated HBA is getting choked at 75,000 IOps while the onboard ICH10R breath's smoothly till 245 KIOPs at 512B and even smashes it at 4K with ease at 110 KIOPs :cool:.