Crapy Raid Performance?

Heres my 4x160gb seagate 7200.9's raid 0 w/areca 1210 64k stripe 4k cluster.

32mb
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...alsloan/32.jpg

256mb
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...lsloan/256.jpg

Delirious try doing all the way out to 8192KB. here is my newer atto bench.
total length set to 256MB and my stripe is 128K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

Delirious try doing all the way out to 8192KB. here is my newer atto bench.
total length set to 256MB and my stripe is 128K

---

Here yah go

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...n/untitled.jpg

where you getting a version off atto that goes to 256mb?




EDIT*

got it

here is what I am getting with 2 150 raptors on nvraid using 64/64:

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/newatto.bmp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grinch

where you getting a version off atto that goes to 256mb?

---

here for everyone else that wants it.

Any suggestions for me
2x36.7 Raptors RAID0 Strip 16K / Cluster 4K on sil3112, LANPARTY UT RDX200

i think its mainly the controller card.

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4153/hdd3kg.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/659...vertest0fd.jpg

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/3517/hdtach5zz.jpg

the average read seems fine but the brust seems to be slower than the rest

I switched back to NV controller and now everything is fast. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuMiXaM

Any suggestions for me
2x36.7 Raptors RAID0 Strip 16K / Cluster 4K on sil3112, LANPARTY UT RDX200

i think its mainly the controller card.

---

I get roughly the same performance with Sil3114 and CFX3200. Much better with ULI M1575. Maybe u should try the SB450.

Thats almost exactly what i got when i had my two 36gb raptors on the nvraid, except my burst was higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuMiXaM

Any suggestions for me
2x36.7 Raptors RAID0 Strip 16K / Cluster 4K on sil3112, LANPARTY UT RDX200

i think its mainly the controller card.

the average read seems fine but the brust seems to be slower than the rest

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuMiXaM

Any suggestions for me
2x36.7 Raptors RAID0 Strip 16K / Cluster 4K on sil3112, LANPARTY UT RDX200

i think its mainly the controller card.

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4153/hdd3kg.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/659...vertest0fd.jpg

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/3517/hdtach5zz.jpg

the average read seems fine but the brust seems to be slower than the rest

---

use nvraid for faster performance

HighPoint 2310 (PCI-E x4) is no go friends. It gave me the same performance I get with nvraid Burst speed: 250mb/s. I don't know how to disable command quing and read cache on this controller. so, this is without the tweaks. Does any body know how to do that? I installed the software that came with the adapter but it doesn't have the options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamHughe

HighPoint 2310 (PCI-E x4) is no go friends. It gave me the same performance I get with nvraid Burst speed: 250mb/s. I don't know how to disable command quing and read cache on this controller. so, this is without the tweaks. Does any body know how to do that? I installed the software that came with the adapter but it doesn't have the options.

---

the options are probably in the bios it's self.

Yea its in the BIOS.

Also if you're only running it at PCIe x4 you're hampering its performance. I know with my 1210 when I ran it at PCIe x1 speeds performance was less than half of what it was @ PCIe x8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

Yea its in the BIOS.

Also if you're only running it at PCIe x4 you're hampering its performance. I know with my 1210 when I ran it at PCIe x1 speeds performance was less than half of what it was @ PCIe x8.

---

:slapass:
hello he's using a high point pci-express 4x card. the highest speed it runs is 4x.

so 1000 MB/s is a bottleneck? each way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grinch

use nvraid for faster performance

---

Its a crossfire mobo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

:slapass:
hello he's using a high point pci-express 4x card. the highest speed it runs is 4x.

---

Sorry, my bad.

Thought he was the poster useing the 1230.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hassan

so 1000 MB/s is a bottleneck? each way?

---

You wouldn't think so, but then PCIe x1 can do about 250MB/s IIRC which should be more than enough for my 4 drive RAID 0 array, but then it wasn't so I dunno...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottk

Does 10.05 have these parameters?

-ffx -fni

I had to turn those on using Ghost 2003 to identify RAID arrays on the DFI.

---

i run ghost 7.5 and ghost 8 both detect raid on asus a8v-delux mb
but i know a guy who runs plain sata drives not in raid and ghost 7.5 or 8 wont detect them !!!!

so it can be a motherboard controller issue. maybe buy 1 that will work for around $50

but then u loose a pci slot!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

You wouldn't think so, but then PCIe x1 can do about 250MB/s IIRC which should be more than enough for my 4 drive RAID 0 array, but then it wasn't so I dunno...

---

Well at 250 MB/s with x1 but also theres also overhead with PCI-E so it would be starved, but x4 should be ok bandwidth wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuMiXaM

Its a crossfire mobo

---

thats ok...one is native and one is'nt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H[]R3NDUS

i run ghost 7.5 and ghost 8 both detect raid on asus a8v-delux mb
but i know a guy who runs plain sata drives not in raid and ghost 7.5 or 8 wont detect them !!!!

so it can be a motherboard controller issue. maybe buy 1 that will work for around $50

but then u loose a pci slot!!

---

Ghost is a POS and doesnt detect alot of drives that are on controllers, be it raid or not.

On an Intel 865G Chipset if you run SATA in native mode Ghost will not detect the drives, you need to run them in PATA Compatible mode... point being I agree with MAXXX Ghost sux, I worked with their tech support as having me download custom builds of Ghost 10 because it wouldn't even fully load due to Nvidia raid on another board, they tried everything, after two weeks I tossed Ghost and picked up Acronis True Image... it worked fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hassan

On an Intel 865G Chipset if you run SATA in native mode Ghost will not detect the drives, you need to run them in PATA Compatible mode... point being I agree with MAXXX Ghost sux, I worked with their tech support as having me download custom builds of Ghost 10 because it wouldn't even fully load due to Nvidia raid on another board, they tried everything, after two weeks I tossed Ghost and picked up Acronis True Image... it worked fine.

---

Ill third that, Ghost is the worst piece of software i have ever owned. I tossed it in a drawer some where and bought Acronis True Image also, which works flawlessly in every system i put the recovery disk in.

here is what I am getting using 16/16 on nvraid:

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/16-16.bmp

MSI NF4 x16
Areca 1210
4 x 16MB 74 Raptor

16KB/4KB, NCQ/TCQ enabled, write/read cache enabled
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1148676378
so far ive seen avg. read up to 312MB

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1148676424

so, is this good? lol :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

MSI NF4 x16
Areca 1210
4 x 16MB 74 Raptor

16KB/4KB, NCQ/TCQ enabled, write/read cache enabled
[so far ive seen avg. read up to 312MB

so, is this good? lol :D

---

looks great try with write caching enabled but leave rest disabled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grinch

looks great try with write caching enabled but leave rest disabled

---

TCQ, i just cant seem to find the disable button..

this is wat happens when i change the settings, still have the hard space of 4 but performance of 1.. anyone? weird,

NCQ + read cache disabled = ~67MB
NCQ enabled = ~84MB

read cache, HD tach is too inconsistant to really tell the difference, sometimes enabled is more than disabled, difference of less than 2MB disabled/enabled

edit: i got TCQ disabled, difference of 1MB

Nice STR with those Raptors, seek times are only marginally slower than a single drive too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

Nice STR with those Raptors, seek times are only marginally slower than a single drive too.

---

tnx!


looks like the areca controller only runs @ optimal performance if TCQ, NCQ, read cache are enabled... same story with other areca users?

idk if nvraid supports or if it was mentioned before but what i noticed is that when i used disk capacity truncation.. i gained ~6MB just from that :)

which driver are you using for the areca, i only see an option to disable TCQ in device mngr, NCQ only in areca bios, and I don't see the same cached read and write I did with the Nvidia raid.

Those of you on nForce 4, have you tried the new 9.34 chipset drivers yet? I'm getting ready to integrate them into a new Windows XP 32-bit install and test them out on my new RAID array.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hassan

which driver are you using for the areca, i only see an option to disable TCQ in device mngr, NCQ only in areca bios, and I don't see the same cached read and write I did with the Nvidia raid.

---

Are you using the HTTP GUI? Its in there under system controls > system config.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delirious

Are you using the HTTP GUI? Its in there under system controls > system config.

---

Yes I can do it from there, I figured you guys were talking about in device manager like the nvidia raid.

Hassan, disable/enable TCQ in 'Modify Volume..'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grinch

Seems to be about right for 74giger....16/16 is really better if you use alot of smaller files like everyday (normal use) surf the web..write emails..word/excel...etc....as the stripe and cluster get bigger you will lose some bytes doing smaller stuff but it is marginal...if you are into heavy graphic rendering and unraring big file then a larger stripe (32,64,128) along with matching cluster sizes will help do those tasks better....I have found that 16/16 shows better benchmarks....personally I use 16/16....looks bada$$ in benchmarks...but if I start compiling and decoding large files again I will move up to 32/32 or 64/64....there is a hella easy way to change the default cluster size without any 3rd party software:

The "EASIEST" way to change your cluster size is to have a 3rd drive with Win XP on it....here is what you need to do.

1. Have 3rd drive with Win XP
2. Go to bios and change boot order to 3rd drive b4 Raid
3. Once in windows goto "Disk Management" (as soon as you click on it you will have a window pop up and ask you to select drive and it will also want to know if you want to convert drive to a dynamic disk...I always choose no)

4. You will see your raid drives as 1 BIG drive..now all you do is right click on the drive and click partion...primary partition...set size...now is where you can choose cluster size...you will have 3 boxes to check off...

5. NTFS or FAT32...Volume Label....Cluster Size......
6. After you check all of that off then you click off quick format and Voila...you have done it now do same on rest of drives....

7. once you have setup all your partitons and selected cluster sizes...shutdown PC unplug 3rd drive...change boot order so CD rom will be a bootable device b4 raid device and you are good to go on a clean install....remember once you get into the window when setting up XP you have choices to format drives again and choose where XP get sinstalled ...choose to leave as is...no need to format again cuz it will default to 4k cluster again.....



let me know how this goes for ....I have been doing this trick now for a VERY LONG time and I know for a fact that this is a fast and easy way...without using any 3rd party software.....

---

i did just that and i still get the same i get with partitionmagic : "disk error occured" and i just cant install winxp on 16K cluster, wat am i doing wrong?

btw, anyone know the code for allocation size to include in the winnt.sif ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

tnx!


looks like the areca controller only runs @ optimal performance if TCQ, NCQ, read cache are enabled... same story with other areca users?

idk if nvraid supports or if it was mentioned before but what i noticed is that when i used disk capacity truncation.. i gained ~6MB just from that :)

---

I disable NCQ and TCQ, read cache is enabled though.

Make sure to see if your card needs to be updated too. Areca.com.tw has updated versions of the firmware, BIOS, windows drivers, and HTTPGUI IIRC.

Very interesting thread. It *almost* makes me want to go through all the PITA of having a failure-prone RAID-0... but not quite :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

Very interesting thread. It *almost* makes me want to go through all the PITA of having a failure-prone RAID-0... but not quite :)

---

I'm using raid5. here's 4x500GB on my areca 1230 card with 1GB cache

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

i did just that and i still get the same i get with partitionmagic : "disk error occured" and i just cant install winxp on 16K cluster, wat am i doing wrong?

btw, anyone know the code for allocation size to include in the winnt.sif ?

---

from this thread:

re: cluster size with XPSP2

It's a glitch with SP2., only likes a cluster size of 4 (default)
It should work fine with XP/SP1 and then install SP2 after.
The x64 Edition trial will let you set up whatever Stripe/cluster combo you wish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

Very interesting thread. It *almost* makes me want to go through all the PITA of having a failure-prone RAID-0... but not quite :)

---

failure prone? I have been running raid 0 for over 7 years and have yet to have a failure...besides I have a 3rd drive for all my important stuff that is not raided...:woot: :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grinch

failure prone? I have been running raid 0 for over 7 years and have yet to have a failure...besides I have a 3rd drive for all my important stuff that is not raided...:woot: :toast:

---

Hey Grinch, do you think 16/16 will be optimal for 2 x Western Digital SE16 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb in RAID 0? Mainly I'll be gaming, web browsing, and ripping DVDs on the machine.

I've never used RAID, but I'm going to give it a try w/ my new build thanks to all the great info in this thread.

statistically, every drive you add to a raid-o array decreases your arrays mtbf, because there's no redundancy.

unfortunately hds die on me with clockwork precision, if i keep them for more than 2 years they croak. must have something to do with the fact that my pc is usully running 24/7 10-11 months of the year. on a 2-dics array that gives me 1 year mtbf which is simply unacceptable =p

not that it matters, really. i dont give a toss how fast my bf2 levels load... not that i play fps games anyway.

i really dont see the point in raiding my games drive. yey, it only takes x seconds to boot game x, worth the effort? not for me :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

I'm using raid5. here's 4x500GB on my areca 1230 card with 1GB cache

---

That seems low, I pull 4 x 160G WD RE Drives Raid5 around 160-170 MB/s on an Areca 1210 with TCQ + NCQ + Write Back Cache

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

I'm using raid5. here's 4x500GB on my areca 1230 card with 1GB cache

---

He is using RAID5, its common for speeds to be that low or even lower. RAID6 might be better performance wise for you, I think you can do with with 4 drives.

How does your system "feel" now with the 1GB of cache or do you still not have that yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hassan

4 x 160G WD RE Drives Raid5

---

I'm using Raid 5 also

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kilyin

Hey Grinch, do you think 16/16 will be optimal for 2 x Western Digital SE16 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb in RAID 0? Mainly I'll be gaming, web browsing, and ripping DVDs on the machine.

I've never used RAID, but I'm going to give it a try w/ my new build thanks to all the great info in this thread.

---

that would be great! :toast: :woot: :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

statistically, every drive you add to a raid-o array decreases your arrays mtbf, because there's no redundancy.

unfortunately hds die on me with clockwork precision, if i keep them for more than 2 years they croak. must have something to do with the fact that my pc is usully running 24/7 10-11 months of the year. on a 2-dics array that gives me 1 year mtbf which is simply unacceptable =p

not that it matters, really. i dont give a toss how fast my bf2 levels load... not that i play fps games anyway.

i really dont see the point in raiding my games drive. yey, it only takes x seconds to boot game x, worth the effort? not for me :)

---

sorry to hear you have had issues with raid..I dont run my machine 24/7..prolly 1 reason why I have not had a problem..but if you have problems after 2 years I would recommend wd raptors which have a 5yr warranty.:woot:

Ive got rappies - much too loud, swapping them for samsungs soon. Nice performance but not really worth it imo. Again, i dont really care about how fast levels in games loads, and all the rest of my stuff is stored apps/comics/videos/music :)

And yes, thats probably why. Keeping them running 24/7 really ages consumer drives fast :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

statistically, every drive you add to a raid-o array decreases your arrays mtbf, because there's no redundancy.

unfortunately hds die on me with clockwork precision, if i keep them for more than 2 years they croak. must have something to do with the fact that my pc is usully running 24/7 10-11 months of the year. on a 2-dics array that gives me 1 year mtbf which is simply unacceptable =p

---

It depends on how you want to look at it. When you add more drives to an array that means you add an extra point of failure but drives in an array are doing less work then a single drive. Effectively two drives in an array would be doing ~50% their normal workload whereas three in an array would be doing ~33%. Of course those percentages are not perfeclty accurate statistics but the fact remains that an individual drive is reading and writing less data when its in an array.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

Ive got rappies - much too loud, swapping them for samsungs soon. Nice performance but not really worth it imo. Again, i dont really care about how fast levels in games loads, and all the rest of my stuff is stored apps/comics/videos/music :)

And yes, thats probably why. Keeping them running 24/7 really ages consumer drives fast :(

---

You should check into the Western Digital 2500KS 16MB cache drives. They aren't very loud and will offer better performance then those Samsungs.

Got any good site with HD tests? Thermal profile and noise are a factor :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hassan

That seems low, I pull 4 x 160G WD RE Drives Raid5 around 160-170 MB/s on an Areca 1210 with TCQ + NCQ + Write Back Cache

---

well I'm using a larger size stripe than you are.. I'm adding 2 500GB drives at the moment and expanding the array will take about 12 hours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

How does your system "feel" now with the 1GB of cache or do you still not have that yet?

---

well a did a few benchmarks I'm expanding the array for I won't know for a while.

32MB total length in atto.

256MB total length in atto and transfer size up to 8192K. this is very interesting difference between 32MB and 256MB.

ATTO is easily fooled by cache, run some winbench99 and things will definetly change.

I dont think anyone likes to use it cause it takes longer (aka alot more accurate):rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

I disable NCQ and TCQ, read cache is enabled though.

Make sure to see if your card needs to be updated too. Areca.com.tw has updated versions of the firmware, BIOS, windows drivers, and HTTPGUI IIRC.

---

tnx! updated to v1.41, noticeable improvement (not just cause of the benchmarks) over 1.40.. though i still cant disable TCQ/NCQ without losing 3/4 performance..


hey safan! can u match my burst? lol :D

http://xtremesystems.org/forums/atta...1&d=1148892819
http://xtremesystems.org/forums/atta...1&d=1148892855
http://xtremesystems.org/forums/atta...1&d=1148892890

alright, ill do the winbench99, let me find it 1st..

Kilyin, tnx! appreciated! guess ill have to move on to 64-bit..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

hey safan! can u match my burst? lol :D

---

at the moment no I'm having trouble making xp x64 see 2.5TB

I see you are talking about a tweaks to do.. what this tweaks plz? a link.. i have begin read the thread, but 10pages...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lane-k

I see you are talking about a tweaks to do.. what this tweaks plz? a link.. i have begin read the thread, but 10pages...

---

the links are in the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lane-k

I see you are talking about a tweaks to do.. what this tweaks plz? a link.. i have begin read the thread, but 10pages...

---

for the lazy one...LOL :toast:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...0&postcount=53

Thanks Grinch...!!

Upgraded the firmware on all 4 drives with the latest ones from seagate and it gave me a little boost :D

Before
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...n/untitled.jpg

After
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...1687413857.jpg

Delirious, can you re-reun the last ATTO test with "neither" checked so we can compare apples to apples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundx98

Delirious, can you re-reun the last ATTO test with "neither" checked so we can compare apples to apples.

---

way ahead of yah, noticed i forgot to uncheck that right after i posted :D

I'll ask again since there seems to be a large number of drive freaks in this thread: care to point me to a good review site for HDs? Cant say ive looked too much into them so far :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

I'll ask again since there seems to be a large number of drive freaks in this thread: care to point me to a good review site for HDs? Cant say ive looked too much into them so far :)

---

http://www.storagereview.com/

Heres a really good raid raid read for everyone else (32 pages so i hope u like to read)

http://tweakers.net/reviews/557/1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

Got any good site with HD tests? Thermal profile and noise are a factor :)

---

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/250_1.html

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1016962

Thanks for the links. Maybe after ive finished upgrading my cooling and ive switched to conroe ill move to a 4x spinpoint 250 raid5 array (or whatever is the quietest HD at the time)... id have to replace the stock cooler on the areca 1210 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

id have to replace the stock cooler on the areca 1210 though.

---

Add a chipset wb to it ;)

Yeah, i figure its pretty easy. But i dont have the cash right now, not for the card & 5x 250gb drives :)

Why replace it, its very quiet, and it comes with a larger ones thats supposed to be passive, so i put that one on it and added the fan to it.

The mounting holes on it are in wierd spots so you would definetly have to fashion your own mounting hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creidiki

Yeah, i figure its pretty easy. But i dont have the cash right now, not for the card & 5x 250gb drives :)

---

Thats why they have credit cards with 0% apr :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delirious

Thats why they have credit cards with 0% apr :p:

---

yeah how do you think I got the areca 1230 in the first place ;) credit rocks :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

yeah how do you think I got the areca 1230 in the first place ;) credit rocks :lol:

---

until they send you the bill :D

hey guys, I'm doing a fresh build (all new parts, OS, etc) and setup my RAID 0 array w/ a 16k stripe.

My question is, how do I format the RAID drive with a specific cluster size? XP setup doesn't let me specify. Am I going to need some sort of third party software to accomplish this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kilyin

My question is, how do I format the RAID drive with a specific cluster size? XP setup doesn't let me specify. Am I going to need some sort of third party software to accomplish this?

---

Cluster size is usually set in the BIOS of the RAID controller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thinkingbear

Cluster size is usually set in the BIOS of the RAID controller

---

All I saw in the nvidia RAID BIOS was stripe size. Oh well, seems to be running great anyway.

If you read this thread it is already answered also, yes stripe size is in bios, but clusters is in os, several methods for selecting cluster size are mentioned. Mabe if I get some spare time today, or if someone else feels generous we could list them together.

Someone mentioned using win xp x64
Someone mentioned partition magic
Someone mentioned using an already partitioned and formatted disk made by existing os

that was from memory, did I miss any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kilyin

All I saw in the nvidia RAID BIOS was stripe size. Oh well, seems to be running great anyway.

---

My bad, got stripe and cluster size mixed up, sorry.

Decided to try some new drives... Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB SATA II HDD's - RAID 0 32k stripe.

Really bad burst speeds. Latency is okay i guess...just hoping I can improve it somehow. This is no way is better than Hitachi's which i had previously...

These drives aren't so quiet...
There's no tools to change audible seek modes.
Has 16 MB's of cache, but no real difference in performance. Kinda disappointed...

Anyone using these also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinvented

There's no tools to change audible seek modes.

---

Have you tried IBM/Hitachi feature tool
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/53...ture-tool.html

or Maxtor's AMSET.

I have used the feature tool on drives of manufacturers other than IBM/Hitachi

I'm not gonna risk if it's especially not warranted or even mentioned as doable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinvented

Decided to try some new drives... Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB SATA II HDD's - RAID 0 32k stripe.

Really bad burst speeds. Latency is okay i guess...just hoping I can improve it somehow. This is no way is better than Hitachi's which i had previously...

These drives aren't so quiet...
There's no tools to change audible seek modes.
Has 16 MB's of cache, but no real difference in performance. Kinda disappointed...

Anyone using these also?

---

have you tried doing actual file transfers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

have you tried doing actual file transfers?

---

Yeah...still pretty crappy.

Did u run benchmarks one your other drives before u installed and setup the WD's? Mind showing us?

32k Stripe size, but what cluster size?

How many drives in the array?

Are they all useing the same firmware?

What controller are you useing?

What drivers are u useing with the controller?

Is the OS installed on the array or seperate drive?

and lastly HDtach is the last program i would use to get relieable benchmarks with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinvented

Decided to try some new drives... Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB SATA II HDD's - RAID 0 32k stripe.

Really bad burst speeds. Latency is okay i guess...just hoping I can improve it somehow. This is no way is better than Hitachi's which i had previously...

These drives aren't so quiet...
There's no tools to change audible seek modes.
Has 16 MB's of cache, but no real difference in performance. Kinda disappointed...

Anyone using these also?

---

3x WD 2500KS

http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/show...postcount=1190

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundx98

3x WD 2500KS

http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/show...postcount=1190

---

sound, you didn't install the nvidia ide sw driver did you?

Yes, I did

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundx98

Yes, I did

---

Disabled read caching, however burst speed went up, just not as high as yours even with 2 drives. Still got better on Hitachi's...except for latency.

On the WD drives, latency increased 3ms, and read went down to 99. :(

As Delerious suggested. try some other banchmarks as well.

Also remember that with a larger array (500G in your case, 750G) in mind that size will also affect Average read. Run your HD Tach again (long run)./

I'm using a 4 partitions on my array.
1st - 50G XP32 OS
2nd - 50G x63 Edition OS
3rd - 150G Games
4th - 500G general storage

The ist part of the array (or drive is always) the fastest.

Your average read on the 1st party of your array looks like it's averaging 120-125. Easily twice as fast as any single drive.
Again, these ARE synthetic benchmarks.
And, like a futuremark score, they are seldom repeatable.
Try the latest ATTO (need to register) as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundx98

And, like a futuremark score, they are seldom repeatable.

---

My HD tach scores are dead on. I can run them one day save them and run them another and re-load saved and not be able to distinguish them. They are exactly the same.

That's amazing.
I just ran them three times in a row and something always changes slightly.
While the burst graph looks almost identical, there is always a slight difference in random access, cpu utilzation, or average read.
I thought it was caused by the random nature of the reads.
I stand corrected, but I did say "seldom" :)

How about ATTO - same identical readings?

my burst and cpu util will vary slightly, but the ra time and graph are identical every time

that was my point, all the readings will seldom be identical. :)

Areca 1230 256MB

4 x 16MB 74 Raptor
TCQ/NCQ + read/write cache enabled
32K/32K
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1149628351

6 x 16MB 74 Raptor
32K/32K
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1149628418

:slap: i expected better scores @ 6 rappies more like 450+MB/s.. ATTO scores are far from pretty.. slightly better than 4 rappies.. was gonna go for 1GB cache but am waiting on 2GB modules if ever available..

anyone know where i can download winbench99? i just cant find a link..

-

Where do you live? :clap:

lol.. seattle region

NapalmV5
I'm sure 8 raptors would do much better..
http://tweakers.net/reviews/557/24

the areca cards seem to really pick up speed with 8 drives.

the areca cards only support a max of 1GB cache.

try this program

http://nodesoft.com/DiskBench/Default.aspx

copy file with stopwatch, write benchs, batch file creations, actually measures speeds, not synthetic... great way to see differences between RAID10 and RAID5 and also different stripe sizes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

NapalmV5
I'm sure 8 raptors would do much better..
http://tweakers.net/reviews/557/24

the areca cards seem to really pick up speed with 8 drives.

the areca cards only support a max of 1GB cache.

---

tnx! for the link.. sure will read it..

actually it does support more but only ~1GB module is available.. it should support 2GB, i will ask Tony from support on this..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hassan

try this program

http://nodesoft.com/DiskBench/Default.aspx

copy file with stopwatch, write benchs, batch file creations, actually measures speeds, not synthetic... great way to see differences between RAID10 and RAID5 and also different stripe sizes

---

cool.. I'll do that after I finish converting my array to GPT
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device...e/GPT_FAQ.mspx

funny quote from the faq

Quote:

---

53. Can a disk be converted from GPT to MBR, and vice versa?
Yes, but only if the disk contains no partitions or volumes. Any data on the disk will be destroyed.

---