Printable View
I flashed my bios yesterday and loaded optimized defaults prior to flashing, which somehow killed one of my ramsticks, just like that. :banana::banana::banana::banana: happens, sorry m8 :/
Get yourself a decent controller, RMA the two F1 if they are really dead and try again, it's all you can do... being frustrated doesn't help, trust me.
3 raptor 150's in raid 0.
Attachment 75618
The F1's are fine - it killed 2x 320GB samsungs (and they ARE DEAD!), but it won't let me build an array with all 3 F1 750GBs - just 2!Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Why would i spend another £400 on a controller when i haven't had any issues before? This is an asus issue not the HDs.
The dead 320GBs don't bother me at all - it's the fact that i can't use all 3 750GBs in RAID0 - because of asus dodgy BIOS's
FRUSTRATED - doesn't come close mate - if i saw an asus BIOS employee i'd shove the mobo where the sun don't shine!! And all the hds side by side! Ouch! lol
EDIT: Just been back downstairs to turn it back on and the array says FAILED! WTF!!!!!!!!! It was fine before i turned it off
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6...gb16001gx0.jpg
4xRaptor-X @ Raid-0 / 30GB Array Size for OS
How much performance will I loose by installing my ARC-1220 in a 4X pci-e slot as compared to an 8X?
Bigger better hardware is XS do some research, buttttt pci-e vs agp8x isnt alot of difference, the bandwidth is the thing you want to research.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
I'm thinking you can still move 300gbs through a pci-e 4 slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
So unless your array exceeds that, you won't loose anything.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...tune80gbjb.jpg
11371 hours from mar2006-today.
(roughly 13.9 hours a day) I hate pc and parts..but every once and awhile something is truly good. western digital jb at 80gb has been excellent, and quite fast for an "old eide" all by its lonesome. I ought to pair it up with it's twin and post again...like flickin channels on a television, there is no waiting...for 11000 hours so far.... :)
EDIT: For 38 bucks in some western digital loyalty program...I just got another one. What odd numbers they have written for speed. Mine goes faster consistently...I hope they send another "blacktop" (I believe the others are extincted now anyway?) The "black top" had same model number but something internal was upgraded, I got the first of them 2.5 years ago, and they meant it. It popped up sdpeeds as fast as the sata, and I have sata option on my board, just not going to use it (my southbridge is not heatsinked by oem)
4x Raptors on a ARC-1210 controller 250GB array raid 0, 64K stripe
4x WD6400AAKS @ 128GB RAID0 on the HPT Rocket 3510
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7100/33bi3.jpg
4xSeagate 7200.10
Raid 0+1
Vista x64
Intel Raid Driver 7.5.0.1017
http://hosting04.imagecross.com/imag...chmark_7.5.png
Intel Raid Driver 7.8.0.1013
http://hosting04.imagecross.com/imag...chmark_7.8.png
How is this for 2 Seagate 7200.10 320GB'ers in Raid-0???
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4960/hdtuneit2.jpg
2 X 320 Gb samsung (os) raid 0 , 1 WD 250 Gb (back up) .
2 X 320 GB samsung dead (after power failure) , my score should be almost twice the current :-( .
Asus Crosshair nForce 590 RAID 0 64kb stripe 2x 750GB Samsung F1
2x hitachi 320gbs/16mb cache sata 2 hdds, avg suxx but burst is pretty nice :D
2xWD Raptor 150 RAID-0, 64k stripe
Default HD Tune chunk size:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...Capture-29.jpg
8MB chunk on the left, 512K chunk on the right. This really shows where RAID can shine, and where it takes a nosedive.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...Capture3-7.jpg
Here is my storage volume:
http://www.pcrpg.org/pics/misc/HDTune%20Storage.png
and here is why I don't like/trust ATTO these days:
http://www.pcrpg.org/pics/misc/ATTO%20Storage.png
---
I think they call that system memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by nike
below is my 2*640GB Western digital cavier array over ICH9r
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6770/hdtune4gd8.png
if it's like how it is intel side, then you need an even number of drives for RAID0 or RAID1. odd is fine for RAID5 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd
also windows has a 2Tb limit FYI you'de have to lower your partition size(if your goal was a single 2GB space)
Yeah i found out about the 2TB limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
But u CAN have odd number of drives in RAID 0 - i ran 3x 74GB raptors in RAID0 for a couple of years - on intel and nforce without an issue (not enough room for 4)
must not be officially supported then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd
sort of like netburst on p35... still works just no guarantees I guess.
nah mate works perfectly everytime - never had an issue with any drives/chipsets (no idea about p35) and if u look at the top of the page you'll see 3x raptors RAID 0,and a couple of pages back you'll see my 3x samsung 320GB in RAID 0. I think you're thinking of RAID 1Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
Hey guys,
I just received this Adaptec 5805 - BBU is on its way! 8x WD7500AACS 750GB SATA
HDTach Raid5:
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2...tec5805vh1.png
HDTune Raid5:
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5...tec5805py5.png
very impressive performance.
Here's my Dual Hitachi setup on a LSI PSI-X adapter (Mobo Asus p5k ws)
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/3...silogiccd1.png
here is my 4x WD6400AAKS :)
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8...0hdtachvi3.jpg
What kind of controller you got? You need to select the max. file size in ATTO (256MB) so get correct numbers. If the file size is too low, your controller's just gonna do cached reads/writes. And if your controller features 512MB or more cache you won't see any normal results even mit 256MB filesize ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
I get over 1GB/s read/write when I use a filesize lower than 256MB (Adaptec 5405 which has 256MB cache).
@Carpe^Diem: Great result, can't wait to see how my 5405 performs with 4x1TB Samsung F1's :)
Gotta love these controllers, how did you cool yours? Mine's under water, see sig, lol :rolleyes:
@jcool
Yeah... these controllers get very hot. It's not possible to let it run 24/7 passive. I got a 120mm fan on it from the side, and then i get temps about 54-54 degrees celcius.
What waterblock did you get to fit on it ?
24/7 passive? Mine ran 5 minutes until it started beeping and triggered an overheat warning :lol:
For the waterclock just click my sig (wonder why no one ever does that...)
Sorry mate.. my german are not that good :)
Could you link me to the waterblock that you use ?
I dunno how you guys are getting such amazing results from them hard drives.. i get just shy of 500mB/sec with 3 sas drives.. can any recommend anything i've done wrong?
http://www.zaimc.com/temp/3x15k.5raid0.jpg
3 x 146 15K.5 sas drives in raid0 using an Adaptec 3405
You haven't done anything wrong... When you see burstspeeds at 3000mb/s it is "fake", its the new onboard controller from Intel showing real nice figures, but they cant be transfered to real-life performance
what about the average read rateQuote:
Originally Posted by Carpe^Diem
251mb/s for a 3disk raid0 is about right.. i got 8 36GB Maxtor 15K II SAS drives, and I usually calculate performance as a factor of 80. 2 drives ~160mb/s, 4 drives ~ 320mb/s and 8 drives ~640mb/s. So you 3 disk @ ~ 250 is okay..
To your signature :D 3x146GB Cheetah SAS 15K.5 @ 500mB/sec (yes megabytes) naaa, your cache burstspeed is around 500mb/s, not your sustained!
got me all excited =P
as long as it's running hella fast for me in the real world, that's al that really matters anyways
http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/10mba-16k.gif
Ten Fujitsu MBA3147RC in RAID0 on Areca ARC1680ix-24.
Wow :D nice Rubycon.. very nice indeed !
http://www.zaimc.com/temp/3x15k.5raid0tune.jpg
3 x 15k.5 cheetahs
Really nice speed there Rubycon. :up:
here's my storage raid.
6x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500 GB running RAID 5 with block size 64kb on a Areca 1220 256MB cache controller. I know, I should have picked 128 but it's a bit to late now ;)
All tests done on a Opteron 175.. I accidentally killed my mobo the other day :( but I have a new one on the way. doubt there will be any difference in test results though
HD Tune 2.55 standard settings
http://i32.tinypic.com/20zbcyp.jpg
HD Tune 2.55 with 8mb block
http://i31.tinypic.com/11826j7.jpg
HD Tach @ Long test
http://i30.tinypic.com/nfodgw.jpg
HD Tach is a bit funny at the end there, not sure why but ohh well.. I'm happy with my speed. sorta..
Has anyone heard of "Battleship Mtron"? This crazy dude tried to run a 9x stripe raid using Mtron SSD's :shocked::shocked:
Reading that article it's easy to see that myself and many others here are limited by the controller's capabilities and with a faster controller we could have obtained much better results.. Say, anyone know if it's possible to OC a Areca 1220 card? :D:DQuote:
This means our old controller had us capped at 400 MB/s throughput and took away an extra 200 MB/s of un-tapped power from the Mtron units. However, knowing in my head my full intentions of achieving close to 1 GB/s throughput with 9 or 10 drives, I did some research on the Areca 1231ML as well. It turns out not too many people really have this kind of problem using current generation mechanical HDD's. Single consumer level raid controllers are not usually meant to be scaling at 800 to 1000 MB/s sustained throughput. But, the only information I could find on the 1231ML led me to believe it runs out of steam right around 800 MB/s.
3x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250410AS 250GB (Single Platter Drives)
Intel Matrix Raid, 128k Default Stripe
1st Raid 0 (Applications/OS/Games): 120GB (40gb from each disk)
2nd Raid 0 (Music/Movies/Downloads): Leftover Space
http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/6/...95/hdtune2.jpg
Aquacomputer Twinplex XT for MSI P35 southbridge. I guess that's the only one that'll fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpe^Diem
Oh and some new benches from my fileserver:
Adaptec 5405, 4x WD6400AAKS, 256KB stripe size, write cache enabled, full size raid:
http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde...ches/raid0.jpg
http://database.he-computer.de/Bilde.../raid0atto.jpg
Not bad at all ;)
Notice how the HDTach curve is a little weird, I think that's because the OS can't handle partitions over 2TB, that's why it splits at 2048GB <-> rest.
Raid 5 is currently building (that's what I'm gonna use, obviously), with 1,8TB it's just shy of the 2TB barrier, which means I can forget about the max. partition size issue.. for now ;)
for comparison: 5400 rpm, 60GB, 2.5" sata laptop drive
:eek:
If i'm buying a new HDD, with all this data you guys have collected, which is the best recommendation? I want the fastest HDD setup for games & OS.
the western digital 640s are looking pretty good
4 Samsung 32GB SSD's in Intel ICH9R RAID0.
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/7190/ssdsiz9.jpg
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1...ntelraiqi6.png
6 coming soon.
2 WD Raptor 150GB raid0/Seagate Barracuda 1000GB
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...aidstorage.jpg
Just 1 WD6400AAKS
2 x 640 Western Digital drives.
ICR9 - OS volume - 100 Gigs, extra space set as another partition.
128k stripe.
no changes to HDtune, default test.
I like that it just seems to get faster the more the test ran, not slower.
and look at that access time, thats faster then most 2 raptor set ups.
gonna test a few more ways to make this nice and fast.
That is indeed quite impressive! What OS is that btw?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
Vista 32
All drives run on my GA-P35-DS3L.(XP-Pro 32-bit)
Seagate 7200.10 (320GB)...OS drive:
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...DS3LSATA3g.jpg
WD 5000AAKS(500GB)..storage:
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...GBonDS3L-1.jpg
Seagate 7200.10 (250GB)..For my daughters' PC.. but tested on mine first: Surprisingly quick. :D
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...GBonDS3L-1.jpg
WD 6400AAKS(640GB)..storage. Tried it, and it's awesome as an OS drive. :D
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...AAKSonDS3L.jpg
HDTune:
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...0AAKS-DS3L.jpg
:cool: Tanker
Small Update. Write Caching enabled.
slightly slower, but higher burst rates.
personally, I dont care for burst rates.... it makes no difference if a hard drive can go super fast, for a second. I like constant performance, not occassional.
Yep that makes my 4 Raptor RAID0 runs look slow.
Everest has some different numbers though...what do you think of the Everest bench? Is it accurate?
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/6...testly2.th.jpg
Same as b4 but a 73GB LD to decrease seek time!
http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/dawnsmack.gif
that's stupid insane!!!!
is the wd 640's best bang for buck and performance if wanna raid0 ?
I would say they're the best bang/buck in RAID or by itself. I posted my 640 result(HDTach) a few posts up ^....but i reran, and got a very sizable increase-with no changes.:D Hey... increased performance(well....benchie) for free, i'll take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaim
New run:
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...AKSonDS3L2.jpg
:woot:
Can someone help me please?
I bought a WD360GD 36GB Raptor SATA1 (second-hand) and tried to run this HD Tach test. The results:
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/raptor8mb.jpg
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/raptor32mb.jpg
How can the burst and read be so low?:confused:
Compared to my Hitachi T7K500 320GB SATA2:
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/hdtach8m-seek.JPG
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/hdtach32m-seek.JPG
I also tried the other jumper placements:
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....hp?p_faqid=872
Tho, it all seems OK on win :shrug:
Because its an old SATA 1 drive burst is low. Because of the nature of the drive, transfer is rather low (single-platter, two-headed if I recall correctly). Your HDD is perfectly normal, it's strength lies with the low random access. So as a system disk it would probably still outperform a WD6400AAKS. ;)
jcool, thanks!
I'll admit to never trying a Raptor, but when i set up my 640AAKS as an OS drive(XP-Pro-32) i found it very snappy. I assume the Raptors quick access times would make opening folders and apps very quick, but i found installing programs with the 640 was amusing....it just ripped through installs... i'm assuming due to the high STR's.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by jcool
http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/sram.gif
Ludicrous speed! :rofl:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HB7tc9pVvYg
The WD6400AAKS is a great drive, no doubt. Currently I'm very impressed with the Velociraptor, it matches the Savvio 15k.1 easily for single-threaded desktop applications and can nearly keep up with simultaneous requests, too :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Tanker
Rubycon, wtf is that :shocked:
WTH is thet thing:eek:?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubycon
ram driveQuote:
Originally Posted by adpr_02
ARE YOU KIDDING ME. MY main HD is Ludicrous SLOW!!!! and it's 80GB WD Sata 3.0Gb .......
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k2...rking/80gb.jpg
1400GB ram drive ?Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
So, how do I get one of them "ram drives"?Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
can't explain th size. just the speed. plus the pic url is "http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/sram.gif"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudi
google "ram disk" and "gigabyte i-ram".Quote:
Originally Posted by adpr_02
When's the last time you defragged that drive? :eek: Here's what my WD 80GB(8MB) IDE got in march/06.Quote:
Originally Posted by computerking
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...ker/HDTune.jpg
I didn't I think from 1.5 year
Thought so too at first.. but a 1,4TB ramdrive is virtually impossible. So either it's an error or a fake...Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
Holy crap! What kind of a setup is that from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubycon
Ramsan? $200K
EDIT: $200K for the TMS 128GB version.
Also access times on that SS are 0.1ms, I would expect ~0.01ms for a DRAM based device. Maybe they are 4 arrays of ARECA's with NAND SSDs using volume manager? Anyways, Very Interesting
I'm surprised that minimum transfer rate is higher than the burst speed. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ
linux eee 900 @ xp pro
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7579/95485017ew9.jpg
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.