Printable View
I was surprised to see the Areca 1882i being used in a "review" at tweaktown.
Not much details or performance is found in the "review" but it does feature the LSI dual core RoC.
(same as the 9265 is using)
Really looking forward to a review and some more info on the new series of controllers.
I would love to try it soon! :)
yes im not sure what that review is...that is surely lacking some real info.
Very interested in getting one of these. Looking for the IX version though of course!
Anyone wanna buy a 1880 with 4gb cache? :)
maybe it a engineering IR bios :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
Can't wait to see what a SAS2208 with proper firmware can do.
EDIT: and having read through that Tweaktown article it seems it was by someone that maybe doesn't know how to properly use or tune benchmark tools to fit a given test scenario. i can tell just by looking at the numbers- because I know the controller and drives are capable of way more. i'm not even sure what he was testing exactly or what the point was, the "Final Conclusion" makes it seem he isn't really sure since its all over the road. TBH the whole article is just a mess of arbitrary information.
If someone wanted to actually analyze the merits of the 1882 then the review would include a given set of SSD's and spinning disks tested on an 1880, 1882, LSI 9260 and LSI 9265; and include not just RAID0 but RAID5 and RAID6 performance to highlight differences in parity computing muscle between SAS2108/SAS2208 generations of RoC as well as any differences between Areca and LSI firmware running on the same RoC. Also, tune the benchmark tools to appropriate settings for both the SSD's and spinning disks so that you're shining a light on the capabilities of the cards rather than on the shortcomings of your test methods. Additionally, hghlight any performance diffs with Fastpath on LSI cards if Areca isn't offering a similar feature on the 1882. And lastly, baseline a single drive and then chart how the card scales multiple drives, and then comparing that to the scaling abilities of other cards in the group.
Of course all that would require some work and analysis, but a decent reviewer would have no problem doing it. My gut is telling me performance bump from 1880 -> 1882 is going to be underwhelming and average out to < 10% among all tests, despite the DC RoC of the SAS2208, but I'd love to be wrong.
yes the real world gains are usually felt at high QD and parity raid sets.
With parity raid sets the dual core just shines. man its UBER
lets talk benching...that's what us wild eyed overclockers are looking for. Guarantee we will see some real results there with certain benches....its all about that DDR3 especially a IX version...*whistles*
Im betting they allow 6Gb DDR3 on this board :)
interesting testing ideas odditory, and you are spot on with your ideas. It would be very interesting with rebuild times in respect to parity sets, and parity set performance in general. From my experiences here that is where i noticed the largest differences.
now all we need is to find this reviewer with all this gear...lol i need an 1882 stat!
I'll buy it, but you won't like my offer :rofl:. I think I need a good card on a poor mans budget. I currently have an SR-2 and I think I am very limited on SATA II or something is wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
happy to report that Areca is supplying a card for review :) Feel free to suggest tests and whatnot. I am willing to try anything :)
How about trying if it holds array as it should?:) Disconnet two of RAID6 drives before booting, boot, go into ARC BIOS, just confirm the array is Incomplete/Degraded, shut down, reattach the drive and figure how often it looses the array completely ;)
Support 8GB DDR3 Ram?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Looks like only old Arecas have problems. Not many problems with Areca 1680 and 1880.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
But you are the nr.1 Areca hater :yepp:
The problems did occur on 1680 as well :)
So, my point still stands - and you have no say on Areca, as you never gave the results of the Areca tests I asked for several times. Once you obfuscated and didn't do the right test, the rest you ignored.
Never seen this happen on areca. Also it shouldn't be degraded if you boot up with drives missing after a power-cycle (the array should not auto-activate) so it shouldn't show any array during POST until you manually activate IE A normal bootup looks like:Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/areca_post1.png
And when even one drive is disconnected when the machine was powered down it looks like:
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/areca_post2.png
If you can't hook up the original disk back up you have to manually activate via:
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/areca_activate.png
Enabling the auto-activate incomplete raid set will not have this behavior but that is a crappy settings to enable (IMHO) as this can save you from degrading your array when moving to a new chassis or something and one of the drives doesn't have a good connection and IMHO is an awesome feature.
That being said just yesterday I dropped by the Areca U.S. headquarters/RMA (its 15 miles away from where I live) to drop off another 50 ARC-1222's that have started failing intermittently (which is now 170 in total I have RMA'd). The ARC-1222 does seem to have a reliability issue when used in an enterprise environment (running heavy disk I/O 24/7) after 1-1.5 years. None of their other cards appear to have this problem and I doubt most consumers where the array runs idle 95% of the time has this problem either.
I talked to Benjamin after giving him the RMA batch and he mentioned the only difference with the ARC-1882 is that it has the dual core ROC instead of single-core. Curious on what advantages that gives for parity raid6 writes as currently my ARC-1880x seems to max out at around 1GB/sec write in raid6.
I have never seen areca no longer detect the array at all after you activate the array or the disks are hooked back up and we have over 600 servers with areca controllers.
Go to 2cpu.com -> Forums -> StorageQuote:
Originally Posted by Sandon
You'll see a hell of a lot of it.
What it should look like is, unfortunately, not what it does look like when we had Areca issues :( If I only had issues with one controller, I'd scratch it as a faulty one. If I had issues with multiple Areca controllers on the same system, I'd scratch it on a faulty system, or incompatible system.
However, not only does it happen with multiple Areca controllers on multiple (completely unrelated in any component, even the Areca controller) systems, it also happens to other people. That tells me Areca doesn't hold disks as it should.
I'm done using Areca for over a year now, but I keep pointing people at the issues, because there were many and I doubt it changed with the latest line.
certainly not raid 6, but here are some raid 5 write numbers with the same ROC, but of course this could be different with arecas implementation as compared to LSI.Quote:
Curious on what advantages that gives for parity raid6 writes
http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/...s-ssd-testing/
The only time I have ever had issues with the array disappearing and/or showing multiple raid sets (all inaccessible) is when at one point the volume states became a *FAILED* state which would mean 3 disks failing on raid6 or 2 disks failing on raid5, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Also with the newer firmware (not necesarily cards) the cards are much better about detecting this situation and automatically reviving the failed volume set. I actually couldn't get it to fault the array if I had the disks hooked back in as it kept reviving the failed array. I was purposely doing this as I was writing up a wiki article for areca raid recovery (if say the wrong disk was pulled) for the company I work for.
Also Areca is one of the easier raid controllers to recover the array by re-creating it with the no init/rescue option. I myself have recovered a raid5 array with no corruption when the wrong disk was pulled when it was degraded.
The thing is. I have used areca, 3ware, and LSI and I have seen far more arrays lost to quirks on 3ware/LSI than I have on areca (we are talking 100+ machines of each brand).
Biggest problem I have had with areca is the ARC-1222's as I mentioned.
The problem with that is that we don't see people reporting issues with LSI - so we an't just go imagining how much it fails. We do see failures with Areca (myself much more than with LSI).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandon
This is pure what-you-see-is-all-you-can-base-your-opinion-on.
You could be right - but the big bulk of complaints at RAID controllers are on Areca. That's all I need to see to avoid them.
Bleh it does annoy me that they came out with this new version like a week after I bought my ARC-1880x.
Well the 1880 has been out for more than a year - how long should they have waited on you? :)
The 1880 is still a very viable card, man it is great imo!
There are really only a few key differences...the dual core ROC being a key one. Definitely going to help with parity sets with SSDs.
Another big one is the DDR3....running at 1333 and 1gb on the 1882x. the 1880 has 512 mb of DDR2-800.
going to be a bit of a challenge to draw straight comparisons from the 1880 and the 1882, as the 1880 is such a cache whore, it caches everything! no real way to disable caching totally imo...and with the 1880IX having a 4gb stick that is a bit unbalanced.
What is parity sets with SSD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
sorry guess iu should phrase that differently... a raid set with parity (ex. R5, R6 etc)
Parity requires more overhead on your card, so more "grunt" with your ROC helps big time with parity.
No numbers up yet? Is something wrong!?
Maybe I share numbers faster than you?... You better hurry :D
You owe us some basic numbers that we asked ages ago, I am not holding my breath for you to give us any useful benchmarks, but rather just marketing ones ;)
Ages ago? he just got this raid card. FYI only hold your breath if your under water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Not for 1882 but for 1680 and 1880 :) Instead of showing some useful copy, he clipped a typical Explorer copy of an ISO file to boast with 2GB/s cache speeds :)
me or nizzen? i dont recall doing that one :)
Nizzen.
Well my areca contact asked me kind of out of the blue if I wanted to evaluate the new 1882 controller. More than anything I am interested in compatibility with the LSI SAS expander in the supermicro chassis. I know the 1880 did not fail well with this expander (at least the 3G version). Definitely interested to test the card to see if there is any difference compatibility wise with the expander. We currently don't use them in those systems but we could very well be doing it in the future.
I am having a problem atm. Will seek resolution :)
I should hopefully be getting an ARC-1882i pretty soon here as well. I can let people know the results I see as I will be mainly testing raid6 hooked up to 24x3TB Hitachi ultra stars via supermicro chasis SAS expander. I am most interested in how rebuild speed compares to the 1880i. I know the 1880i maxes out at around 1 GB/sec write speed in raid6 so I am definitely curious if this one can do better.
Excellent Sandon, once i get up and running we can compare notes :)
I was told they were out of ARC-1882's so that delayed things for me a bit. They finally did ship one today though. I was surprised to see it came from Baldwin Park and not Taiwan though. I should have it by tomorrow.
Finally got the ARC-1882i. Took some shots with the ARC-1882i, ARC-1880i, and ARC-1222 for comparison. Pics were taken with my cell phone's camera so not very good quality. With this model their manual actually has a color front-page and is a lot thinner compared to the past. Probably not going to test things to much until next week though:
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/arc1882/IMG_0133-small.JPG
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/arc1882/IMG_0134-small.JPG
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/arc1882/IMG_0135-small.JPG
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/arc1882/IMG_0136-small.JPG
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/arc1882/IMG_0137-small.JPG
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/arc1882/IMG_0138-small.JPG
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/arc1882/IMG_0139-small.JPG
i will be pleased to see your results! I am hindered a bit by the review angle, gotta wait until i am done there to disclose my stuff. What type of drives are you using?
Alrighty then! I did get a fix for the issue, which involves probably the worst motherboard on the planet... the one that i use. BIG thanks to Areca for addressing that in record time! Took another manufacturer like 8 months to fix the Option ROM issue with the EVGA (and a few other) boards. The problem being an abnormally small amount of option ROM present on the board. I swear to god that x79 needs to DROP NOW NOW NOW i need a new board!
Any-who, KUDOS to Areca for their awesome quick response :)
My initial tests will be with the supermicro 24 disk JBOD enclosure with :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty 3GB SAS expander and 1.5 TB seagate disks which the 1880 didn't work with. After that I will probably be testing with 24x3TB hitachi ultrastars and a 6GB expander. I wont be doing any SSD testing as we don't really have any machines using SSD's where I work except my own server which only has four.
I should be able to atleast see if the ~1-1.1GB write bottleneck on raid6 still exists with this newer controller like on the ARC-1880 which I see max out at around 1.7-1.8 GB/sec read and 1.1 GB/sec write in raid6.
I am most interested in raid6 rebuild times and read/write performance.
That will be very beneficial for purposes of really seeing the differences in teh ROC. a big suspicion of mine is that is where you will see the differences :) especially rebuilds!
Well I am impressed. The 1880 didn't work well at all with this 3G SAS expander in the supermicro chasis but so far I have seen none of the issues I was before. I still need to try doing really heavy I/O while it is rebuilding but it only took 8.5 hours to initialize a 33TB (24x1.5 TB in raid6) array which is not bad. Not 100% sure the dual-linking is working or not. Both cables are hooked up but not sure how to verify that in the areca BIOS or CLI. I have a rebuild going right now with no load to see how long that takes but I am guessing its gonna be under 14 hours going by how fast the first volume rebuilt. Not bad considering these are pretty slow old cheap seagate 1.5TB AS drives. Definitely curious to see how performance is with the 3TB 6GB ultrastars with the 6g expander.
Areca 1882ix-24 picture :D
http://i413.photobucket.com/albums/p...-1882ix-24.jpg
Support only 4gb cache :( ... :p
Datasheet and Manual is available @ Areca.com now :up:
Ok so like the 1880 the 3G sas expander was no good. Started getting timeouts about 90% into the rebuild with no I/O load and eventually failed volume with heavy I/O while rebuild.
I finally got to get the controller hooked up to 24x3TB hitachi ultrastar 6GB SAS. So far so good. It initialized the 80GB volume in under 30 seconds. I believe the controller is dual linking from the 8x6GB connections to the enclosure under sas chip. It appears to be initializing at 1% every 4 minutes for 24x3TB.
Some images of archttp:
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/archttp188...82_1-small.png
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/archttp188...82_2-small.png
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/archttp188...82_3-small.png
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/archttp188...82_4-small.png
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/archttp188...82_5-small.png
Will have some basic benchmarks tomorrow.
Hello Everyone,
Here are the results I got from the ARC-1882X card.
RAID 0 , Single MiniSAS Cable
Attachment 121481
RAID 5, Single MiniSAS Cable
Attachment 121482
RAID 6, Single MiniSAS Cable
Attachment 121483
System Used:
Areca ARC-1882X - PCB Ver.B / Default 1GB Cache / FW: 1.49 / Bios: 1.22
Supermicro X8DAH+-F / Intel Xeon E5506 2.13 Ghz Processor (x1) / 4GB DDR3
Windows 2003 64Bit / Using 6.20.00.21 SCSIPORT Driver
8x Seagate 3TB 6Gb/s SAS Constellation ES Drives - Model: ST33000650SS
Areca ARC-8026-12 6G Expander
AJA System Test / Single Volume / Frame Size: 1920x1080 10bit RGB / File Size: 16.0GB
Sandon...Your going to run the tests using the new dual core 6G card with a 3G SAS expander? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? :shrug: You should have told Ben to provide you with the 6G expander as well. :yepp:
Damm thats fastQuote:
Originally Posted by z3mr2
My arc 1222 only does 338Mb/s read on a 8*2tb raid 6
My arc 1680ix 2Gb only does 290MB/s no sure why its slower but the write and radom read writes are better.
Here's some pics of the ARC-1882X card.
With Full Height Bracket
Attachment 121510
With Low Profile Bracket
Attachment 121511
Full Contents
Attachment 121512
Would have had this yesterday but a network maintenance went south and I ended up spending almost my entire day on that and some other stuff. I only tested first with the 3GB expander as I was waiting on hardware. Anyway here is the array initialization times and rebuild times for 24x3TB (6GB expander):
Init:
Rebuild:Code:2011-10-20 12:47:06 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Complete Init 008:19:44
2011-10-20 05:17:16 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Start Initialize
2011-10-20 05:17:16 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Complete Init 000:00:27
2011-10-20 05:16:59 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Create Volume
2011-10-20 05:16:49 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Start Initialize
2011-10-20 05:16:47 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Create Volume
2011-10-20 05:16:27 Raid Set # 000 Create RaidSet
Code:2011-10-21 02:52:00 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Complete Rebuild 013:30:25
2011-10-20 13:21:35 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Start Rebuilding
2011-10-20 13:21:35 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Complete Rebuild 000:00:57
2011-10-20 13:20:37 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Start Rebuilding
2011-10-20 13:20:35 Raid Set # 000 Rebuild RaidSet
2011-10-20 13:20:35 Enc#2 Slot 12 Device Inserted
2011-10-20 13:20:02 Enc#2 Slot 12 Device Removed
2011-10-20 13:20:02 Raid Set # 000 RaidSet Degraded
2011-10-20 13:20:02 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Volume Degraded
2011-10-20 13:20:02 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Volume Degraded
Here are write tests (direct I/O vs non direct I/O). Going through the memory buffer (none direct I/O) usually is significantly slower at these speeds but I tested it because odly the %util on the drives was not near 100%. CPU usage did hit 100% at times from dd so it might be lowering results again. When using iostat it shows (5 second average):
DD:
Direct I/O
Non Direct I/OCode:raid7131:~# dd bs=1M count=60000 oflag=direct if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb
60000+0 records in
60000+0 records out
62914560000 bytes (63 GB) copied, 41.9692 s, 1.5 GB/s
Code:raid7131:~# dd bs=1M count=60000 if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb
60000+0 records in
60000+0 records out
62914560000 bytes (63 GB) copied, 40.5699 s, 1.6 GB/s
for direct i/O iostat:
1469 MB/sec at 66.51 %utilCode:avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
0.00 0.00 4.92 7.62 0.00 87.46
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 2938.12 0.00 1469.06 1024.00 1.05 0.36 0.23 66.51
Without direct I/O:
So 1898 MB/sec @ 100 %util.Code:avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
0.03 0.00 25.52 2.27 0.00 72.17
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sdb 0.00 479820.40 0.00 6073.60 0.00 1898.22 640.08 131.72 21.68 0.16 100.00
I wanna say the card probably is topping out closer to 1.9 GB/sec write speeds its just hard to find processes that will write that fast. My ARC-1880x seemed to top out at around 970 megabytes/sec (iostat) so this appears almost twice as fast.
I also tried running two DD's (with direct I/O0 in parallel one writing to a little later in the driveand was able to see write speeds over 1800MB/sec:
(these ran in parallell)Code:raid7131:~# dd bs=1M count=40000 oflag=direct if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb
40000+0 records in
40000+0 records out
41943040000 bytes (42 GB) copied, 44.988 s, 932 MB/s
raid7131:~# dd bs=1M skip=80000 count=40000 oflag=direct if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb
40000+0 records in
40000+0 records out
41943040000 bytes (42 GB) copied, 44.8947 s, 934 MB/s
Reads with dd:Code:avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
0.07 0.00 5.25 7.29 0.00 87.38
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 3662.08 0.00 1831.04 1024.00 2.83 0.77 0.27 99.88
iostat:Code:raid7131:~# dd count=60000 bs=1M iflag=direct if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null
60000+0 records in
60000+0 records out
62914560000 bytes (63 GB) copied, 32.8882 s, 1.9 GB/s
Doing the same thing parallel reads with dd I saw slightly higher reads and %util at 100:Code:avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
0.05 0.00 2.47 10.03 0.00 87.45
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sdb 0.00 0.00 3714.37 0.00 1857.19 0.00 1024.00 1.35 0.37 0.24 87.35
dd in parallel:Code:avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
0.05 0.00 3.22 9.29 0.00 87.44
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sdb 0.00 0.00 3781.60 0.00 1890.80 0.00 1024.00 3.15 0.83 0.26 100.08
Random seeks per second 128 threads:Code:raid7131:~# dd bs=1M count=40000 iflag=direct if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null
40000+0 records in
40000+0 records out
41943040000 bytes (42 GB) copied, 43.3944 s, 967 MB/s
raid7131:~# dd bs=1M skip=40000 count=40000 iflag=direct if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null
40000+0 records in
40000+0 records out
41943040000 bytes (42 GB) copied, 43.4524 s, 965 MB/s
A 20x2TB array I have on a ARC-1280 with no expander gets around 2100/sec so this is not bad. The expander should add a bit of latency.Code:raid7131:~# ./seeker_baryluk /dev/sdb 128
Seeker v3.0, 2009-06-17, http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html
Benchmarking /dev/sdb [128749975552 blocks, 65919987482624 bytes, 61392 GB, 62866199 MB, 65919 GiB, 65919987 MiB]
[512 logical sector size, 512 physical sector size]
[128 threads]
Wait 30 seconds..............................
Results: 2521 seeks/second, 0.397 ms random access time (686739552 < offsets < 65919562706031)
So It looks like now the card is maxing out at around 1.9 gigabytes/sec (both read and write). I am curious if I am hitting some bus limitation that would prevent me from going faster. The card does say 8x5GB during the boot.
Motherboard testing with is a Supermicro X8DT6.
Could you be on x8 Gen1 or x4 Gen2 PCI-e? You'd top before 1.9GB/s though.
Could you test a copy from/to that array? (file copy or dd copy, not just read/write)
Like I said during boot the card says 8/5G (not x8/2.5G which it does if PCI-E 1.0) so its definitely doing x8 PCI-E lanes. Here is from my home machine (1880x) which also shows the same speed:
http://box.houkouonchi.jp/areca_post/arc_post3.png
A dd copy (from sda (80GB boot slice) to sdb) was 880 megabytes/sec. Here is how the array is setup:
I did run into one problem. Slot 20 got a timeout (causing the card to be reset by the driver) and the card reset itself twice and eventually failed the disk:Code:raid7131:~# cli64 vsf info
# Name Raid Name Level Capacity Ch/Id/Lun State
===============================================================================
1 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Raid Set # 000 Raid6 80.0GB 00/00/00 Degraded
2 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Raid Set # 000 Raid6 65920.0GB 00/00/01 Rebuilding(0.2%)
===============================================================================
GuiErrMsg<0x00>: Success.
event history (top entries are uptime since card boot since card was rebooted while machine was running):Code:raid7131:~# dmesg | grep -i reset
[ 5744.818726] arcmsr1: executing eh bus reset .....num_resets = 0, num_aborts = 67
[ 5744.826370] arcmsr1: executing hw bus reset .....
[ 5859.967601] arcmsr: scsi bus reset eh returns with success
[ 6084.888519] arcmsr1: executing eh bus reset .....num_resets = 1, num_aborts = 135
[ 6084.896250] arcmsr1: executing hw bus reset .....
[ 6200.257875] arcmsr: scsi bus reset eh returns with success
The problem I had with the 3G SAS expander was drives randomly getting timeouts and eventually failing (until the array became a failed state). I am hoping that in this case it was just a bad drive but if that was the case it surprises me it survived through an entire rebuild and init, it didnt start having trouble until I did rebuild + extremely heavy disk I/O that I saw the problem. My disk I/O is so extreme that the 80 GB boot slice took over 60 minutes (vs 60 seconds) to rebuild compared to before.Code:raid7131:~# cli64 event info
Date-Time Device Event Type Elapsed Time Errors
===============================================================================
3712 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Start Rebuilding
3712 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Complete Rebuild 000:59:51
121 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Start Rebuilding
118 000:000002F70000 Restart Rebuild LBA Point
117 H/W MONITOR Raid Powered On
59 E2 Fan3 Removed
59 E2 Fan2 Removed
59 E2 Fan1 Removed
4294967266 Enc#2 Slot 20 Device Failed
4294967265 Raid Set # 000 RaidSet Degraded
4294967265 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Volume Degraded
4294967265 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Volume Degraded
4294967245 Enc#2 Slot 20 Time Out Error
4294967020 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Start Rebuilding
4294967017 000:000000D77200 Restart Rebuild LBA Point
4294967016 H/W MONITOR Raid Powered On
4294966958 E2 Fan3 Removed
4294966958 E2 Fan2 Removed
4294966958 E2 Fan1 Removed
2011-10-22 04:31:49 Enc#2 Slot 20 Time Out Error
2011-10-22 04:22:29 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Start Rebuilding
2011-10-22 04:22:27 Raid Set # 000 Rebuild RaidSet
2011-10-22 04:22:26 Enc#2 Slot 01 Device Inserted
2011-10-22 04:21:53 Enc#2 Slot 01 Device Removed
2011-10-22 04:21:53 Raid Set # 000 RaidSet Degraded
2011-10-22 04:21:53 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Volume Degraded
2011-10-22 04:21:53 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Volume Degraded
2011-10-22 02:42:51 H/W MONITOR Raid Powered On
Hoping its just a bad disk.
Nice copy speeds there - those are with degraded arrays??? Even with regular RAID6 that is quite awesome.
If you have time to set up RAID0 arrays, I gather it might be able to do better. Thanks for doing the test that Nizzen avoided doing :)
LOL @ another Areca disk f*** up :)
Nah, it is normal raid6 as I tested the copy speed before I just didn't publish it. Anyway so far no more timeouts or drive failures so I am guessing it was just a bad disk.
Builded a raid-6 array with 8x Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000, and it init in 07:11:58.
Comparing to you're 24x3tb @ 008:19:44, the Areca 1880 is SLOW :D
The Areca 1882s is ready for shipping to everyone who wants. My supplyer atleast said so :p
Just received the ARC-1882LP card, some pics for your viewing pleasure..:yepp:
Attachment 121720
Attachment 121721
So far, ARC-1882i, ARC-1882LP and ARC-1882X are allready in stock and shipping.
The ARC-1882ix-12/16/24 cards still won't arrive until another week..:shakes:
By the way, the new ARC-1882 cards will require a new BBU (ARC-6120-T121).
I can verify the BBU was indeed not working but is now that I swapped it with a 1880 to do some testing and well I gotta say that is pretty damn annoying. All their other models took the same BBU.Quote:
Originally Posted by z3mr2
The new BBU may look the same, but looks can be deceiving....Use the ARC-6120-T121 for the new ARC-1882 series. I've been told that the next firmware release will allow for this model to be used with previous card versions and will eventually be only one BBU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandon
Attachment 121730
Areca:
"Cache modules for the ARC-1882 are not available at the moment." :(
Areca has stopped all shipments of ARC-6120-T121 because of a potential problem that might occur, no real info was released about the issue they found. Will post once hear anything. :up:
Areca has delayed shipments of ARC-1882ix-12/16/24 cards....seems to still be fixing some bugs...(Don't know if it's a good thing or bad) They are pushing back the release until late November now.
Do we know when places like newegg are going to get cards like the ARC-1882i in or are they waiting for the entire line to release. Also where are you guys picking up the ARC-6120-T121 battery unit at?
Where are yall finding these for sale?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroibis
Just do a quick search...here's what I came up with. They all have the cards in stock right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrobass24
PC-Pitstop
GamePC
Tekram
NWIT
The ARC-6120-T121 has been recalled and currently working on a fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroibis
Just received our first ARC-1882ix-24 to test. The fan definitely has an enterprise feel now, unlike the cheap fan Areca has used in the past.
Having trouble posting pics...I get an error labeled as "undefined" and unable to load. :confused:
Tekram stated that they will have a special shipment of ARC-1882ix-12 and ARC-1882ix-16 ports arrive Friday if anyone is interested. Have not checked with other online sources yet.:D
excellent glad to hear that these are htting retail :) Just finished with the 1882x review and it is sent to editor, i should be dropping a link to it tomorrow :)
on to the IX version, even though i am awaiting availability for the 4gb chip, *as of my last news from areca* there isnt a 4gb ecc ddr3 chip available yet. reminiscent of the 1880IX DRAM delay once it was out...
sounds great, looking forward to the review. :up:
Nice test Computurd ;)
Link to TheSSDReview
I see that you are struggling with bandwidth per controller, I am not able to get more than ~2.nGB/s for reads and that surprised me a bit. (goes for both the 1880 and the 9265)
I had thought that these controllers would scale a bit going from 4 to 6 drives (SF22xx) but that does not seem to be the case. (sequentially)
^^ so to get the ~2.n GB/s - what is the optimum number of SF22xx drives for these controllers? Just 2?
edit - Paul - very nice review, well done!
I've got the results from my testing on both the 1880 and the 9265.
I never posted them as I was sure there was something I was missing (changed settings) but in essence they mirror each other on sequential IO and Paul's review confirms my findings.
(the 9265 is stronger on random iops especially outside the cache)
2 drives on the 1880/4G essentially scores the same as 4 drives in most benchmarks.
yes the 1880/2 do not go too far over 2 gb/s. the 9265 i did get up over 2.7 so that was good. the arecas are more tuned for low QD performance for sure, while the LSI cards are exactly the opposite.
with the 1880 yes with the right drives 2 is as good as 4 in some cases. especially if you have the 4G. the Arecas cache like crazy, even with datasets larger than the cache, they will partially cache, or something. very hard to impossible to run things out of cache on the arecas with big cache.
thanks for the comments guys, that review was a long time coming. Had some issues with teh classified and its FAIL option ROM. same issue as with teh 9265, but areca issued a fix pretty quick. Then the M4 compatibility issue held me up a bit, really wanted to use them. As you can see in one of the pics the big stack of M4 is just setting there. Crucial and Micron (both sides of their company) have been in contact with me re a fix. it is on their end for sure.
so a few delays, but i think the 1882 will only get better with future firmware. cant wait to test a IX with 4 gb DDR3 :)
After seeing Computurds review, now I got the SSD bug and deciding on which SSD drives to get. It used to be that SLC and MLC was a way to pick SSD drives for your specific need. However, I'm finding that's no longer the case since manufacturers aren't listing it the specs anymore. Am I wrong to assume this?
So far I'm eyeing the Corsair Force GT, OWC Mercury Extreme or Crucial M4's to use with the ARC-1882ix card
Computurd....Kudos on the review.!:up:
The M4 issue is nearing resolution. Seems LSI has issued a fix, now it needs to trickle down to us. Then we can test and see scaling. My initial gut feeling is M4 all the way :)
FYI, the ARC-6120-T121 BBU for the ARC-1882 series is now available. According to Tekram, they are now shipping the new BBU'sQuote:
Originally Posted by z3mr2
Hi Guys,
Just joined the forum after reading some of the comments about the areca 1882 card. I'm new to this, so I apologize if I'm missing something basic.
I have a 1882x that I purchased back in late October with a bbu (I know I read that the bbu was recalled, but I'm not sure if that is what is causing my troubles), it is connected to a ASUS maximus iv extreme-z motherboard (with EFI bios) with a core i7 2600k processor and I am using a single 26 foot mini-sas cable to connect the card to my sans-digital eliteStor 4u 24-bay sas 6g/sata 6g enclosure (the model number is ES224X6+B and I believe it has an LSI 6G expander in it). I have 12 hitachi 3tb ultrastars populating the first 12 bays on the enclosure in a raid 6 write-back config and 8 wd-re4 green 2tb hdd in the last 8 bays of the enclosure in a raid 5 write-back config. The first issue I am having is that it is taking about 4.5 days for the Hitachi volume to initialize (I am using foreground initialization) and after it completed initialization I keep getting constant timeout errors on the volume (the second issue)(I haven't initialized the wd volume yet), I had to rebuild one drive (in bay 12) of the Hitachi volume and again it is taking about 4 days to rebuild.
Originally I thought the time for initialization and rebuild was normal for such a large volume but after the constant timeout errors and reading about how long the initialization is suppose to take I'm not sure what's going on with my setup, any help in pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated; thanks in advance.
That kind of sounds like a incompatability with the SAS expander. Find out what model of SAS expander for sure. I have tested the 1880 and 1882 with the 6 GB LSI expander and I know it works for sure (it doesn't with the 3 GB one).
Did you change the percentage of background rebuild percentage so it is 80% instead of the default 20%? That will affect the speed of a background init by a large amount. I have found the ARC-1882 is very fast though. With 80% setting I have seen the ARC-1222 init 24x3TB ultrastar 7200 RPM hitachi disks in just over 8 hours (very fast) but it was a foreground init which makes it go quite a bit faster.
For example my ARC-1880 with 30x3TB 5700 RPM coolspin hitachi's did a *background* init in:
2011-09-04 05:21:17 DATA 2 VOLUME Complete Init 040:39:42
The rebuild was quite a bit faster though and took about 25 hours. Granted this is a *huge* 90TB array.
Hey Sandon, thanks for the quick reply- that is a massive couple of volumes you've got; under the information listed on the areca webgui the sans-digital enclosure is using an LSI expander and it is a 6GB version as the whole enclosure is capable of 6GB- I don't know the specific model of the LSI expander, but I will find out tomorrow and update; as for the initialization, I did not change the background percentage- I actually did a foreground initialization and that took 4.5 days. If there is a percentage setting to change for foreground initialization too then I did not set that past the default, so that could be the problem there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandon
I'm waiting for the rebuild to finish before I mess around with it anymore, but one other thing I wanted to mention is that I kept getting timeout errors when I was transferring to the hitachi volume, after foreground initialization, when I was in the regular windows environment transferring at about 150 MB/s (which is the max transfer rate I have been able to get with this setup- my source volume for the transfer was the wd-re4 green hard drives volume also in the same enclosure so I assumed that slowed down the transfer rate, my OS hard drives are two Corsair Force GT 120GB SSDs in Raid 0 on the motherboard intel 6GB controller), but I did not get the same issue (timeouts) when I went into safe mode for windows and the transfer topped out at about 50 MB/s- obviously it took quite a bit more time for the transfer to finish though. I am running windows 7 ultimate x64 and it is a clean install I did just two days ago with nothing but drivers, windows updates, eset smart security, chrome, and firefox installed since then.
Updated info: spoke with Sansdigital and they said it is not a specific model expander since it is built for their application, but it has been tested with the 1882x and confirmed that it is compatible.
I have verified compatability of the LSI 6GB sas expander used in a supermicro chasis. Here is what hw info on the cli lists:
Code:# cli64 hw info
The Hardware Monitor Information
=====================================================
[Controller H/W Monitor]
CPU Temperature : 55 C
Controller Temp. : 39 C
CPU Fan : 3350 RPM
12V : 12.099 V
5V : 5.107 V
3.3V : 3.376 V
IO Voltage +1.8V : 1.856 V
DDR3 +1.5V : 1.552 V
CPU VCore +1.0V : 1.056 V
Analog +1.0V : 1.040 V
DDR3 +0.75V : 0.768 V
Battery Status : Not Installed
[Enclosure#1 : ARECA SAS RAID AdapterV1.0]
[Enclosure#2 : LSI CORPSAS2X36 0717]
5V : 5.030 V
12V : 11.920 V
Fan1 : 0 RPM
Fan2 : 0 RPM
Fan3 : 0 RPM
JBOD_Fan1 : 0 RPM
JBOD_Fan2 : 0 RPM
Power Supply 1 : FAILED
Power Supply 2 : FAILED
Temperature : 40 C
=====================================================
GuiErrMsg<0x00>: Success.
Code:# cli64 vsf info
# Name Raid Name Level Capacity Ch/Id/Lun State
===============================================================================
1 ARC-1882-VOL#000 Raid Set # 000 Raid6 80.0GB 00/00/00 Normal
2 ARC-1882-VOL#001 Raid Set # 000 Raid6 65920.0GB 00/00/01 Normal
===============================================================================
GuiErrMsg<0x00>: Success.
This setup only showed a timeout error once and the disk later failed and has been fine sine then. It shows read/write speeds just around 2 gigabytes/sec. What your event history look like and hw info? I am thinking the expander is not really compatible or something.Code:# cli64 disk info
# Enc# Slot# ModelName Capacity Usage
===============================================================================
1 01 Slot#1 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
2 01 Slot#2 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
3 01 Slot#3 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
4 01 Slot#4 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
5 01 Slot#5 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
6 01 Slot#6 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
7 01 Slot#7 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
8 01 Slot#8 N.A. 0.0GB N.A.
9 02 Slot 01 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
10 02 Slot 02 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
11 02 Slot 03 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
12 02 Slot 04 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
13 02 Slot 05 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
14 02 Slot 06 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
15 02 Slot 07 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
16 02 Slot 08 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
17 02 Slot 09 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
18 02 Slot 10 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
19 02 Slot 11 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
20 02 Slot 12 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
21 02 Slot 13 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
22 02 Slot 14 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
23 02 Slot 15 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
24 02 Slot 16 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
25 02 Slot 17 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
26 02 Slot 18 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
27 02 Slot 19 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
28 02 Slot 20 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
29 02 Slot 21 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
30 02 Slot 22 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
31 02 Slot 23 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
32 02 Slot 24 Hitachi HUA723030ALA640 3000.6GB Raid Set # 000
===============================================================================
GuiErrMsg<0x00>: Success.
Finally figured it out with some help from Areca tech support- turns out it was the min-sas cable I was using; thanks for confirming that it was not the expander. I'm hitting 2.2GB/s read and almost 1000MB/s write now with the hitachi drives in a raid6 config. according to the ATTO disk benchmark I ran this weekend.
I have an 1882ix-12 on the way and want to get the 4GB module for it. Are there any known modules that will work besides the one specially designed for it?
No, but this is xtremesystems! Who cares about the prize :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
Ok I know, it sux!
I hear ya. I went the hard route when I got my 1880 and tried to save a few bucks and it cost me more in aggravation than anything else. I picked the controller up on NewEgg open box for $600 and got the battery for $92 so I shouldn't be complaining about the price of the memory :)
$600 for 1880-8i or 1880-12/16?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
I got an 1882ix-12 with the ARC-6120-T121 Battery for a little under $700 :)
i have one with a 4gb module if anyone is interested :)
Which model do you have and why are you selling it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
1880IX-12 and the reason i am selling it is because i have 7 different 6GB/s RAID controllers...i dont use them very much LOL. only use one at any given time for my personal use. This is the last one i actually purchased myself, and i dont need it :)
Can you send to Norway :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
I need one more Areca IX :)
I have the same controller I'll be selling soon as well. Just upgraded to the 1882-12. 2 things I noticed immediately: 1. It takes less than half as long to initialize as the 1880. A few times it has initialized in 15-16 seconds. The best I've even seen with the 1880 is close to 40 seconds. 2. The beeper has finally been muted to an acceptable level. I'm noticing it runs considerably warmer than the 1880 did. I have a fan directly under the controller and the 1880 operated at 45-48C. The 1882 is sitting at 56-58C and that's with a fan blowing on it. Do you think it would help to remount the heatsink or is that a normal temp because of the dual core cpu?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
the 1882 ROC is a higher clocked LSI ROC. so yes, it runs hotter. need to put a different HS on there, preferably copper. and get a small fan on it. you can buy some good copper hs and fan combos that are very slim.
What would you recommend. I have an 80mm fan directly under the 1882 but it's still operating at nearly 65C and it bothers me to see it that high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
yes they are good up to 100C according to Areca. I actually ran mine with water, and that gives astounding results. there are some other 'cool' (ugh) solutions: heres the best imo:
http://www.frozencpu.com/products/55...?tl=g40c16s500
I personally have a few of these around, and they are very sexy. i do have small fans that are around as well, and use them in conjunction with digital thermal probes and run them on a temp curve with a T-Balancer. so its good to have extraneous gear, but withstanding that:
http://www.frozencpu.com/products/67...?tl=g40c16s500
http://www.frozencpu.com/products/14...0c16s500#blank
http://www.frozencpu.com/products/13...?tl=g40c16s501
seriously, its good to have these laying around. i run aftermarket cooling on all my gear, it is just that much better, in the 40C range better in some cases.
idle with air:
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...1/ROCtemps.png
under load, after being watercooled, ROFL!!
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...e1/roflMAO.png
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...3-09-14380.jpg
86c on water? thats bad. maybe that temperature is on that passive heatsink? what psu do you have?
nope that was idle with air cooling. the second pic is under load with water, i will clarify :)
a sidestory btw, they had big issues with the original stock heatsinks on that card, later they swapped to a full board HS that is on all Areca IX models.
100C Ouch! Will the Enzotech fit without modification. Has anyone removed the heatsink from an 1882? Does it come off easily? Does the 1882 use 2 heatsinks like the 1880?
no mods, other than the connection hardware, i used bolt and nut approach. I did have to modify some plastic washers to fit around a component that was right next to the hole so that they wouldnt interfere. the heatsink itself though is cherry :) 1882 if it is IX uses 2. only IX version have 2, one is the expander. the expandeer doesnt need extra cooling as much, but if yer already there :)
Computurd, have you seen performance improvement due to water cooling this card, or is it just for expanding it's usable life ?
Does the 1882ix-12 heatsink come off easily? What's the chance of damaging the cpu?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd