[First Look] DFI 680i LT NF-680i LT SLI (56K Warning~~~)

[C-N]

there is a way to get more performance out of you raid arrays....I have been doing this:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=66

C-N I am using 16K stripe and 4K cluster

Ahhhhh nuts my array has taken a dump.

I changed the settings rebooted & run HD Tack to find I was down to 58 average read so I changed them back again & its still the same.

I have played with Hitachi's ftool & installed COD2 & office since the last time I run HD Tack so I guess I must have done something in ftool without knowing it & I will just have to have another play later to try to fix it.

I will keep you posted on what happens when I try your method once I work out where my speed has gone.

======

This ones for anyone (help a RAID noob)

I cant get my rig to install XP on my array if I prepare the drive with Partition magic 8 & set the cluster size to anything other than XP's default 4kb.

It will allow me to boot from the XP cd install/copy the RAID driver copy all the files to hard disk after choosing leave file system intact but when it reboots it cant find the array can anyone point me in the right direction to allow me to install XP on my array with a different cluster size.

[C-N]

Right I got it worked out it was the 2 x 250gb storage drives I plugged into the nvidia controllers SATA 3 & 4 sockets that slowed the whole controller down. I moved the 2 x 250's to the SIL controller & its back to normal.

I then tried your earlier suggestion & although my Average read & access stayed the same my burst has gone through the roof.

Every little helps thanks buddy

[Grinch]

np...ô¿ô

[Grinch]

I forgot about atto here is what I am getting:

[owcraftsman]

Glad to see the dialog go this direction. wish i was testing my 680i lt still waiting for FedX to settle the claim on the 8800GTS & Corsair Ram that got lost in shipment.
So I offer this up for comparison. I realize it's 2 different formats but some how I was expecting better performance out of the new board.

[AlphaHeX]

There is sth wrong with the RAID controller on that mobo. I have 2x120GB SATA in port 1 and 2 (RAID0, 32kb stripe) and 2x160GB SATA II in port 3 and 4 (RAID0, 32kb stripe). I'm running Windows XP 64. The trick to turn off read caching and command queuing is decreasing my performace Moreover my SATA II drives are set by Windows to be 1st generation of SATA Please look at performance of my drives, my old 120GB drives are reaching 204.3 MB/s but these new SATA II drives only 196.8 MB/s.

[Grinch]

Glad to see the dialog go this direction. wish i was testing my 680i lt still waiting for FedX to settle the claim on the 8800GTS & Corsair Ram that got lost in shipment.
So I offer this up for comparison. I realize it's 2 different formats but some how I was expecting better performance out of the new board.

I would have to say you have a stripe size of 32K or bigger in those pics?

[Grinch]

There is sth wrong with the RAID controller on that mobo. I have 2x120GB SATA in port 1 and 2 (RAID0, 32kb stripe) and 2x160GB SATA II in port 3 and 4 (RAID0, 32kb stripe). I'm running Windows XP 64. The trick to turn off read caching and command queuing is decreasing my performace Moreover my SATA II drives are set by Windows to be 1st generation of SATA Please look at performance of my drives, my old 120GB drives are reaching 204.3 MB/s but these new SATA II drives only 196.8 MB/s.

Have you tried using a 16K stripe?

[AlphaHeX]

I will, but wat about Windows not setting these drivers to SATA II?

[Grinch]

I will, but wat about Windows not setting these drivers to SATA II?

might just need a windows update? If I were you I would try a 16K stripe and see what you get..

[C-N]

I realize it's 2 different formats but some how I was expecting better performance out of the new board

We haven't given up yet as Grinch shows his drives are doing fine.

I think apart from all the tweaks like stripe & cluster size partition size etc the choice of drives would make a fair difference too. I used to get about the same if not marginally better than you on my NF4 with 2 x 250gb maxline 3 samsung's but as Grinch has shown us 2 x 150gb Raptors put then to shame on the 680i.

I cant see how the 680 performance could be too far down on the older NF4 controller I think we just need to find the groove.

I have a 100mb/s 2 disk array for £40 & if I wanted to get close to Grinch's £300 Raptors I could bung another £20 drive in there & I reckon that would be real nice & quick for the money.

There is sth wrong with the RAID controller on that mobo. I have 2x120GB SATA in port 1 and 2 (RAID0, 32kb stripe) and 2x160GB SATA II in port 3 and 4 (RAID0, 32kb stripe). I'm running Windows XP 64. The trick to turn off read caching and command queuing is decreasing my performace Moreover my SATA II drives are set by Windows to be 1st generation of SATA Please look at performance of my drives, my old 120GB drives are reaching 204.3 MB/s but these new SATA II drives only 196.8 MB/s.

It may be that the older 150mb/s drives are dragging the controller down to there speed & therefor not allowing your 300mb/s drives to run any faster (this is just a guess)

I can switch from SATA 1/150mb/s & SATA 2/300mb/s using IBM/Hitachis ftool perhaps there is a tool that will allow you to enable SATA 2 on your older drives.

If you de select the "Let BIOS select transfer mode" this will un grey out the transfer mode box & may allow you to change from SATA 150 to 300.

The difference between 196 & 204mb/s on the burst is not worth worrying about imo you can get that much deviation due to the drives being fragged up a bit.

[AlphaHeX]

Unsellecting "Let BIOS select transfer mode" is showing only SATA 1-1.5 and PIO Mode

[Grinch]

The difference between 196 & 204mb/s on the burst is not worth worrying about imo you can get that much deviation due to the drives being fragged up a bit.

agree 100000%

[AlphaHeX]

We haven't given up yet as Grinch shows his drives are doing fine.

I think apart from all the tweaks like stripe & cluster size partition size etc the choice of drives would make a fair difference too. I used to get about the same if not marginally better than you on my NF4 with 2 x 250gb maxline 3 samsung's but as Grinch has shown us 2 x 150gb Raptors put then to shame on the 680i.

I cant see how the 680 performance could be too far down on the older NF4 controller I think we just need to find the groove.

I have a 100mb/s 2 disk array for £40 & if I wanted to get close to Grinch's £300 Raptors I could bung another £20 drive in there & I reckon that would be real nice & quick for the money.



It may be that the older 150mb/s drives are dragging the controller down to there speed & therefor not allowing your 300mb/s drives to run any faster (this is just a guess)

I can switch from SATA 1/150mb/s & SATA 2/300mb/s using IBM/Hitachis ftool perhaps there is a tool that will allow you to enable SATA 2 on your older drives.

If you de select the "Let BIOS select transfer mode" this will un grey out the transfer mode box & may allow you to change from SATA 150 to 300.

The difference between 196 & 204mb/s on the burst is not worth worrying about imo you can get that much deviation due to the drives being fragged up a bit.

But 196 I have with SATA II generation drives and 204 with SATA I generation drivers !

[C-N]

But 196 I have with SATA II generation drives and 204 with SATA I generation drivers !

Type of drives partition size fragmentation all of these can effect the burst speed like I said imo I don't think its anything to bother about.

Remember your SATA controller is running at SATA 1 therefore your SATA 2 drives cant shine.

Burst speed don't really mean too much compared to sustained/average speed if you notice the Raptors are SATA 1 & Grinches 150's make about 260mb/s burst & they are probably about the best drives out there atm so I think your 200 ish is ok in that respect.

I am absolutely no hotshot on RAID but read my earlier post about enabling SATA with older drives my Hitachis can do it Raptors can do it maybe yours can too which might allow you to run SATA 2 & get your burst speed up.

[Grinch]

burst speed..really dont mean a whole lot...the sustained transfer rate is what is important

[Grinch]

here's a pic using hdtune:

[Jobeo]

well... i really started something with my comment ... its like i threw a thread hand-grenade in here... lol. . . ..

anyways, i have no performance charts ... i am just going by the way my rig "feels" . .. . i have 2 raptor 10k's on the first sata ports and then 2 older maxtor drives on ports 3 and 4...

moving the old maxtors to the SI controller seems like an option... maybe it would help things... but i'd have to remove both my 8800 gtx's to get to the connectors... SOo o o . . .. =/

[Grinch]

I am using these 2 sata ports for my raptors:



The sata ports under the battery are not as fast...

[Jobeo]

I am using these 2 sata ports for my raptors:

The sata ports under the battery are not as fast...

hrm ya the ones you have labeled are the ones i'm using...

anyways i ran this HD tune proggie and my average is 121.7 MB/sec.....

do you think mine is lower cause i'm at a 64k stripe size ?? is there any way to decrease that without losing the drives and having to reinstall windows and such . .. .

[Borgod]

They're the same ones I use, and performance is poor.

I'm not going to be using RAID in the future.

[Jobeo]

They're the same ones I use, and performance is poor.

I'm not going to be using RAID in the future.

hrmmm ya... that may be an idea too .... the whole reason i'm using raid 0 is cause i thought it would increase performance...

maybe i should just try the drives without it... HRMmm m .. . . .

[Grinch]

hrm ya the ones you have labeled are the ones i'm using...

anyways i ran this HD tune proggie and my average is 121.7 MB/sec.....

do you think mine is lower cause i'm at a 64k stripe size ?? is there any way to decrease that without losing the drives and having to reinstall windows and such . .. .

16K stripe would give you better numbers...you would have to break the raid array in order to create a smaller stripe

[AlphaHeX]

Hmm, I've installed Windows Vista to check if it is a problem with Windows XP. Under Vista the performance is even worse moreover I've removed SATA I drives and my SATA II performance is still at the level of SATA 150

[C-N]

Hmm, I've installed Windows Vista to check if it is a problem with Windows XP. Under Vista the performance is even worse moreover I've removed SATA I drives and my SATA II performance is still at the level of SATA 150

I take it the SATA 2 drives aren't limited/forced to SATA 1/150 with a jumper like on my Maxtor's check your drives.