Adaptec vs Areca vs HighPoint

[HiJon89]

actually i referenced hijons post which is apparently incorrect as he said in his first test he used an IOP333 400mhz and he "upgraded" to the 800mhz version which eliminated the bottleneck.

i couldn't find a 400mhz IOP333 processor on intels site.

The IOP333 comes in 500Mhz, 667Mhz, and 800Mhz varieties, there was a typo in the article.

[NapalmV5]

Napalm:

Single Drive on HP Card
-----------------------
Write back cache on:
Avg Read: 78.2 [write cache on] / 78.1 [write cache off]
CPU: 0%
Random Access: 8.1ms
Burst: 750.9MB/s [write cache on] / 756.7MB/s [write cache off]

RAID-1 on HP Card
-----------------
Write back cache on:
Avg Read: 88.5MB/s [write cache on] / 78.2 [write cache off]
CPU: 0%
Random Access: 7.6ms [write cache on] / 7.4 [write cache off]
Burst: 1307.5MB/s [write cache on] / 135.7 [write cache off]

hold up..

1x raptor on the areca 1210

2x raptor raid1 on the hpt 3510

two different controllers/specs

now if you want to compare 2x raid1 vs 1x.. fine ill bench 2x raid1 on the areca 1210.. i cant create 1x on the hpt.. will also post onboard 1x raptor

[Serra]

hold up..

1x raptor on the areca 1210

2x raptor raid1 on the hpt 3510

two different controllers/specs

now if you want to compare 2x raid1 vs 1x.. fine ill bench 2x raid1 on the areca 1210.. i cant create 1x on the hpt.. will also post onboard 1x raptor

Sorry, didn't notice you changed cards there m8 (sort of took it for granted you'd just use the same one). If you want to re-do them on either, that's fine.

[IanB]

Yes but PCIe x1 has a 250MB/s ceiling. If you got a PCIe 4x or 8x software card, wouldn't this raise the ceiling to 1GB/s or 2GB/s respectively?

Edit: I just read Steve's post. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, 1. if you have a software RAID card that is say 8x PCIe in a slot that is full bandwidth 8x, shouldn't you get close to full transfer speed assuming you have enough drives to bring it there?
If not, then was IS the bottleneck?

I'm assuming that you implementation Serra, of 3-4 drives at 69MB/s max on a software raid card, 69 * 4 drives = 271MB/s If you had a PCIe x1 card then yeah, you're over the limit.

ETlight

But unfortunately you don't get software-only cards with x8 interfaces. Or ones with x4 interfaces that have more than 4 ports.

Look at the Adaptec 1430SA - a good little software card for RAID 1/0. PCIe x4 interface, but restricted to 4 ports. The interface could handle up to 8 100MB/s SATA drives really in terms of raw throughput, but you're not going to get the chance to test your scaling theory as no-one is releasing an 8-port card in that form factor that'll allow software-only RAID.

I'm going to assume that releasing such a card would kill sales of their overpriced and therefore profitable hardware solutions. Consider that you buy a motherboard with seriously larger amounts of real estate, many more components and a much more complex manufacturing process as a result, for around £75 to £200 max, or $150 to $400. How on earth can the price of a hardware RAID card be justified when the starting point is the same as a motherboard with the latest Intel chipset on it? FYI the "simple" Adaptec I mentioned above is around £70 in the UK, the same price as a mainboard.

EDIT: but since I've never written a low-level hardware driver, I'm not entirely sure what the implications are there. As I suggested in a post above, software RAID has to handle each port/drive individually, so there may be a limitation on the number of ports that is practical - if every drive needs to communicate to the driver, then there will be one system interrupt for each drive on the card to say "My data is now ready, come and get it". Hardware RAID is reducing this overall system overhead significantly, because that is all handled on-card and the card only needs to present the system with a single interrupt for every data block requested. That's got to be a valuable trade-off, but I can't really quantify the interrupt effect on the system overall.

[swiftex]

ok, for comparison sake:

3x150 Raptor
raid0 64k write back enabled
adaptec 5805 8port

[swiftex]

another one:

1x wd500aaks
tx4302 pci 4port 2ext 2int
connected esata port eagle-m ext case

i don't know what $%&**(*& happened here,

but i thought i'd post anyway because of "cpu" utilization

[swiftex]

redid hd tach and nothing else:

1x wd500aaks
tx4302 pci 4port 2ext 2int
connected esata port eagle-m ext case

[swiftex]

ok, for comparison sake:

5x320 wd320aaks single platter - 1 might be 2 platter (rma)
raid6 64k write back enabled
adaptec 5805 8port

[NapalmV5]

Sorry, didn't notice you changed cards there m8 (sort of took it for granted you'd just use the same one). If you want to re-do them on either, that's fine.

i posted what you asked for..

@Napalm: Can you post results of just the single drives on the Areca as well, for comparison please? With luck I should be able to do a couple quick software tests tomorrow.

no problem, will post later

[stocius]

i posted what you asked for..



no problem, will post later

Thanks!

[Serra]

i posted what you asked for..

no problem, will post later

Oh, I see where the confusion came in! Sorry, I thought you only had an Areca card, and after you posted something about the HP I decided I must have been wrong and it was an HP card... I didn't expect you to have both. Still, it's a great opportunity to get more comparative data out there.

[swiftex]

ok, granted only 1 disk -
tx4302 pci
eagle-m ext case = i believe this case interface may limit to sata 1

[NapalmV5]

2x raid1 @ areca 1210


1x raptor @ onboard asus maximus se

[Eternalightwith]

But unfortunately you don't get software-only cards with x8 interfaces. Or ones with x4 interfaces that have more than 4 ports.

The interface could handle up to 8 100MB/s SATA drives really in terms of raw throughput, but you're not going to get the chance to test your scaling theory as no-one is releasing an 8-port card in that form factor that'll allow software-only RAID.

Check this out http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816115026

The only one I could find. So I'll forgive you.
Looks yummy, huh Serra?

ETlight

[swiftex]

2x raid1 @ areca 1210


1x raptor @ onboard asus maximus se

1x74 on maximus basically same performance i had with 1x150 on rampage

thanks!

[Serra]

Alright, new "Results Summary" based on Napalms new tests. A lot of it looks the same, but sentences/numbers have been changed.


Results we have seen thus far:

Napalm:

Single Drive on Areca
-----------------------
Avg Read: 78.2 [write cache on] / 78.1 [write cache off]
CPU: 0%
Random Access: 8.1ms
Burst: 750.9MB/s [write cache on] / 756.7MB/s [write cache off]


Single Drive on Onboard
----------------------
Avg Read: 77.3MB/s
CPU: 2%
Random Access: 8.1ms
Burst: 137.1MB/s


RAID-1 on Areca
-----------------
Avg Read: 77.8MB/s
CPU: 0%
Random Access: 8.7ms
Burst: 745.2MB/s

RAID-1 on HP Card
-----------------
Write back cache on:
Avg Read: 88.5MB/s [write cache on] / 78.2 [write cache off]
CPU: 0%
Random Access: 7.6ms [write cache on] / 7.4 [write cache off]
Burst: 1307.5MB/s [write cache on] / 135.7 [write cache off]


Myself

Single drive on TX2300:
Avg Read: 65MB/s
CPU: 2%
Random Access: 7.7ms
Burst: 114.0MB/s

RAID-1 on TX2300:
Avg Read: 65MB/s
CPU: 2%
Random Access: 6.8ms
Burst:126.5MB.s


My analysis:

Avg Read Time:
My average read time remained a steady 65-65.1MB/s in all my tests. Napalms fluxuated somewhat with write caching on/off, but that's to be expected. His drives, on hardware controllers, pulled an average of 78.16MB/s, and his onboard test gives 77.3MB/s. Realistically, those two numbers are so comparable the difference could just be the difference between one run and another.

The bottom line here is that in RAID-1, his controller did not confer any benefits to him over my software-driven add-on card.


CPU Utilization:
The battle here seems to be between mine at 2% and his being reported at 0%. I think we can agree that just running the program involved some kind of resources, so if you'll allow, I'd like to argue it's my 2% (HD Tach) versus his 0.4% (his lowest HD Tune). If not, fine - his program runs without resources. In either event, I'll add that his processor is at least a Q6700 - overclocked to 3.6GHz in one of his posts in another thread - where the one I'm using for this test bed is a dual-core Opty 170 at stock speeds that my wife has been using for the past year or so (and loaded it with garbage, but that's another story).

Given the performance difference between a 3.6GHz Core 2 Quad and a 2.0GHz Opteron 170... I think we can agree that the utilization is next to nothing for both solutions.


Seek time:
In his testing, Napalm went UP in access times with an Areca card and down with his HP. His single-drive access time is 8.1ms. With the Areca, he was given 8.7ms response on his RAID-1 array, and with the HP pulled an average of 7.5ms. In the first case, it is an increase of 0.6ms and the second a decrease of 0.6ms. In my results, I went from 7.7ms to 6.8ms, a decrease of 0.9ms.

It is important to note, however, that although my decrease was better in absolute terms, it was also better in relative terms. His decrease on the HP represented a decrease of 7.41% average seek times, while mine was an 11.69% decrease.

Why the differences? RAID-1 with any optimizations at all should reduce speed. His HP clearly introduced some form of load balancing between the two to reduce speeds, but seems to stop there. Areca cards, however, have never been notorious for their use in RAID-1... exactly why, I'm not sure. Clearly some sort of code fix is needed. For myself though, my software solution provides me use of the elevator seek algorithm. While *only* the second-best seeking algorithm we've yet found, it's still apparently pretty good.


The only conclusion to be drawn here is this: My software RAID implements algorithms or optimizations that are not seen on his hardware RAID card.


Burst speeds:
In terms of Napalms results, well they're obviously a function of it having actual RAM cache. 'nuff said there. Mine weren't great, but I was bottlenecked by the PCI bus as well, so I can't really make a fair comparison.



Final thoughts:
Well, I hope I've demonstrated the following:
1. Sustained Read Speed: Napalms sustained reads were faster, but so were his drives. His hardware card did not improve speeds noticeably (0.86MB/s). There is no speed advantage to be taken by hardware cards here.
2. CPU Utilization: With a comparable CPU, this should be negligible either way
3. Seek times: My card was the clear winner, both absolutely and relatively (0.9ms / 11.69% drop versus either 0.6ms / 7.41% [HP] OR an Increase [Areca]).
4. Burst speeds: RAM cache versus a PCI bus... no contest there


So I invite you Naplam and itznfb - what do you say? For RAID-1/0, can we be agreed that - for a limited number of drives - software-based solutions* are the equal and can in fact be the superior to hardware-based solutions but at a fraction of the price?
*Edit: (at least those which use add-on cards, not necessarily on-board junk)

With that said, hardware cards do certainly provide:
- The ability to migrate to RAID-5/6
- Additional cache, which can be a benefit in *some* desktop usage patterns
- The ability to scale further (in general, due to software-based cards being generally limited to the PCI and PCI-E x1 busses)

[Serra]

Check this out http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816115026

The only one I could find. So I'll forgive you.
Looks yummy, huh Serra?

ETlight

Heh, downright smexy!

I can't believe there's actually a market for $240 software-based add-on cards though! I guess if you're doing RAID-0 you can save yourself some money this way... but 8x drives in RAID-0 That's a failure waiting to happen.

Maybe for a RAID-01 (or -10) solution though... I could see that, sort of.

[NapalmV5]

1x vs 2x raid1 vs 1x onboard ? is that what you based your analysis and conclusions on nonraid/raid/0/1 ?

you have got to be kidding!

FYI - 975x controllers is slower than the x38.. 72MB/s vs 77MB/s @ 1x raptor

all your doing is comparing "questionable results" others post

A lot of it looks the same, but sentences/numbers have been changed.

are you even aware of the differences between the areca 1210 and hpt 3510 ?

you guys dont even the hardware to base your nonsence on

this is so silly isnt funny

[swiftex]

1x vs 2x raid1 vs 1x onboard ? is that what you based your analysis and conclusions on nonraid/raid/0/1 ?

you have got to be kidding!

FYI - 975x controllers is slower than the x38.. 72MB/s vs 77MB/s @ 1x raptor

all your doing is comparing "questionable results" others post



are you even aware of the differences between the areca 1210 and hpt 3510 ?

you guys dont even the hardware to base your nonsence on

this is so silly isnt funny

- i was using an x48 board with q6600@3.52ghz
- also used adaptec 5805, 3xraid0 raptor 150's and raid6 results posted
- promise pci tx4302 esata ext 1x500gb results

thank you Napalm for your data,

thank you Serra, I appreciated your efforts compiling the data and structuring it into a straightforward and easy to read report.

--next is a 1x500gb esata same as before this time using a Sabrent $30cdn pci-e x1 card

please note****** transferring 300gb of data from nas to raid array while doing tests

p.s.

brb, ongoing amoeba testing being done..............................oh Ollie!!!, yes Lou, i thought I told you his head was way too big to fit through that door?

[IanB]

Check this out http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816115026

The only one I could find. So I'll forgive you.
Looks yummy, huh Serra?

ETlight

The question is, is it completely hardware or software controlled? It's got a VERY big heatsinked chip on it, which certainly suggests some kind of onboard processing...

Actually I was seriously looking at this model for a while, it's a very good price for an 8-port compared to the high-end cards, and in Tom's comparative review of RAID cards a while back http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pci-ex...view-1927.html the external-socket only version of this (RR2322) distinctly came out tops against Areca et al for RAID 1/0 as far as I could tell, even if they decided to ignore that and recommend others because it appeared to need a proprietary external drive cage (avoidable with a different cable, easily acquired). Yeah - checking that link the article is now removed, and Tom's blocked the Wayback Machine from archiving it too.

The glitch for me on this card and the RR23xx series has been the NewEgg review on that page you linked saying:

Cons: terrible software. the review titled "Worked well for a while" is true in that the RAID app eating up massive CPU cycles. I've build more than a dozen rigs with RR2320, RR2310, and RR2300 - only the RR2300 doesn't have this problem (but it's only 4 port, and PCI-E x1)
Other Thoughts: I've already contacted Highpoint about the CPU cycle issue, and no one seems to care. Bad Customer Support, slow/no response to support inquiries. Go for a 3ware if you have the $$.

Not sure what to make of that, but it put me off more than a little as the guy making it seemed fairly competent.

[NapalmV5]

swiftex - sure no problem.. i posted all that for him its not like i didnt know what results i was getting @ areca/hpt/onboard/raptor

im all for sharing comparative data and thers lots of it here just @ xs


serra - this for you,
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...13#post2946313

keep an eye on whose softraid/intelmatrix is gonna beat my results

[HiJon89]

But unfortunately you don't get software-only cards with x8 interfaces. Or ones with x4 interfaces that have more than 4 ports.

Look at the Adaptec 1430SA - a good little software card for RAID 1/0. PCIe x4 interface, but restricted to 4 ports. The interface could handle up to 8 100MB/s SATA drives really in terms of raw throughput, but you're not going to get the chance to test your scaling theory as no-one is releasing an 8-port card in that form factor that'll allow software-only RAID.

I'm going to assume that releasing such a card would kill sales of their overpriced and therefore profitable hardware solutions. Consider that you buy a motherboard with seriously larger amounts of real estate, many more components and a much more complex manufacturing process as a result, for around £75 to £200 max, or $150 to $400. How on earth can the price of a hardware RAID card be justified when the starting point is the same as a motherboard with the latest Intel chipset on it? FYI the "simple" Adaptec I mentioned above is around £70 in the UK, the same price as a mainboard.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16815121009
I know its PCI-X but that's one hell of a price

[Serra]

1x vs 2x raid1 vs 1x onboard ? is that what you based your analysis and conclusions on nonraid/raid/0/1 ?

you have got to be kidding!

FYI - 975x controllers is slower than the x38.. 72MB/s vs 77MB/s @ 1x raptor

all your doing is comparing "questionable results" others post



are you even aware of the differences between the areca 1210 and hpt 3510 ?

you guys dont even the hardware to base your nonsence on

this is so silly isnt funny

Umm... the only results I looked at were yours and mine, no-one elses. I even tossed the results from the HPT, aside from using them as an "aside" note - and be glad I did, the SPANKED the Areca and were the only ones that didn't leave you utterly embarrassed by your seek times. Effectively, it was your Areca card vs. my TX2300... and you know what? It was extremely comparable, except for the seek times, in which mine won (also won against the HPT).
Edit: I'll also note the reason not a lot of it changed was that besides your numbers, which changed a bit... the end result was the same. I only had to change about 3 numbers, and not all for the best. Sorry Napalm, but the numbers speak for themselves.

What magical elixer do you think is in your hardware card that isn't in software solutions? What commands does it issue differently from mine? What logic on yours differs from mine? Seriously, what?

That's right - there is no difference in commands or how they're issued. There is no difference in CPU interrupts given. There is no difference anywhere. There can't be by the very nature of the SATA protocols. For RAID-5/6, sure... all the difference in the world, what with parity calculations... but for RAID1/0... nope!

Read what I wrote. All it is is looking @ your results and mine.

Not enough for you? Kindly respond to VirtualRain's review I posted as well.

I see 3x columns of evidence against you (your results vs mine, VirtualRains results, and the logic of the fact that commands work the same both ways).... and all I get from you is "No, it can't work that way. My card cost $600, it must be the best at everything".

swiftex - sure no problem.. i posted all that for him its not like i didnt know what results i was getting @ areca/hpt/onboard/raptor

im all for sharing comparative data and thers lots of it here just @ xs

serra - this for you,
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...13#post2946313

keep an eye on whose softraid/intelmatrix is gonna beat my results

So if you're all for sharing comparative data - why won't you accept our results, as well as VirtualRains? Just give me some reasons. I did re-work the post based on your different controller and, if you'll notice, changed the first one to state that there had been a mistake (in red print).

... and that's kind of childish. Maybe the top 1 percentile here can afford hardware like you have... QX6700's @ 4.2GHz + your other goodies?

[IanB]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16815121009
I know its PCI-X but that's one hell of a price

Shame about the -x, yes. The reviews suggest there's no RAID driver in the bundle, it's just 8 SATA ports, so a true software-only solution... but the killer for the scaling idea might be this comment in one of the reviews:

This card seems to max out at 285 MB/s in Windows.

[Eternalightwith]

Heh, downright smexy!

I can't believe there's actually a market for $240 software-based add-on cards though! I guess if you're doing RAID-0 you can save yourself some money this way... but 8x drives in RAID-0 That's a failure waiting to happen.

Maybe for a RAID-01 (or -10) solution though... I could see that, sort of.

Not if you're using SSD To be fair, yes these can fail too, but I'm planning to do RAID10