Jump to content


Photo

Seek times / Burst rates with different IDE controllers


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 qasdfdsaq

qasdfdsaq

    Member

  • Mod
  • 1,512 posts

Posted 02 January 2003 - 11:22 AM

Does anyone know which is the best IDE/IDE-RAID controller availible? I've run several different tests with several different controllers and consistently my RAID controller (even without running a RAID array) is scoring better access times and burst rates with the same drives than standard onboard controllers...

#2 docinthebox

docinthebox

    Member

  • Member
  • 212 posts

Posted 02 January 2003 - 04:38 PM

From the reviews I've read, it seems 3ware is the best in terms of driver performance (better/smoother performance in concurrent disk access) and Highpoint is the best in raw RAID-0 performance (best read/write throughput). 3ware is also better than Promise in RAID-5 performance.

Tech-report has a pretty good review on IDE RAID controller last month you might want to check out.

#3 qasdfdsaq

qasdfdsaq

    Member

  • Mod
  • 1,512 posts

Posted 02 January 2003 - 04:59 PM

thanks :) ill look into it

#4 Jan Kivar

Jan Kivar

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,190 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 12:03 AM

Promise RAID controllers (as well as just the IDE controllers) are ATA133, so they'll have higher burst rates than the ATA100 controllers on-board. Haven't heard anything about the better seek times when using RAID controller though.

Cheers,

Jan

#5 sechs

sechs

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 01:55 AM

Promise RAID controllers (as well as just the IDE controllers) are ATA133, so they'll have higher burst rates than the ATA100 controllers on-board.


This really only makes a difference if you're putting two drives on a channel, which is a great way to suboptimize the array's performance.

#6 docinthebox

docinthebox

    Member

  • Member
  • 212 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 01:58 AM

Promise RAID controllers (as well as just the IDE controllers) are ATA133, so they'll have higher burst rates than the ATA100 controllers on-board.


This really only makes a difference if you're putting two drives on a channel, which is a great way to suboptimize the array's performance.


I think even with a single drive, when you have a cache hit, the transfer rate should be close to interface speed.

#7 Jan Kivar

Jan Kivar

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,190 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 02:41 AM

Sechs: I was talking about burst speed (aka cached transfer), just as docinthebox (and also the topic :wink:) mentioned. SATA should have 150MB/s burst, if the drive is native SATA.

Jan

#8 sechs

sechs

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 02:43 AM

Not even close. I haven't yet seen an single ATA drive that could fill the entire bandwidth of a ATA/66 connection with a burst, let alone sustained.

#9 docinthebox

docinthebox

    Member

  • Member
  • 212 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 02:57 AM

By the way, if you're using a VIA motherboard with a VIA southbridge and you're looking for good burst speeds, be sure to apply the RAID performance patch:

http://www.viaarena.com/?PageID=66

Read this article for more details:

http://www.tecchanne.../817/index.html

Apparently, there's a bug in VIA's PCI implementation such that the max throughput of the PCI bus is far less than the theoretical bandwidth of 132MB/s.

#10 Jan Kivar

Jan Kivar

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,190 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 03:08 AM

Not even close.  I haven't yet seen an single ATA drive that could fill the entire bandwidth of a ATA/66 connection with a burst, let alone sustained.


What about this thread then? (sorry bit old :wink:) Chefanoz is reporting 73.2MB/s on read burst speed.

Jan

#11 docinthebox

docinthebox

    Member

  • Member
  • 212 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 03:15 AM

Not even close.  I haven't yet seen an single ATA drive that could fill the entire bandwidth of a ATA/66 connection with a burst, let alone sustained.


What about this thread then? (sorry bit old :wink:) Chefanoz is reporting 73.2MB/s on read burst speed.

Jan


or this one:

http://www.xbitlabs....age/ibm-120gxp/

Scroll down to the graph labelled "Read Burst Speed, KB/sec".

At UDMA/33, the IBM Deskstar 120GXP, Maxtor D740X-6L, WD1000BB, WD800BB and Seagate Barracuda ATA IV have read burst speeds of 86613, 86103, 85706, 85450 and 68817 KB/sec respectively.

#12 docinthebox

docinthebox

    Member

  • Member
  • 212 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 03:16 AM

At UDMA/33, the IBM Deskstar 120GXP, Maxtor D740X-6L, WD1000BB, WD800BB and Seagate Barracuda ATA IV have read burst speeds of 86613, 86103, 85706, 85450 and 68817 KB/sec respectively.


Sorry I meant UDMA/100.

#13 Jan Kivar

Jan Kivar

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,190 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 03:22 AM

You can really see ATA33 cap there... ATA100 specs say that one must sustain the 100 MB/s for 3 ms... so the amount of data transferred during the burst is not much (0,3 MB) so it will fit in the cache. Thanks for the link, docinthebox.

Jan

#14 Jan Kivar

Jan Kivar

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,190 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 03:39 AM

Hmm, actually the time is much less than 3ms. More likely 30 Ás... I can't find the correct data to verify. Anyone else?

Jan

#15 qasdfdsaq

qasdfdsaq

    Member

  • Mod
  • 1,512 posts

Posted 03 January 2003 - 07:25 AM

Not even close. I haven't yet seen an single ATA drive that could fill the entire bandwidth of a ATA/66 connection with a burst, let alone sustained.


hmm....

Posted Image

my two 180gxp's can sustain 58MB/sec pretty well... i'd say that IS close



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users