logical1

I'll keep my Acer 2416WD thank you. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00...6930025-1318313

Comments inline:

It's kinda odd. I have an almost completely different setup but my transfer graphs from me RAID controller (Elite 1600) from my drive (Atlas 15K II) look nearly identical to yours. My setup is single Celeron 2.66Ghz CPU on a Asus P5RD1-V board with everything onboard and a single card in the system on the PCI bus (LSI MegaRAID Elite 1600). That only has a 3 end cable hooked up with one end to the card, one to the single drive configured as RAID0 and an active terminator at the end of the bus on the final connector. No matter what I have done, I cannot get a higher throughput than the same 37mb/sec or so that you show on your graphs and mine look the same. I'm interested in a solution too if you find one. Also, the drive hits 98/sec on my home system, but the controller, cable and terminator are all different. Aero, while your points are valid about PCI bus speed, that doesn't account for why he is only seeing 1/3 to 1/4 the possible speed of the bus with a set of drives that should easily hit 100mb/sec on the bus (I have a RAID0 of MAS 36's on a 21320-IS at home that can hit 96mb/sec sustained over the entire usable space on a max'd out PCI bus where every slot on the board is filled with various things from two different network cards to a secondary video card). Also, his controller may be old and have a slower processor, but how much processing does RAID 0 really require of your card onboard CPU? Yes, I have seen adapter problems cause such issues, but in my case, I have a 68-pin drive plugged into a 68-pin cable and still see an identical result. Also, the poster says that 5 out of the 6 drives use these convertors and if they are the problem, that would explain it for those drives, but not for all the drives.

Ok, I read the topic and I wonder why the person doesn't boot from CD and extract the utility into a small RAM drive and run it from there since it'd have somewhere to write it's results and wouldn't complain. Seems simple enough to accomplish.

Does the four port controller support 5 drives?

It's really going to depend on how much of that stuff you're doing at the same time since you'll see the biggest gains when running multiple different processes simultaneously. You'd get much better performance from the audio and video compression if your app supports multithreading, but office apps and the internet will see pretty much no improvement in speed.

Yes, but why put a gaming motherboard into a server system? Why not choose something better known for stability than for how many little options got tossed onto it for all the people that want the latest/greatest? How about looking into a Tyan or SuperMicro board? (yes, SuperMicro does make AMD boards).

Yeah, I guess if you dropped a key logger in it, then I'd have a problem, but you'd only be able to get into my personal web/mail server, so what good would that do you?

Putty can be run from the internet cache. I've had to do it plenty before. I've gotten to the point where I just pull up google, search "putty download" and then click the top result, scroll down, click on the EXE for Windows and hit Run.

So besides spamming the forums, is there a point to this post?

The problem with what you describe and why it wouldn't work how you wanted is that when you are copying the data between the drives, if you are performing any action on it to modify it in any way, then it would have to be processed through main system memory.

Yes, and he said it's a four drive chassis, so I'd think he'd be putting 1 reader and 3 writers in it rather than trying to jam 6 5.35" drives into a case designed for 4. Granted, Ultra SCSI would still be maxed out since it would be reading for 6mb off one drive and writing to 3 drives at 6mb each totalling 24mb/sec transfer which is just higher than the 20mb/sec available. Best bet would be to read from the reader to an image on a drive on another channel and then send to the 3 writers.

NTFS partition? Try to Disable Last Access Stamp : [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem] "NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"=dword:00000001

http://www.theregister.com/2005/03/07/fake_maxtor_hdds/

They make relatively top end networking products (jacks, plates, patch panels, etc) that seem to be rather well respected in my part of the world (TX).