BassKozz

Member
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BassKozz

  1. I am by far no expert on this subject... BUT... Have you tried another controller? Sounds like your Areca 1220 might be bad, how long have you had it and has it worked with other drives?
  2. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    To test the MegaRaid i4 controller (to see if the channels 0&1 were faulty), I switched the channels on the two arrays, and re-initialized the arrays... So for the previous tests I was running the following (OLD Layout): Channel 0 Master = 400gb Seagate Slave = 400gb Seagate Channel 1 Master = 400gb Seagate Slave = NONE Channel 2 Master = 300gb Seagate Slave = 300gb Maxtor Channel 3 Master = 300gb Maxtor Slave = NONE NOW this is the NEW Layout: Channel 0 Master = 300gb Seagate Slave = 300gb Maxtor Channel 1 Master = 300gb Maxtor Slave = NONE Channel 2 Master = 400gb Seagate Slave = 400gb Seagate Channel 3 Master = 400gb Seagate Slave = NONE Results 3x300gb RAID5: NEW LAYOUT OLD LAYOUT I gained about 4MB/s burst and avg read and a strange spike @ 200gb's in to the test? (I assume this is due to the Seagate and Maxtor’s not getting along, but why didn't it show up on the "old" layout ?) Results 3x400gb RAID5: NEW LAYOUT OLD LAYOUT I lost about 3MB/s burst and lost 5MB/s avg read What have I learned: 1. Firstly, I've learned that Channels 0 & 1 run slightly faster then channels 2 & 3 on my MegaRaid i4 Controller card. 2. The jagged /\/\ up's and down's on the graphs are not caused by the RAID controller’s channels... This is not to say that the MegaRaid i4 isn't the culprit for the inconsistency of the 3x400gb RAID 5 array, just that the channels don't have to do with it. 3. I plan on keeping the OLD layout with the 3x400gb's on channels 0&1 and the 3x300gb's on channels 2&3 because the 400gb hd's need as much help as they can get Still Unanswered: I still haven't heard a definitive answer as to why my 3x400gb Seagate’s results in such an inconsistent graph (that is very jagged /\/\ with up's and down's)... Can someone please explain this to me ? Are these Seagate HD's (Model Number:ST3400632A) known for this sort of performance ? Thanks, -BassKozz
  3. Here's my general spec's: AMD Sepron 3400+ 2gb Ram WinXP SP2 LSI MegaRaid i4 (PCI - 4 channel / 8 Drive PATA raid controller) 3x Seagate ST3400632A (in a RAID5 array) --- LSI MegaRaid i4 - User Manual Excerpt: After much testing of various settings of my MegaRaid card I've stuck with the following settings... Write Policy = Write-through caching Read Policy = Normal Cache Policy = Direct I/O Which gives me the results (IN RED): Blue = Write-through/Adaptive Read Policy/Direct I/O Questions: 1.So I should be happy with 75.4 Burst & 54.8 Average ? 2.Why are the results with Normal Read Policy (RED) so bouncy (up and down, not smooth), as opposed to the Adaptive Read Policy setting (BLUE) which is smoother but the performance sucks. Any Idea’s ? I think it might have something to do with this thread: Seagate 500GB SATA2 firmware upgrade helps RAID5 dramatically Do I need to upgrade my HD's Firmware to correct this? Thanks, -BassKozz
  4. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    In my SCSI disk test the Seagate Cheetah 10K7 were a lot slower then Maxtors Atlas 10KIV and 10KV disks. Maybe Maxtor IDE drives are also much faster then Seagate IDE's. Or maybe its the mix that does this, you can try combining other disk sets since you already have 3 different disks and see If you see a pattern. It's not so much the speed that I am worried about, but more of the inconsistancy or lack of smoothness in the graph... I don't understand why the Graph is so jagged /\/\/\ (up's and down's) for the 1st array, but not the second? Can someone explain what might be causing this? Could it be a faulty raid controller? Because when I test the HD's individually (outside of an array) the graph is fairly smooth, and also when I tested the 2nd array (300gb hd's) it was also smooth, the jaggedness scares me
  5. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    This is the last question, I swear... I hooked up the 2nd RAID 5 array which consists of: 2x Maxtor Diamond Max] 300gb 16mb Buffer 1x Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 300gb 16mb Buffer So this is how the config looks on the LSI MegaRaid card with both RAID 5 arrays: And here are the HDtach results on the second array: As you can see much smoother then the 1st RAID 5 array with the 400gb drives... Here is a side-by-side comparsion: RED results are the seond Raid 5 array with the 300gb drives BLUE results are the first Raid 5 array with the 400gb drives Question: Why is the second array provide much smoother results ? Less jumping up and down on the graph ? Doesn't make sence... Thanks again to everyone who have helped, I promise this is the LAST time I have a question on this topic. Thanks, -BassKozz
  6. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    Thanks for your help AeroWB, I have a PCI express (but no PCI-X) slot free on my MoBo, any recommendations on a PATA Raid controller that has RAID 5 support ??? I will look into ATTO. Thanks for your help Trinary, I forgot to test seprate channels with the new cables... Here are the results: Results in RED are the HD's on Seprate Channels (Channels 0,1,3) Results in BLUE are the same results as before (channels 0 & 1) - with channel 0 having a Master & Slave Results Burst Speed: +3.8 Avg Read Speed: +2.7 Random Read Speed: +0.1 CPU utilization: +2% The increase in preformance is minimal, and not only that the cables are restricted. What I mean by this is, I planned on setting up a seprate RAID 5 on Channels 2&3 but if I have these HD's using Channels 0,1&2 I can't route the cables to the other HD's properly to have them run on the SLAVE cable connections... So I will probably leave this as is running the HD's as follows: Channel 0 Master = Seagate 400gb (1st Raid 5 Array) Slave = Seagate 400gb (1st Raid 5 Array) Channel 1 Master = Seagate 400gb (1st Raid 5 Array) Slave = NONE (I might add another Seagate 400gb) Channel 2 Master = None as of yet (Will be adding a Maxtor 300gb for 2nd Raid 5) Slave = None as of yet (Will be adding a Maxtor 300gb for 2nd Raid 5) Channel 3 Master = None as of yet (Will be adding a Maxtor 300gb for 2nd Raid 5) Slave = NONE (I might add another Maxtor 300gb) I have a PCI express (but no PCI-X) slot free on my MoBo, any recommendations on a PATA Raid controller that has RAID 5 support ??? Thanks for all the help everyone , -BassKozz
  7. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    This is very long and longer then maximum accourding to the standards. Could you try a much shorter cable, and make sure its 80 pins, connect this to the onboard controller. You only need to connected one disk and check in windows' devicemanager the mode in which it is running. That did it... it was the 36-inch cables. I connected a standard 18-inch cable I had laying around and voila: So I got that sorted out... now I know these HD's are working fine and in UDMA mode5... Now to try using different cables on the RAID controller card: RAID 5: Still poor preformance even with new cables on The only difference between this result and my original post are about ~9% CPU utilization. I guess this is the best I am gonna get... ?
  8. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    Ok... Here is the device manager and Advanced settings for Disk#3... Device Manager No Exclimation on this one Advanced Settings Still showing UDMA 2 not 5 ??? And here are the HDtach results for all three drives connected to the MoBo's onboard IDE controller: I only posted Disk 1's results but they are the same results for disk 2&3 so I figured no need to post. Any ideas?
  9. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    Actually Scratch that Idea... I am still going to try and get this working if it kills me... Ok, I've hooked up Disks #1 & #2 to the Mobo's IDE controller and here are the results from WinXP... Device Manager As you can see for some reason the second disk has an exclimation ? I tried "re-installing drivers" as XP said to do and still have this issue... Advanced IDE UDMA 2 ? Shouldn't this read 5 ? Now time to disconnect these two and test the third disk from the array plugged into the MoBo's IDE controller. Be right back...
  10. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    I give up Thanks for all the help guys, I really appreciated it. I am just going to have to live with this throughput... I am only using it for a backup server and Media server to my XBMC... I should be fine doing this right? Thanks again to everyone who helped out. -BassKozz
  11. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    Anyone? Here are some more spec's and benchmarks courtesy of Everest & Ipeak… MoBo Spec’s Chipset Spec’s Everest Read Suite Everest Average Read Everest Write Ipeak RankDisk Benchmark Any other idea’s ? The only other thing I can think of is are there any settings on the HD’s bios that I could change using Seagate’s Software (SeaTools Software) ? I don’t know what else to try… Please help, -BassKozz
  12. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    Trinary, Ok, I placed the HD's on different channels, and here are the results: HD's on Channels 1,2,&4 HD's on Channels 1,2,&3 As you can see this is still worse then the intial tests in post #1 of this thread. So placing these HD's on different channels didn't do the trick I will have to look into upgrading the Cache memory... I don't think it's possible because it's soldered onto the board, and my soldering skills aren't that great I think the card comes with either 16 or 32megs of ram but is NOT upgradeable... I could be wrong on this and will look into it. Look's like Raid 1+0 is my only option, since I can't seem to get this Raid 5 to work Any other idea's suggestions? ***ok I'll get cracking on this, and see what I can comeup with. I am almost 100% possitive my BIOS and Windows settings are correct, but I am going to reconnect one of the drives to the main board now and run some more tests with different cables, the current cables I am using are 36inches. I'll keep you posted.*** [EDIT: I deleted the Raid 5 Array, and setup a Raid 0 array with 1 drive (I know this doesn't make sence, but there was no way to make the HD show up in windows via the raid controller with out using an array... so really there is NO array just 1 drive physical drive as a logical Raid 0 array... kinda not really ). The reason for doing this is to test the preformance of a single physical drive from the raid controller to see what happens. And now for the results: I also created a RAID 1 array with 2 physical drives: And Also a Raid 0 array: So judging from these results, Am I chasing a pipe dream... Is the original graph/preformance testing results the best I am going to see from this setup (raid card) ? Thanks for the help, -BassKozz --- AeroWB, I knew this was going to comeup eventually... I am using a Mobo from a Compaq Presario SR1710NX, and it's an OEM Mobo (Model Number: A8AE-LE) with little to no documentation at all out there... I've actually modified this MoBo's Bios so I could add a couple of features to it, that were not supported initially (Memory Timings, WOL, etc...) http://www.geocities.com/whydothis1000/index.html or http://www.geocities.com/basskozz/A8AE-LE/ or http://www.wimsbios.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7623 After putzing around on SiSandra, I pulled the following info on my Mainboard & Chipset: Also the raid controller: ... And while I was at it I ran SiSandra's HD Benchmark on the RAID 5 array: What's that File Server Optimization = NO all about??? Look's like it's not that bad as it looked using HDtach. Next for intel I/O meter tests... comming soon Thanks, AeroWB --- Everyone, So I guess the big question is: Am I chasing a pipe dream... Is the original graph/preformance testing results the best I am going to see from this setup ? And who's fault is it for the preformance, the Raid Controller card or the Motherboard? I am exhusted... I am going to bed now Thanks for all the help guys, -BassKozz
  13. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    sdbardwick thanks for the help/post, I've checked and double-checked all of these settings for the RAID config, and everything seems to be in order... I even changed all the drives from CS to there corresponding setting (Master and Slave)... As far as single drive on each channel why would I do this... will this work better? There are 4 channels and each channel has a Master and Slave setting on it... I currently have it setup like this: Channel 1: 1x Seagate 400gb MASTER ------------: 1x Seagate 400gb SLAVE Channel 2: 1x Seagate 400gb MASTER Channel 3: Nothing Channel 4: Nothing Would it be better to set it up like this... Channel 1: 1x Seagate 400gb MASTER Channel 2: 1x Seagate 400gb MASTER Channel 3: 1x Seagate 400gb MASTER Channel 4: Nothing Does this really make a difference? Also, in the device manager all of the IDE controllers are set to "DMA if available" but I don't see any IDE controller option for the Raid Controller... There is nowhere to set "DMA if available" for the raid controller... is this normal? I would assume so because the RAID controller auto-detects speed. Thanks, -BassKozz AeroWB thanks for the help/post, Here are the results with the Write Policy set to "Write-Back" As you can see this is worst then "Write-thru"... I will consider switching to Raid 10 but I need to go out and buy another 400gb HD and I won't see any capacity increase (800gb with 4x400gb RAID 10 vs. 1.2TB with 4x400gb RAID 5) I might end up doing this if I can't get anymore preformance out of the current config. I really won't be playing games on this machine, it's more of a backup & media server... but It's hooked up to gigabit LAN so I need to squeeze as much throuput out of this RAID controller as I can. Thanks for all the help guys, -BassKozz
  14. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    I took the advice of Seagates Tech support and hooked up each of the Seagate drives (ST3400632A) to the Main Board's IDE connector sepratly (instead of running it thru the Raid Controller)... Below are my results for each disk. Red graph is with Windows Disk Management set to "Dynamic Disk" and the Blue graph is with Windows Disk Management set to "Basic Disk"... As you can see there isn't much of a difference between the two, but I wanted to make sure I had all my bases covered. Disk #1 Disk #2 Disk #3 As you can see from these performance graphs these disks aren't working properly. I am at a loss... Please Help, I don't know what else to do Thank you, -BassKozz
  15. BassKozz

    Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help

    After writing to Seagate to find out if there is a FW upgrade available for my drives I got the following reply: Any idea's on how to get better preformance out of my Raid Array... or a better testing product/software to use (besides HDtach) ? Thanks, -BassKozz
  16. Anyone know if this "Firmware upgrade" will work on PATA drives? Nevermind, I just got an e-mail back from Seagate: Any idea's on what to do to get better preformance out of my Raid Array? Or at least a better testing product (besides HDtach) ?
  17. Anyone know if this "Firmware upgrade" will work on PATA drives?
  18. I am having similar issues with my LSI MegaRaid i4 & 3x Seagate 400gb PATA (ST3400632A) I've posted test results (HDtach) and explinations here: Poor Raid 5 preformance / Please Help You think I should contact Seagate and try and get FW upgrades? How do I go about this, exactly? Any/All help will be greatly appreciated. -BassKozz
  19. Thanks again Spod... Pro's and Con's of the 60gb over the 80gb Pro's +LESS HEAT +FASTER SEEK TIMES +$30 Less Con's -Less capacity i think I am gonna go with the 60gb Thanks again, -BassKozz
  20. Thanks Spod, Should I go with the 80gb version because it has 1 extra "data head" over the 60gb version ? It's only $30 more at the egg. What preformance differences will an extra "data head" provide? decisions,decisions ???
  21. I apoligize if this has already been answered... I just purchased a Dell e1505, and I got the cheapest HD and RAM, because I knew I could upgrade aftermarket for cheap $$$. I am looking at the Hitachi 7K100. Size(space) doesn't really matter to me but preformance does... are there any reviews of the 60g/80g/100g versions side-by-side? I plan on going with the 60g (because it's the cheapest, and like I said size isn't an issue), but before I pull the trigger on this one @ NewEgg for $114 I want to know the differences between this and the other versions of the 7K100. The main preformance issues that I am most interested in are: 1. Power Usage (battery preformance) 2. Heat (I like to keep my stuff as cool as possible) 3. Speed (File TransferSpeed & Seek Times) Thanks in advance for any and all help, -BassKozz
  22. I tried posting this in the Article Feedback section of these forums but it wouldn't let me... probly cus I am a newb here I am building a personal file server, and I plan on using a RAID 5 array to keep everything safe and sound;) After reading this article from AnandTech.com: Hitachi vs. Western Digital vs. Seagate: A Battle of the Mammoths I have decided to go w/ Western Digital. After reading the article on the StorageReview home page: What’s the difference between the WD4000YR and WD4000KD? I have one question, in the article it states: My question is with the line that says "ships with the firm’s “Time Limited Error Recovery†(TLER) feature enabled while the SE16 does not." Is that to say this feature can be enabled on the WD4000KD? Or does it mean that it's not even an option for the KD only for the YR? Because I will be using a RAID 5 array this feature will benifit me, correct? How much of a preformance difference will this feature really provide? Thanks in advance, -BassKozz
  23. BassKozz

    WD4000YR vs. WD4000KD

    Yes but for $40x4 = $160 less I can get 4 KD's instead of 4 YR's... Does anyone know for sure if this feature is enable-able on the KD's or not ? The only other draw back to the KD's is the 3yr warrenty vs. 5yr, but that doesn't bother me cus I'll prolly swap them out in 3 yr's for more storage anyways.
  24. BassKozz

    WD4000YR vs. WD4000KD

    :BUMP: