• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ewart

  • Rank
  1. Hi mervincm, yes I can confirm my results are the right way around, i.e. it is faster with the cache enabled - are you sure your results are the right way around? noting the console message will say 'disable volume cache..' when it is enabled. Hi Trinary, looks like the same thing alright. You could try upgrading your ROM, but It does look like other apps are interfeering with your result through - try sysinternals process monitor (a microsoft tool), which is free, to see what else is happening on your disk. cheers ewart
  2. ewart

    WD360ADFD much faster than old model?

    I have a friend with 8 raptors in a RAID and he's pretty disapointed. I'm selling my raptors myself.. (at least until they bring out a fast 300gb model) anyway, maybe at 135mb/s, this is the way to go: http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?...amp;qpid=250266 cheers
  3. Not beta versions; and sorry, I don't have XP installed. Seems the shop left those little suckers on. I pulled them off and my hard drives were on fire!. Literally! No, really - as it was an electrical fire I immediately turned off all the power at the mains first then attempted to blow out the flames before the smoke got too bad. I succeded.. it was interesting trying to pull the melted SATA power cable out of the drive.. very unimpressed. Anyway, having spent the entire day rebuilding the array (yay for RAID 10, although the rebuild process took about 6 hours), (and after the purchase of two new 750gb drives) I can confirm that hdtach 3.0.1 reports: avg read speed with volume write cache disabled: 86.4mb/s -- pretty much across the entire disk span avg read speed with volume write cache enabled: 127.8mb/s -- Starts at 160mb/s and drops to 80mb/s at the disk end not sure why enabling the cache improves the read test but there you go. Will leave cache enabled and see how this performance translates to real world apps in due course. I'd still be interested in your HD tach results. cheers ewart.
  4. My guess is there are other people with RAID 10 on this chipset without this problem, if so it'd be nice to have their experience. cheers
  5. I'm experiencing slow RAID 10 Performance with 4 x 750gb seagate drives on a ASUS P5E motherboard. All equipment brand new. Average speed is 80mb/s, some spikes up to 90mb/s and down to 20mb/s. At this performance level I'd be better off removing the drives from the RAID as the RAID is slowing them down. Outside the RAID a single disk gets me up to 105mb/s. Intel Matrix Storage (ISM) console reports drives running in 'Generation 1' transfer mode, with ncq and write cache enabled; stripe size 65kb. The drives are plugged into ports 1 though 4. Using latest MB BIOS and ISM 7.8.1013 My previous motherboard with a ICH7R and older generation 320gb seagate drives was much faster so there is clearly something very wrong here. Using Vista x64 and Q9450 CPU @ 3.2ghz. any suggestions appreciated, compile times are a bitch! regards ewart
  6. ewart

    Thinking of buying 1TB Drive?

    If the drive is certified to run 24x7 then you should worry about running it for less time.. Anyway, I would enquire as to what you plan to use it for and what is important to you.. price/reliability/storage space/performance etc. If reliability is a primary concern and storage isn't (by your description of planned use it shouldn't be unless you have a hell of a lot of photos, or are storing many hours of video).. then you are better off buying two 500gb drives and mirroring them (or simply copying the data between them as a backup). If your single 1TB drive fails you've lost it all, and frankly it does happen from time to time. If you have two 500gb drives mirrored, you've got an instant backup and no wasted downtime either. In $NZ you can buy two 500gb drives for $368 or 1TB drive for $685. Actually, you can very nearly buy 2TB in 500gb drives for the same price.. cheers ewart
  7. You'll have probably noted toms are halfway through what hopefully will be a reasonably comprehensive review of the latest RAID cards. You could encourage them to review the ones you interested in, and RAID 5 also.. if they are not already. One thing they have indicated already is one of the cards did not scale well past 4/5 320gb sata drives.. although that was on a RAID 0/10 setup so who knows.. please post your decision and outcome of your search when you've got your new controller, I'd be interested in how the performance worked out.. I'm using 4x320gb drives in ICH7R matrix-raid 10 and 0 until such time as I can determine whether an expensive controller is going to offer me more significantly more benefit for my investment... I get about 110mb/s on the RAID 10 at present.. I think the drives are perhaps capable of 180mb/s on the right controller. cheers ewart.
  8. to get your attention first: Read IO's per second 8kb 32kb 128kb Raptor: 126 194 146 SCSI 298 407 416 Flash 1000+ 641 232 I posted a question earlier asking if anyone had seen a review of corsair's latest 8gb GT model flash drive, supposedly it is very fast. It didn't attract much interest or any responses but I have found an article on flash drives in general which, if I do the math correctly, shows several flash drives doing random IO of 8kb blocks at a rate of 1000 IO/s per second. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/di...roundup_12.html now if I read storage review correctly, and I may not have, the raptor is capable of only 126 8kb IO/s per second, and the fastest SCSI drive (a 15Krpm seagate) is capable of 298, 8kb IO/s persecond. again at a 32kb block size, the fastest flash drive in the review (..which I don't think is the fastest one available anymore... someone please do/find an IO reading for corsairs 8gb GT model..) beats the fastest 15Krpm SCSI by 50% in reads at 128kb blocks, the scsi really hammers the flash drives reading ability, although the flash still outperforms the raptor. on writes, which is not something I'm concerned about for my purposes, the flash drives reviewed are far far slower, say ~50 IO/s per second at 8kb. Interestingly Corsair are claiming the write spead on their new "GT" range is almost as fast as the read speed.. and both speeds are significantlly faster than the results in xbitlabs reviews. I'm looking at the file server IO pattern on SR, I havn't looked to see what pattern xbitlabs are using. well, any way its only cheap I guess if your database or whatever can fit on an 8gb flash drive, lol.
  9. So, anyone seen any reviews where someone runs IOMeter (pref database and web patterns) over the: Corsair Flash Voyager GT 8GB (supposedly the fastest USB 8gb flash drive available) I'd love it compared to an ordinary HD 7200rpm HD for IO, and a raptor out of curosity.. I see the access times on the drive should give it a help for random IO but how fast is it really?. There are a lot of websites and databases out there which are <8gb and would fit nicely onto this.. please point me to a review or if you own one of these please run iometer for me!!!! cheers
  10. ewart


    I upgraded from 3.2ghz dual 805 to conroe E6600 and subjectively it felt snappier. I ran some benchmarks, eg prime number testing and it benchmarked much faster. I run world community grid to do my bit for cancer and that is defintely chuncking though data about 25% faster which is awesum. In real world terms I'm very happy, and I havn't overclocked it yet (until I sort out a problem with the windows MCE only recognising 2.1gb of the 4gb of ram when I have two video cards plugged in.. when I have 1 video card plugged in it jumps up to 3.1gb of ram.. more like what I expected.) vista RC1 shows 4gb which is good. yup my wallet is a lot lighter too, lol. fun though, eh?! cheers
  11. Thanks for the alternative suggestion, the answer is unfortunatley not without upgrading to enterprise edition of SQL Server, which costs about $16,000. As it is the server has 4gb of RAM and SQL can only use 2gb.. cheers ewart.
  12. thanks for your comments. here in New Zealand thats the cost of a small house in the suburbs!! in reality that pricing is 5.4% of the total server cost, and I don't want my client to spend money on something if there is simply no benefit at all. could put the money towards other things. re your other comments we have already addressed them thanks, I simply want to know the difference in cache performance.
  13. Hi guys, can anyone comment on likely performance differences between 256mb and 512mb controller cache (it's for a HP P600 smart array SAS RAID controller). The 512mb version is about $400 USD more.. is it worth it? The situation is a 40gb transactional database with 350 concurrent users with a fair amount of disk activity.. I can get more details if required. cheers ewart. ps please fill out my survey for my thesis.. closes 6-september. Here
  14. While everyone is waiting for the Cheetah 15.5krpm review (one or two of those would suppliment my Raptor 150gb nicely!), I'm hoping a few fellow SR readers will be able to help me out here... Your opinion counts!! I am doing a thesis and I need people’s opinions about what is important on the internet; and have created a short online survey. People who help out will learn the top 11 factors that influence peoples buying decisions on the web.. that I have uncovered in various focus groups. I promise it is short! and completely anonymous. I've posted it here: Whats Important on the Net To be statistically useful I will need quite a few valid responses from genuine people.. could you please fill it out and forward this email to, well, as many people as you can J Anyone, their friends, partner, cats and dogs that has a moment online to fill it out. I’m hoping people that get hold of it will be able to help me by passing it on until the 27th of August, when the survey closes. Doesn’t matter where in the world you are from. Fingers crossed I will have enough responses!! Anyone who's ever done a literature review knows the pain of this process!! You can contact me if you want on ewart at ihug.co.nz Thanks Ewart