• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trazom

  1. Hi, I thought this info might be useful for some of you, We noticed a big performance issue using WD 500GB hard disks in RAID5. Both WD5000KS and WD5000YS have the problem. This is what we tried : RAID5 Array (4 disks), we tried stripe size of 16, 64 and 128kb on these controllers: 3ware 9650SE 8ML, 3ware 9550SX 4ML, Highpoint RR2220 and Highpoint RR2310. In all cases, the RAID5 Array using WD5000KS or WD5000YS drives was very slow to read (60MB/sec roughly over all disk), while the same array config on same controllers with WD3200KS and WD3200YS (320GB hd), give 140 to 150MB/sec read. We tested the speed in 3 different ways (Hdtach RW pro, hdtest and windows file transfer) We opened a web supports with 3ware and Western Digital (we sent 2 requests for support, no answer received). Finally, we got the following answer from 3ware: So it seems there is really a problem with those drives, that 3ware was able to confirm. Here are firmware versions we have ou our drives: the WD5000KS have firmware 07.02E07 and the WD5000YS have firmware 09.02E09 I also have to add that those drives show no problem in RAID0 and RAID10, they give the same (good) performance than WD3200KS/YS If anyone heard of a solution for this, I'll be glad to hear... meanwhile, I hope WD gets a firmware fix for this, because we have 16 of those drives and we need RAID5 David.
  2. Trazom

    ReadyBoost... ?

    If you have more than 1GB of RAM, the performance gain is negligeable, and over 2GB RAM, I wouldn't botter to try to mess up with that ReadyBoost thing... Now, who would dare to use vi$$$ta with only 512MB ram?
  3. Trazom

    Raid Question

    If I understand correctly you use Intel Matrix storage and have one RAID0 array of 100GB and a RAID1 array of 450GB from 2 500GB hds? I can be a good choice depending on what you want to do. If one hard disk fails, you'll lose all data from that 100GB partition, on other hand, that partition will have higher transfer speed (read/write), but access time won't change. If you plan to put your OS on that partition, make sure to move your documents, email & improtant stuff on the mirror partition. I used to do something like that. I had 6 disks : 2 in mirror for the OS and 4 in matrix with 1 partition in RAID5 for data + 1 partition in RAID0 for game installation (helped because those games had huge files to load, and it was noticeably faster, while I didn't care if I lost them, I could just reinstall). I also used that RAID0 partition for video edition work files.
  4. Win XP 64 is based on win 2003 x64, so I guess it doesn't make a big difference. Personally I am using Win 2003 x64 for vmware host, and I am very happy with it. I confirm your choice, stay away from vi$ta!
  5. Trazom

    WD3200KS vs WD3200AAKS

    There could be various reasons, I have these in mind: 1) Have you done the long bench or the fast one? the fast one is less precise. Also if you would use HDTach RW, you could use the "full bench" and get a more reliable result 2) It could be related to the Stripe size of your array, HDTach seems to give strange results with large stripes (it also depends on the number of disks in the array) 3) Was that disk your system disk? Any disk access during the bench will mess up the result somewhat. These are some ideas...
  6. I totally disagree, Windows XP x64 is very good and more stable than 32bits version, if you are not troubled by some unavailable drivers (some webcams, tv capture cards, ...) it's the way to go. Personally I have been extremely disappointed by Vi$ta, and I would certainly not recommend the 64bit version of it at the moment for various reasons including poor driver support, requirement for signed drivers, ... Only thing to check is if your hardware has drivers for XP64, I had problems with one webcam not being supported, I just bought another one for 20$.
  7. Trazom

    Raid 50 VS Raid 6

    I just got 8 disks to test it... Well, so far I can see that RAID6 is around 50% faster than RAID50! I'm disappointed of the performances, I would expect to have much higher write speed than I got (around 105MB/sec on RAID6, around 72MB/sec on RAID 50). I thought 3ware 9650 controllers would be faster than that? even in RAID0 I find the write speed low (around 235MB/sec with 8 disks). Write back cache is activated, Storsav is set on performance. I tried deactivate NCQ but it doesn't change anything.
  8. Trazom

    Raid 50 VS Raid 6

    I have a 3ware 9650SE-8ML Controller, and I'm wondering what are the differences between RAID 50 and RAID 6 with 6 or 8 disks I can see that both will give the same capacity. Raid 50 will allow for 1 failure per Raid 5 member when RAID6 allows any 2 disks to fail. What about performances? will RAID 50 be faster?
  9. Trazom

    noticable differences?

    It mostly depends on what application you'll be running. If your application requires a lot of disk access (not sequential), the 10000rpm will make it all faster (around 9ms average access compared to around 12ms for 7200rpm). Your OS will load slightly faster, applications will load a bit faster, having your swap partition/swap file on a 10k rpm disk will also help. But I would say it might not be worth the extra cost of such disk unless you really need the performance boost. Here are some applications (most server oriented) that will benefit a lot from reduced access time : - Web server - Database - Indexing - Some games (the ones with a lot of data to load) - Video edition (I would suggest 1 fast/low access time work disk + 1 redundant array for final result storage) Hope it gives you an idea.
  10. Trazom

    noticable differences?

    It's generally strongly advised to use same hard disk brand & model for a RAID array. My best guess would be that using a RAID-1 with 1 7200 rpm and 1 10000rpm disk will give you the access performance of the slowest drive. But it might depend on the controller. At best I think you would have an access time slightly higher than the average of the 2 access time. Now for the transfer speed, it also depends on your controller (if it does striped read on mirror or not). And for the size, your array size will be the size of the smallest drive. I really suggest you use 2 identical hard disks. I heard it's even possible to have a huge performance decrease due to sync problems between 2 different HD in RAID that could eventually make the array to break frequently, but I never tried.
  11. Trazom

    noticable differences?

    Well, according to my experience, you'll need 6 7200rpm disks in RAID5 to reach the write performance of 2 raptor 10k disks in standalone/RAID1. This doesn't count that the raptors have lower access time, this will make a huge difference. If Storage space is not an issue to you, I guess 2 Raptor 150GB in RAID-1 is what you are looking for. If you want increased speed and redundancy, you might look for 4 disks in RAID 10 (either raptor for low access time or cheap 7200rpm for high storage space) Another option might be to use a mainboard with Intel ICH8R chipset, you could use matrix raid with 4 disks and have a RAID10 partition for OS and things requiring speed, and RAID5 for storage (expect write speed in the 25MB/s with cache activated)