Defiler

Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP

Recommended Posts

leokor, those are the results I got with both Nforce board I tried.... MSIK7n 420 d and ASUS a7n266e.  I am seeing more people with problems running firewire through the PCI bus on the nforce boards too.... anything that requires more than 2.84MB/s or so in the write direction is in trouble.

Sorry, but I hope someone finds a solution.

I'm not sure the problem is with the chipset. There are people here with VIA who have the same problem, though perhaps with somewhat different numbers.

Also, my old computer that I gave over to my daughter exhibits a completely opposite problem. It is an Intel 440LX system, with a Fujitsu MAJ running off Advansys controller. In that situation, the roles are reversed. The write speeds are great, but the read speeds are aweful! Who would have thunk? :)

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure the problem is with the chipset. There are people here with VIA who have the same problem, though perhaps with somewhat different numbers.

Also, my old computer that I gave over to my daughter exhibits a completely opposite problem. It is an Intel 440LX system, with a Fujitsu MAJ running off Advansys controller. In that situation, the roles are reversed. The write speeds are great, but the read speeds are aweful! Who would have thunk? :)

Leo

The only common denominator appears to be Windows XP...

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The results for an Atlas 10KIII with a Tekram DC-390U3W just came in here. They are extremely similar to my results with the DC-390U2B. WinXP of course.

ATTOYoschi.JPG

Interestingly Handruin has nearly the same config but much higher results. Just a shot in the dark:

Handruin, what filesystem do you use currently ?

(???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:(

Exatly the same here!

I have a Quantum 10KII 18G SCSI U160 and an adaptec 29160 controler and running XP.

An asus A7V266E and an XP1800CPU and the performance under XP is terrible, I noticed it direct when installing my apps and games after the XP install.

In Sandra 2002 I score only 18.000 points and in PCMark2002 onlky 700.

Even an IDE ATA100 disk scored better ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The results for an Atlas 10KIII with a Tekram DC-390U3W just came in here. They are extremely similar to my results with the DC-390U2B. WinXP of course.

ATTOYoschi.JPG

Interestingly Handruin has nearly the same config but much higher results. Just a shot in the dark:

Handruin, what filesystem do you use currently ?

(???)

That run of ATTO was on my Atlas 10KIII with no data on it. It was formatted with NTFS as a single volume. I can't remember what the cluster size was when I formatted it, but it was the default.

I just re-installed XP last night and I have virtually nothing installed. let me run ATTO again and see what I come up with. My 10KIII has no programs or OS files, only misc data so it should be faily decent to test with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone established the performance of an nForce chipset with Windows 2000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried it with the drive formatted as NTFS, as well as FAT32. I have performance problems with both filesystems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greedy: You have Windows XP, I take it?

Could you post a screenshot of your ATTO results with that Cheetah 18XL?

Also, you've got the Ultra2 version of the Tekram board, I've got the Ultra160. Not sure if that has anything to do with it.

Yes, Windows XP Professional. NTFS 5.1, one 9Gb partition, 4K clusters. In terms of drivers, I am using XP's built in for the card (appears as "LSI Logic 8951U/8952U Adapter; 53C895", version 5.1.2600). The drive has write caching enabled (at least it says it does in the Disk Device Properties in the Device Manager). The Tekram card's bios is version 3.23

I'm not sure how to get a picture in here, so I'll just type it in:

Drive: C

Transfer Size 0.5 to 1024 kb

Direct I/O: On

Overlapped I/O: On

Queue Depth: 4

Total Length: 32Mb

Write Read

0.5 4934 6098

1.0 10206 11600

2.0 12741 16255

4.0 15904 16873

8.0 20666 21272

16.0 22750 26126

32.0 26955 28694

64.0 27447 29826

128.0 27060 29826

256.0 24978 29563

512.0 22878 29051

1024.0 23464 28740

Here is the chkdsk on the drive:

8948173 KB total disk space.

4769112 KB in 36481 files.

10036 KB in 2250 indexes.

0 KB in bad sectors.

90329 KB in use by the system.

46800 KB occupied by the log file.

4078696 KB available on disk.

4096 bytes in each allocation unit.

2237043 total allocation units on disk.

1019674 allocation units available on disk.

Hope some of this helps. Give me a shout if you want any more info.

Cheers

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Greedy but which of your 3 drives did you just benchmark ?

The Seagate Cheetah 18XL has a max STR of 36MB/sec, the 9LP is vastly slower than this (probably over 20MB/sec) and the Barracuda 18XL does 26MB/sec.

Interestingly you seem to have no problems at all on smaller blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all these results and the various configs it's pretty hard to make sure we are talking about the same and only cause...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all these results and the various configs it's pretty hard to make sure we are talking about the same and only cause...

Looked at another way, there seem to be a whole lot of people having SCSI performance problems in Windows XP, and almost none in Windows 2000. The fact that there are bad results with all sorts of configs points the finger at Windows XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Greedy but which of your 3 drives did you just benchmark ?

These results were for the 9Gb 18XL (ST39204LW). The results for the other two had a similar shape but topped out at 17Mb (Cheetah 9LP) and 16Mb (Barracuda 18XL - although this is 90% full).

All three disks are mounted as Dynamic Disk, and NTFS with 4K clusters.

My motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-6VXDC7 which is a twin processor board using the VIA Apollo Pro 133A chipset. I have two PIII733MHz processors and 640Mb PC133 SDRAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrm.. Dynamic disk. Interesting. All of mine are Basic.

I wonder if it's worth the effort to format and convert one of them..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just got off the phone with the Microsoft Support. Here's what I was able to learn for my $35.

The tech found a Knowledge Base article Q308219, which sounds suspiciously close to the problem. I was NOT able to locate that article on the web, so it might not be open yet to the general public (however, the tech insisted it WAS public, so it could be something with the search engine). The article was created on September 19, 2001 and most recently updated on February 11, 2002. Its title is... in my own words, because I didn't copied it verbatim off the phone, something like "Hard disk performance is slower than expected [...]". Its description specifically mentions SCSI and NTFS, and it is Windows XP specific.

There is a hotfix for the problem, but it is not even in the beta stage yet, so it is accompanied with some heavy disclaimers. The customer is advised to wait for the next service pack. However, I was able to have it emailed to me. It should already be at my home address, and I will try and see what it will do to my poor system. :) I guess I'll have to back up everything before I apply it, though.

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leokor: I was able to find some mention of that KB article. It's described as "NTFS Driver"

Here's the directory containing the fix, which will be included in Windows XP SP1:

ftp://hotfix.microsoft.com/winnt/windows_..._xp/sp1/q308219

You want the "enu_i386" version.

I'm probably going to try installing this tonight, but I'll have to give it some more thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leokor: I was able to find some mention of that KB article. It's described as "NTFS Driver"

Here's the directory containing the fix, which will be included in Windows XP SP1:

ftp://hotfix.microsoft.com/winnt/windows_..._xp/sp1/q308219

You want the "enu_i386" version.

I'm probably going to try installing this tonight, but I'll have to give it some more thought.

Cool! :) This is not so simple, however, since the self-extracting zip you found is password protected. I can't check what they emailed to my home address until the evening, but I hope that one is unlocked.

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the bug fix works for everyone.

I've given up the good fight against XP. I'm switching back to 2k Pro. I'll use a utility to change all the Icons in shell32.dll to the XP icons. That should give me the feel of the OS that I like.

After reading this I'm gonna wait until SP1 is released before I go back to XP

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/xpsp1.asp

Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) release schedule

Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) revealed

February 28, 2002

Mira beta invites issued

March 7, 2002

Windows XP SP1 Beta 1

Expected mid-May 2002

Windows XP SP1 RTM

Expected mid-August 2002

Windows XP SP1 public availability

Expected mid-September 2002

Hope you all figure it out in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried to format one of my FAT partitions to NTFS but it makes no difference. Since i have the problem with FAT i am not expecting too much from that NTFS fix :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool! :) This is not so simple, however, since the self-extracting zip you found is password protected. I can't check what they emailed to my home address until the evening, but I hope that one is unlocked.

Heh, of course they sent the same password protected file. :) I emailed them back and will probably have a response tomorrow.

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leokor,

If MS doesn't e-mail the password to you, give them a call...the tech should have provided it when he instructed you to install one of the files from that FTP site. It's just a way for MS to control who installs the hotfixes that haven't been publicly released.

Beyond that, sub-par RAID performance has been an issue with XP (still unresolved last I heard), so here's hoping that the hotfix they sent is the answer to the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leokor,

If MS doesn't e-mail the password to you, give them a call...the tech should have provided it when he instructed you to install one of the files from that FTP site. It's just a way for MS to control who installs the hotfixes that haven't been publicly released.

Beyond that, sub-par RAID performance has been an issue with XP (still unresolved last I heard), so here's hoping that the hotfix they sent is the answer to the problem.

Got the passwords. I won't be able to apply the fix today, but some time over the weekend. I'll keep you informed.

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now