KCComp

The Final Word on 'SCSI performance in Windows XP'

Recommended Posts

On Page 1 of this thread I wrote:
I've read through this thread and don't recollect seeing anything about this issue: since add-in IDE cards like the Promise Ultra-100 are "considered" to be SCSI controllers in Win2k/XP, are they also affected by the problems identified by Cas and Eugene?

Do we have any definite conclusions on this?

I'm presuming you're talking about IDE RAID? The simple answer is, if the controller supports the relevant commands, then you should se the same impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chew,

Thanks for the reply.

No, not Raid, just plain vanilla PCI add-in ATA controller that is seen by W2k/XP as a SCSI controller, with just a single or two drives hooked up to it, JBOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chew,

Thanks for the reply.

No, not Raid, just plain vanilla PCI add-in ATA controller that is seen by W2k/XP as a SCSI controller, with just a single or two drives hooked up to it, JBOD.

Oh, I wasn't aware there are standard ATA controllers that show up that way. The same answer still stands I guess, although I find it very unlikely that these controllers would implement the commands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How long does it take your X15 to copy to itself? It takes mine 20 secs to copy a 1GB file from one X15-36LP to another on the same channel, and 44 secs to copy to itself. This is using .Net Server Enterprise Server build 3718. In another post which I cannot find right now I gave the times in winXP. They were much greater (slower). There is clearly a problem with winXP Pro and SCSI performance, which has been fixed in .Net Server.

I registered for MS CD Windows Server 2003 two week ago. One week ago I send to them mail asking about my matter. Receive nothing in reply. Only need to add that it’s Moscow department of MS. May be rules become new but people habits quickly don’t change. I can’t have disk system files from the net also. All RC2 versions placed on FTP is in one big ~600MB archive file. I don’t have broad band. Can somebody who have installed or not Windows Server 2003 RC2 build 3718, 3742 or better last 3757 send to me the next files, total approximately~3Mb (if taken not archived files from installed Server 2003) or more than twice less when taken from i386 folder of uninstalled Server. So file names and folders from where to take them from.

Windows, WinNT, NT, NET SERVER=Root.

RootHelp – diskcons.chm, diskmgms.hlp, diskmgts.chm

RootInf – disk.inf, scsi.inf, scsidev.inf

RootSystem32 – diskcomp.com, diskcopy.com, diskcopy.dll, diskmgmt.msc, diskpart.exe, diskperf.exe, perfc009.dat, perfd009.dat, perfdisk.dll, perfh009.dat, perfi009.dat, storprov.dll

RootSystem32Drivers – ataboot.sys, atapi.sys, crcdisk.sys, disk.sys, diskdump.sys, ftdisk.sys, partmgr.sys, pciide.sys, pciidex.sys, ramdisk.sys, rsfilter.sys, scsiport.sys

If somebody ready to help please post to my e-mail ISAvltky@yahoo.co.uk (if knew name the build number of Server version).

Delete old interface from the beginning of my mail. Much thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem Description: My God Box:

Tyan Thunder K7 SCSI/LAN

Windows XP Pro with all patches installed

Dual Athlon 2100+ MP processors

1.5 GB Crucial PC2100 ECC DDR

LSI Logic MegaRAID 320-2 with 64 MB and battery

RAID 1: 2 x ST336607LC SCA U320 36GB 10.6K

RAID 5: 4 x ST336607LC SCA U320 36GB 10.6K

U160 18GB 15K on-board SCSI channel for temp, temporary internet files, and paging file 4 GB

On-Board U160 SCSI Channel A

HP DAT 40i LVD Tape Backup Unit

Exabyte VXA-2 80/160GB LVD Tape Backup Unit

Plextor UltraPlex SCSI-UW CD-ROM

On-Board U160 SCSI Channel B

HP SCSI-2 8X CD-RW

Toshiba SCSI-2 DVD-ROM

Visiontek 128MB Ti4600 AGP video adapter

Hercules GTXP 7.1 sound adapter

Harman / Kardon AVR 325 (connected to Audio and Video adapter, TV, Cable Box, VCR/DVD player)

Okidata 10I Laser Printer

Epson Color Stylus 800 Inkjet Printer

Antec SX-1200 14 device tower case

PC Power and Cooling 450A4 power supply

20A Independent circuit

Tripp Lite 2400W Line Conditioner for computer and monitor

2 xTripp Lite 600W Line Conditioner for printers, AV hardware

Rounded cables on all devices from Sidewindercomputers.com

Fans:

Inbound: 2 x 50 cfm (hard drive chassis), 1 x 34 cfm

Outbound: 2 x 34 cfm, 1 x 40 cfm (power supply), 1 x 50 cfm

Since switching from Windows 2000 Pro to XP Pro, I have seen a dramatic change in performance. My write performance in SCSI RAID fell 60% in XP Pro. Tonight, I am going to try CAS filter driver fix. I even forwarded it to LSI Logic to have them test it. LSI Logic was able to recreate the problem. Every patch and service pack for XP Pro is installed. I contacted Microsoft and started a conversation with them on the subject. I increased my RAM from 1GB to 1.5GB to see if that would improve XP system caching. It did help.

My conversation with Microsoft was on why XP Pro does not test on installation to see what the optimal setting is for hard drives. It should be able to test to see if you have a cached controller that is capable of better handling disk traffic. I asked LSI Logic to come up with a patch to disable how XP Pro does write caching. I want them to contact Microsoft and develop a registry patch to better optimize their hardware. My workstation has the hardware of a file server. My disks act worse than ATA66 drives.

If anyone has any other suggestions, e-mail me. mckennma@wideopenwest.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XP Pro - the toy OS.

Perhaps you could use Server 2003? Either a 360 day trial or with your unlimited resources just buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should I spend another $1200 on Win2003 when they cannot get XP Pro to function. I will probably go back to Win2000 Pro, if they cannot come up with a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i assure you the 'problem' is 100% present in sp3 - are you sure you took your numbers using it, and not before it?

it shouldn't affect 'feel' at all as it only limits str, but if you're working with large files it could cause you to notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some drivers will avoid the performance problems.

MS has released a hotfix for this in Win2K, has integrated the hotfix into Win2003, and will be providing the same options in WinXP SP2. If you can't wait for that, try cas' xpcachefilter.

Search the forums if you want links.

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