Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Hardware RAID0 Help


  • Please log in to reply

#16
astrophysicist

astrophysicist

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
I think you might be onto something about the peripherals slowing it down. I have been experimenting with other benchmarking software and settings. Some of the software, like ATTO and NBench, are giving me much higher results than XMark 7.0. My thoughts are perhaps the former software measure the actual physical capabilities of writing to the array itself, whereas the latter measures that performance of the entire system to write to the array taking into account all the overhead from other things running.

With ATTO and NBench, I am getting speeds ranging from 85MB/s to 104MB/s depending on settings. However, I noticed something strange with ATTO....if I had my USB Flash drive plugged into the computer and ran a test, the speed would get no higher than 60MB/s...take out the flash drive and speeds jump to ~100MB/s, which is odd.

In anycase, it is the actual system performance to write to these drives that I am interested in. I would think with a 3.42GHz proc with 3.25GB of RAM this shouldnt be a problem. Any ideas on how I can clean this up? I have tested the array with only essential peripherals and the speed increase is on the order of 10MB/s.
  • 0

Advertisements


#17
gerryf

gerryf

    Retired Staff

  • Retired Staff
  • 11,365 posts
saw you in the forum visitor list a few moments ago...haven't been around for a couple days and wondering where things stand now?
  • 0

#18
astrophysicist

astrophysicist

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
Still stuck with the same situation as my last reply. I have tried several different things some of which give slight increases but not nearly enough to have the writing capability that we require. I don't really know what else to do; it might be time to face the fact that this RAID controller wont work as advertised with our system. If that is the case, I would really like to know why. Our system was designed for performance, it should be able to handle this amount of throughput. I will keep working on it and keep you informed.

Chris
  • 0

#19
astrophysicist

astrophysicist

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
Just an update,

I talked to a few fellas who are in charge of all the "Return to Flight" video capture here at KSC. They actually seemed impressed with the numbers/speed we were running with on this controller. However, we still aren't satisfied and are searching other options. We have recently obtained a few Ultra 320 SCSI drives with small storage capacity - hopefully we can get some better performance from these, however 1 90 second video sequence will fill up a single drive!

Again, thanks for the help and advice.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP