After installing and running HD tune, I thought it would be a good idea to compare raid / hdd speeds, I started this thread on another forum and discovered my raid setup was actually very slow, my results here:
I'm currently running a raid 5 (x3 250Gb SATA WD Hdd's)
Transfer rate:
Min 13.6 MB/sec
Max 89.3 MB/sec
Avg 52.2 MB/sec
Access time 15.4ms
Although I'm aware that a raid 5 has redundancy (parity), I did think it would be quicker, and just look at that graph, but in response to this bad performance, I order x2 samsung F3's for a raid 0, once up and running, I will post up the results.
Anyone else care to share?
Download Link: http://www.hdtune.com/
(you can also check for errors with this tool)
Quote from: Snokio;300491Although I'm aware that a raid 5 has redundancy (parity), I did think it would be quicker
Raid5 is almost as fast as raid0 when it comes to reading data. If what you want is high write performance however, raid5 isn't your thing. See The Raid 5 performance section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_5_performance) in the Wikipedia article for more details :)
HD Tune Pro: ADAPTEC RAID 10 (4 x 150GB WD Raptors)
Benchmark
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 21.5 MB/s (interestingly this was above 80MB/s until about 5 seconds from the end and then it dipped sharply for a couple of seconds to 21.5MB/s and then back up to 100MB/s)
Transfer Rate Maximum : 160.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 119.9 MB/s
Access Time : 9.5 ms
Burst Rate : 124.8 MB/s
CPU Usage : 9.6%
My old RAID 0s were faster than that, I would reconsider the setup :g:I have one of my ex-RAID disks as cache for various small files (120GB Hitachi) that does minimum 28 MB/s, maximum 59MB/s and averages on 47MB/s, so I would serious reconsider that setup...
I have presently broken up my raid and my current disk is a 30GB SSD which does 115MB/s minimum, hits a infrastructure roof at 220MB/s (flatlines) and averages about 185 MB/s :D (no access time and about 1-2% CPU usage)
HD Tune Pro: STM3500418AS Benchmark
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 26.7 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 131.4 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 98.1 MB/s
Access Time : 15.0 ms
Burst Rate : 171.5 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
I don't have RAID set up at all though, just a single 500GB SATA plus other programs were running in background so not sure what impact that would have.
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj202/danparrott/HDTune.jpg)
HD Tune Pro: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 192.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 243.7 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 209.3 MB/s
Access Time : 0.2 ms
Burst Rate : 214.4 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
Quote from: DannagE;300500(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj202/danparrott/HDTune.jpg)
HD Tune Pro: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 192.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 243.7 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 209.3 MB/s
Access Time : 0.2 ms
Burst Rate : 214.4 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
This is fast! Would this be typical of RAID 0 do you think?
Quote from: Jabbs;300501This is fast! Would this be typical of RAID 0 do you think?
Its raid0 SSD's. My raid0 raptors were shocking on this pc in comparison, and 100% noisier :D
With those results (no curves) It looks like x2 64gb SSD's :g:
Edit: beat me to it
Quote from: Snokio;300504With those results (no curves) It looks like x2 64gb SSD's :g:
Edit: beat me to it
SSD's could be the way to go then :)
I was considering SSD's, but the cost (for Intel ones) vs capacity is too high for me at the moment, after doing research, the Samsungs are very quick (topping some 2009 benchmarks) and so with the x2 samsungs I'm buying in will (hopefully) get in and around 200 MB/s with avg read (the most important statistic)
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-drive-charts/h2benchw-3.12-Avg-Read-Throughput,1010.html
But SSD's are the future!
Quote from: DannagE;300500HD Tune Pro: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark
Transfer Rate Average : 209.3 MB/s
Is it really worth RAID'ing them? Mine does 185MB/s average, so why bother buying two, to get 13% more? :g:Or am I missing something?
These look like the next big thing in SSD's
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702
What's going on here then?
2 x WD Raptor 150GB in raid0
Quote from: OldBloke;300514What's going on here then?
2 x WD Raptor 150GB in raid0
That seems about right to me, if individually you would get 70-80, thats still good performance, remember the more drives added the higher the performance (across the bus).
Been told that it also depends on your stripe size (64k / 128k etc) and the number of platters per disk.
my old raid setup before the burglar nicked it
Minimum transfer rate 362.4MB/sec
Maximum transfer rate 443.7MB/sec
Average transfer rate 401.3MB/sec
Average access time: 0.1 ms
Burst rate 552.1MB/sec
CPU usage 4.9%
Sadly they were on a bollox raid controller, i had planned to use a Areac PCIe controller at some point, should make it about 10% faster
taken from some old performance logs i had saved on the NAS
Quote from: delanvital;300508Is it really worth RAID'ing them? Mine does 185MB/s average, so why bother buying two, to get 13% more? :g:Or am I missing something?
I guess if you went for more disks in the array then if you gained 13% each time then it WOULD be worth it. I saw a video of a system set up by a company (can't remember who they were at the moment - might be on these forums?) where they had LOADS of SSD's in the system and the speed was unbelievable!
Still, The SSD's are packing some punch anyway.
This Break video to be precise! (http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/3/24-256GB-Samsung-MLC-SSD-s-683890.html)
Quote from: kregoron;300521my old raid setup before the burglar nicked it
Minimum transfer rate 362.4MB/sec
Maximum transfer rate 443.7MB/sec
Average transfer rate 401.3MB/sec
Average access time: 0.1 ms
Burst rate 552.1MB/sec
CPU usage 4.9%
Sadly they were on a bollox raid controller, i had planned to use a Areac PCIe controller at some point, should make it about 10% faster
taken from some old performance logs i had saved on the NAS
Was that your SAS rig? I'm guessing you had a few drives attached on that, all the same, thats very quick, shame you no longer have it :sad:
Quote from: Jabbs;300522I guess if you went for more disks in the array then if you gained 13% each time then it WOULD be worth it. I saw a video of a system set up by a company (can't remember who they were at the moment - might be on these forums?) where they had LOADS of SSD's in the system and the speed was unbelievable!
Still, The SSD's are packing some punch anyway.
now imagine they used SLC's instead of MLC's :dribble: (and Intels instead of Samsungs :norty:)
Quote from: Snokio;300524Was that your SAS rig? I'm guessing you had a few drives attached on that, all the same, thats very quick, shame you no longer have it :sad:
2 intel X25-m Gen2 raid 0 on a adaptec raid controller
Ran it again after playing with a few settings. Dunno about the dips though :sideways:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj202/danparrott/HDTune2.jpg)
HD Tune Pro: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 200.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 498.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 401.4 MB/s
Access Time : 0.2 ms
Burst Rate : 1740.8 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
Third times a winner!
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj202/danparrott/HDTune3.jpg)
HD Tune Pro: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark
Test capacity: full
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 365.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 496.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 403.4 MB/s
Access Time : 0.1 ms
Burst Rate : 1679.5 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
:D
what settings did you change?
Matrix drivers installed and write back cache enabled. Seems good to me :o
Quote from: DannagE;300512These look like the next big thing in SSD's
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702
Ok, I've wiped the drool off the keyboard and am now awaiting the arrival of March 2010 with way too much enthusiasm. :doh:
Quote from: Snokio;300524now imagine they used SLC's instead of MLC's :dribble: (and Intels instead of Samsungs :norty:)
Umm...yeah! :g:
What's the difference lol :D
Quote from: Jabbs;300548Umm...yeah! :g:
What's the difference lol :D
In basic terms, quite a bit,
One bench mark picked at random:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/Desktop-Performance,938.html
Taken from wiki:
SLC versus MLCLower priced drives usually use multi-level cell (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/wiki/Multi-level_cell)
(MLC) flash memory, which is slower and less reliable than single-level cell (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/wiki/Single-level_cell)
(SLC) flash memory.[8] (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=300548#cite_note-CWorldLackluster-7)[9] (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=300548#cite_note-8) This can be mitigated by the internal design structure of the SSD, such as interleaving and more excess capacity for the wear-leveling algorithms to work with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#SLC_versus_MLC
Not always the case, but Intel seem to be the market leaders in SSD in terms of performace with their 'M' series (mainstream using MLC) and 'E' series (Extreme edition using SLC), SLC also has very fast write speeds, but all this is at a high cost :crying:
Kreg knows more on SSDs than me, and I may be a bit out of date :g:.
Quote from: Snokio;300553In basic terms, quite a bit,
One bench mark picked at random:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/Desktop-Performance,938.html
Taken from wiki:
SLC versus MLC
Lower priced drives usually use multi-level cell (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/wiki/Multi-level_cell) (MLC) flash memory, which is slower and less reliable than single-level cell (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/wiki/Single-level_cell) (SLC) flash memory.[8] (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=300548#cite_note-CWorldLackluster-7)[9] (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=300548#cite_note-8) This can be mitigated by the internal design structure of the SSD, such as interleaving and more excess capacity for the wear-leveling algorithms to work with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#SLC_versus_MLC
Not always the case, but Intel seem to be the market leaders in SSD in terms of performace with their 'M' series (mainstream using MLC) and 'E' series (Extreme edition using SLC), SLC also has very fast write speeds, but all this is at a high cost :crying:
Kreg knows more on SSDs than me, and I may be a bit out of date :g:.
sounds about right to me :)
tho if anyone decides to go for a SSD, remember to keep an eye out for gen 2 versions, especially intels ssd's as the gen1 are generally a fair bit slower
Quote from: Snokio;300491I'm currently running a raid 5 (x3 250Gb SATA WD Hdd's)
Transfer rate:
Min 13.6 MB/sec
Max 89.3 MB/sec
Avg 52.2 MB/sec
Access time 15.4ms
Although I'm aware that a raid 5 has redundancy (parity), I did think it would be quicker, and just look at that graph, but in response to this bad performance, I order x2 samsung F3's for a raid 0, once up and running, I will post up the results.
And finally, here they are:
Currently running a raid 0 (x2 1TB SATA Samsung Hdd's)
Transfer rate:
Max: 276 MB/Sec
Min: 147.1 MB/sec
Avg: 217.3 MB/sec
Access: 13.7ms
Took awHile to sort it out as it started off with some spikes, which meant my minimum was hitting 30-40Meg/sec, and getting 202Meg/sec avg, this was caused by indexing (and to a lesser extent, old intel raid drivers), switched Indexing off and updated drivers and no more spikes or dramatic spikes :D