Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

low score on raid WD SE drive

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 18, 2003 2:14:56 AM

I'm getting some very low scores and read write scores as well. the average seek time is better then SCSI! the average seek is from 2ms to 4ms!!! thats amazingly low. But i'm getting 14MB/s read and write speeds? However it is the sosoft sandra benchmark i'm running. It could be just buggy.

But i did set the cluster size for RAID at 64k. I bet thats the problem. I do have another drive isntalled as well. Just my old drive. I'm keeping until i get time this weekend to reinstall the OS and stuff.

Also i just thought of it. I have the IT7 mobo and one WD drive is on the first master and the other drive is on the 4th slave. (4 IDE ports on the RAID controller, i think it's 2 raid controllers in one. 1 and 2 would be controller 1 and 3 and 4 would be controller 2, now because the raid is split on both controllers maybe that is reducing the speed!?

alright well .. i'm gonna play with it some more though .. anyone got any thoughts from their experience?

also for the love of god can someone, anyone, tell me wtf the cluster size thing is? i guess asking what a good size to use for video editing is a bad question. Maybe if I ask what is it it would help lol :) 

thanks! you guys rock by the way!

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

More about : low score raid drive

a b G Storage
April 18, 2003 5:01:52 AM

Yeah, most benchmark programs don't work well in RAID setups. HD Tach was horrible for that, too. Try it with WinBench 99 and you'll probably see much better results.
-Brett
April 18, 2003 7:15:35 AM

I may not have read ya post well but all drives on the 4 ch raid controller must be set to master and be on the end of each of the four cables, cluster size I am still waiting myself for some advice. I am as confussed about it as you bro.

(I have found sometimes "CS" jumper on WD drives needs to be selected but not always! Clear? yeah, clear as mud :lol: 

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=32..." target="_new">My PC</A>
Related resources
April 18, 2003 3:17:09 PM

Oh, the pain! More reading. LOL! But this should get you started.

<A HREF="http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/concepts/perfS..." target="_new">Stripe Width and Stripe Size</A>

<A HREF="http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-09-1997/swo..." target="_new">Optimize your RAID configurations for maximum performance</A>

<A HREF="http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/IDE_RAID/RA..." target="_new">The Definitive IDE RAID Optimization Guide</A>

Toey

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=32..." target="_new"><font color=green>My System Rigs</font color=green></A>
___________________________________________

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/" target="_new"><b><font color=purple>BTVILLARIN.com</font color=purple></b></A> - <i><font color=orange>Your Computer Questions Answered</font color=orange></i>
April 18, 2003 4:24:14 PM

cant tell ya about why your getting a slower benchmark - it should be transferring at the normal rate at a minimum(50mb/sec or so)

I;ll assume you set up a lvl 0 array
but the cluster size is the size of each bunch of data that it puts on each hard drive
For example, if you have the cluster size set to 8kb, it'll put 8kb on one harddrive, and then 8kb on the other, then 8kb on the first again, and so on.
Unless you are actully doing video editing, set the cluster size a little lower. I like to have mine at 8kb for games and stuff.
April 18, 2003 5:00:15 PM

"Finally, for extremely high-end users who play around with applications that read and write really, really large files (i.e. Photoshop, Premiere), RAID 0 with a large stripe size would be a better choice. As we have seen in the High-End DiskMark results, the 512KB stripe size seems to be the best stripe size."

ya know seriously this is all i wanted to know!!! lol! thanks!

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 18, 2003 5:34:20 PM

Since nobody else has asked yet... are you sure you have UDMA enabled on your raid drives?



--->It ain't better if it don't work<---
April 19, 2003 2:39:56 AM

Did you buy IDE or SCSI drives?

If they are IDE, look in your IDE controllers and be sure the UDMA mode is enabled and active. If they are true SCSI drives, you'll have to check the manuals...



--->It ain't better if it don't work<---
April 19, 2003 3:54:38 AM

the only thing that is displayed are scsi properties. It's an ide drive btw. The RAID controllers use SCSI drivers. They always have. SO their arn't any UDMA options.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 19, 2003 5:55:29 AM

Look in your hardware manager under IDE controllers... They should be on the advanced tab for each channel.


--->It ain't better if it don't work<---
April 19, 2003 3:29:39 PM

i looked at every little thing in the device manager and nothing is there that you are saying. No advanced tab and no DMA settings. So i'm taking your terminology literally. Where is the "hardware manager" that you speak of?

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 19, 2003 3:53:05 PM

Ok... what OS are you running?



--->It ain't better if it don't work<---
April 19, 2003 9:16:47 PM

Okey, dokey... open Control Panel, then System, then Hardware, then Device Manager, then look for IDE ATA/Atapi Controllers and in there you will find your IDE channels... open them and you will find an Advanced tab on which you can set the UDMA to "UDMA if available" for each device... rebooting should then activate UDMA modes for each device that supports it.

You'd be amazed how many people don't know that XP and 2k by default do not enable UDMA modes for all IDE devices. By default only the first hard disk has UDMA enabled.





--->It ain't better if it don't work<---
April 19, 2003 10:27:00 PM

weird because what you speak of isn't even there. There is no advance tab. Besides i have a RAID controller also that supportes up to 8 IDE devices plus the 4 from the normal IDE channel. thats 12 IDE drives. I don't have any hard drives on the IDE channels you speak of. they are all on the RAID controller which uses scsi drivers.

it's alright though! thanks anyway. On my RAID setup i get 66MB/s now! the U320 15KRPM w/ 8MB cache gets 46MB/s! so this puppy is flyin now! Must have been how i had it set up!

again thanks!

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
!