Adaptec's Series 5 Unified Serial Controllers

Test Setup

System Hardware
Processor(s) 2x Intel Xeon Processor (Nocona core)
3.6 GHz, FSB800, 1 MB L2 Cache
Platform Asus NCL-DS (Socket 604)
Intel E7520 Chipset, BIOS 1005
RAM Corsair CM72DD512AR-400 (DDR2-400 ECC, reg.)
2x 512 MB, CL3-3-3-10 Timings
System Hard Drive Western Digital Caviar WD1200JB
120 GB, 7,200 RPM, 8 MB Cache, UltraATA/100
Test Hard Drives (8x) Seagate Savvio 10K.2 ST973402SS
73 GB, 10,000 RPM 16 MB Cache, SAS
Mass Storage Controller(s) Intel 82801EB UltraATA/100 Controller (ICH5)
Adaptec RAID 5805
Networking Broadcom BCM5721 On-Board Gigabit Ethernet NIC
Graphics Card On-Board Graphics
ATI RageXL, 8 MB
System Hardware
Performance Measurements c’t h2benchw 3.6
PCMark05 V1.01
I/O Performance IOMeter 2003.05.10
Fileserver-Benchmark
Webserver-Benchmark
Database-Benchmark
Workstation-Benchmark
Streaming Read and Write Benchmarks
System Software & Drivers
OS Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, Service Pack 1
Platform Driver Intel Chipset Installation Utility 7.0.0.1025
Graphics Driver Default Windows Graphics Driver

Test Hard Drives : 8x Seagate Savvio 10K.2

Once again we used Seagate’s 2.5" SAS hard drives. The Savvio 10K.2 runs at a quick 10,000 RPM and provides a storage capacity of 73 GB.

Benchmarks Results : Sequential Throughput (MB/s)

This is the first time we are using our new throughput test, which we assembled by creating a new IOMeter benchmark pattern. It includes 64 kB, 128 kB and 256 k

Streaming (Sequential) Read Performance

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
13 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • Fedor
    The degraded figures for streaming writes don't look right. They are too close (or above??) the normal/optimal state numbers. One idea that comes to mind is that if the writes were too small, they would all go into the cache regardless and render the results somewhat useless.
    0
  • h4vok
    FedorThe degraded figures for streaming writes don't look right. They are too close (or above??)

    The figures look OK. Sequential writes to a degraded array are basically done the same way as writes to an optimal array. The only difference is that the write to the failed drive is skipped.
    0
  • guan1307
    I am confused your testing report , due to Our testing figure of Areca ARC-1680 firmware 1.45 is better than your report ,
    0
  • bull2760
    Can someone tell me what Database server pattern, web server pattern, file server pattern mean. When I run iometer those options are not present I can select 4k-32k or create a custom script. Plus at what stripe size are these tests being run at? I purchased this exact controller and have not duplicated TG results. It would be helpful if you explain in detail how you configured the RAID setup. RAID 5, 6 or 10 with a 16k, 32k, 64k, 128k, 256k, 512k or 1MB stripe size.
    1
  • Anonymous
    I have an ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP which has 2 PCI-E x16. The blue one runs at x16 and black can run at x4 or x1.
    Will this Adaptec card work on my board?
    0
  • kakashi
    I think that Tomshardware should run the Areca’s ARC-1680ML test again with the firmware 1.45 and maybe with the latest IOMeter 2006.07.27. Areca claimed that they have better result: http://www.areca.com.tw/indeximg/arc1680performanceqdepth_32%20_vs_%20tomshardwareqdepth_1_test.pdf
    -1
  • MrMickelson
    Degraded RAID 5 write performance is going to be better than an optimal RAID 5 write because only data stripes are being written opposed to writing data stripes then using XOR to generate the parity stripe thus the write operations will be quicker. Degraded RAID 5 read performance will take a significant hit in performance because rather than just reading only the data stripes for an optimal RAID 5, the available data stripes and available parity stripes will be read then XOR will re-generate this missing data.
    1
  • Anonymous
    Initializing the controller during POST takes a very long time with Adaptec Raid 3 series, which is very frustrating when used in high performance workstations.
    Has this been fixed with the new Raid 5 series ?
    0
  • makaira
    Turn up the heat all right. I installed a new 5805 in a Lian-Li 7010 case with 8 x 1 Tb Seagate drives, Core 2 Quad 2.83Gb and 800w PSU - more fans than you could poke a stick at.

    The controller overheated - reported 99 deg in messages and set off alarm.
    That was on drive initiation. We had a range of errors reported from drives, a number of different drives. The array (5.4Tb Raid 6) never completed building and verifying.

    CPU temp was 45, motherboard 32, and ambient room temp 22deg.

    I installed a 3ware - and all worked fine. Was Tomshardware comment "turns up the heat" written tongue in cheek as there seems to be a heat issue with this card?
    0
  • elektrip
    I'd love to see how this controller performs with some Intel X25-M/E or OCZ Vertex SATA SSDs connected. The tested drives here are probably a bottleneck, not the storage controller. Rather in I/O then sequential though.
    1
  • elektrip
    So, does the Adaptec 5 Series run >1GB/s with SSD drives? Or is ~800MB/s the most you can get, no matter how many drives connected?
    0
  • Anonymous
    Hi, are you gona test drive the new series 6 controllers from Adaptec / PCM Sierra as well? Now that the series 6 is out I reckon noone's gona wana buy a series 5 controller anymore, as there seems to be a heat problem with the series 5 - I wonder if that's improved with the series 6 which, if I got that right, uses a different RAID chip, namely the one from PCM Sierra.
    0
  • Anonymous
    This card takes over a minute to POST at boot. This card has overheating problems. Without an active case fan blowing across it it'll probably crash your system. Despite everything this card is excellent.
    0