It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > Articles & Howto's
2Mb and 8Mb cache size on HDs tested in RAID 2Mb and 8Mb cache size on HDs tested in RAID
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


2Mb and 8Mb cache size on HDs tested in RAID
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 16th June 2003, 23:58   #1
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,756
jmke has disabled reputation
Default 2Mb and 8Mb cache size on HDs tested in RAID


Quote:
How does a 2mb cache harddisk compare to its bigger 8mb cache brother? We test them in different RAID setups, using real word benchmarks to show you the actual difference! Software RAID 0 / Hardware RAID 1 / 0 with Stripe sizes: 1 - 4 - 16 - 64 - 512.
HDTach/Sisoft Sandra/File Copying/UT2003
http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=69
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 11:21   #2
Unregistered
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Would have been nice to see some ATTO benchmarks and maybe copying of ISO size files and or large AVI files.

Mind copying from your source drive (you say 20Mb maxtor) probably isn't a good idea as it'll be slower that the destination drive depending which way around your doing it. so that really becomes the limitation. It should have been a faster drive that the tested (say some SCSI's).

But it is a good general review of stripesize effect.

Oh could you explain how you did the timeing of file transfers and Map loadup?
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 11:34   #3
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,756
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

for the file copying I used a small VB app that times the time it takes to copy the whole folder
UT2003 maploading however doesn't have such a function, so I used my trusty chronometer for that one, repeating each test 3 times

I didn't have any faster disk available, as I know it was a limiting factor during the tests, but still shows the performances differences. I was unable to run ATTO benchmark due to time constraints as I already had to hurry up alot to get the drives back to their owner (Comtech).

In the future, HD tests will be more complete, we are here to learn
thanks for your comments!
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 22:40   #4
Unregistered
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Different RAID Controllers would have been a very useful comparison. A few IDE RAID cards actually use some sort of software RAID instead of a true hardware RAID.
The controller you mentioned doesn't include info on the chipset, so that could say a lot.
Also, the major vendors like Promise and HighPoint should be considered. Their products may out perform other cards, or may be the same. That would be very useful.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 23:01   #5
TeuS
 
Posts: n/a
Default

indeed, but that's a whole different review you're talking about!
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2003, 23:13   #6
[M] Reviewer/HWBot *****
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,344
RichBa5tard Freshly Registered
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Unregistered
Different RAID Controllers would have been a very useful comparison. A few IDE RAID cards actually use some sort of software RAID instead of a true hardware RAID.
The controller you mentioned doesn't include info on the chipset, so that could say a lot.
Also, the major vendors like Promise and HighPoint should be considered. Their products may out perform other cards, or may be the same. That would be very useful.
The chipset used was a silicon image 680 chip. It's not slower than a comparable promise/highpoint chip.
__________________
HTPC (mac osx): Mac Mini | Core Duo 1.6Ghz | 2GB DDR2 | 26\" TFT
Development (mac osx): Macbook | Core 2 2.0Ghz | 4GB DDR2 | 250GB HD
Games (win xp): E2160 @ 2.4Ghz | HD3850 OC | Asrock 4coredual-vsta | 2GB DDR2
RichBa5tard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 12:24   #7
FluffyChicken
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, I'm the first unregistered user (post No.2), not the rest.
As you gave a nice clear reply with no skipping the issue I thought I'd register.

One reason I actually read the articel was becuase I have 2x80Gb DM9+ 8Mb in RAID0 config on my onboard Higpoint Controller (also using a simialr 1800+ CPU. I like the fact you didn't use the latest greatest and more a more common CPU, although I bet it's because that's what you had )

Thing is my single IBM 180GXP outperforms it
Well i'll look into it someday and figure out why...
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 12:48   #8
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,756
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FluffyChicken
also using a simialr 1800+ CPU. I like the fact you didn't use the latest greatest and more a more common CPU, although I bet it's because that's what you had )
I chose to run the XP1700+ @ default speeds, to keep everything running as it should. The CPU can easily reach 2.2ghz on aircooling and 2.5 now in my Prometeia

thanks for registering,

What stripe size are you using on the RAID 0 array?
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2003, 19:46   #9
Unregistered
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To be honest I've forgotten but will check Block Size = 64K (default) haven't had a play with them yet.

What I would also be interested in as I use the NTFS file system would be how the block size/clister size does to the equation for different files and if it actually makes a difference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2003, 13:10   #10
FluffyChicken
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That last post was me but for some reason even though logged in it posted as unreged
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2Mb and 8Mb cache size on HDs tested in RAID Sarcastro WebNews 1 15th June 2003 02:43

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO