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 19th June 2003, 12:27   #11
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,737
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

I thought so
maybe in the future we will do another roundup using SATA drives
will extend the list of tests to include a wider range of possible scenario's
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2004, 07:00   #12
Unregistered
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm using two (2) Maxtor 80g SATA's w/the 8m buffer. I used to run two (2) 20g ATA133 2m buffer Maxtors. With those I ran them in Raid0 & used 32k chunk size for the best performance. Well as told by a friend in the know. My question is, will the same 32k chunk size be the best for performance (i.e. gaming & such) w/my new SATA HDD's ??? I will list system specs:
A-bit (NF7-S v2.0)[uses the SiliconImage SI3112a SATA Raid controller]
AMD (XP2100) @2.5Ghz
Corsair (XMS3500)(11.5x218)2x512mb
Maxtor (6Y080MO) (2) 80g 7200rpm 8m buffer SATA HDD's
Sony 52x34x52 CD/RW
ATI Radeon 9800XT
SB Audigy X-Gamer
TTGI 520w PSU
The one thing I noticed is my current ATA is set @ ATA100, & my highest is @ ATA133 ?? I thought the SATA interface would @ least show ATA150. I have the latest BIOS & drivers, for everything. Just wanting to know, what Kb chunk-size to go with on these new HDD's for performance. Thanx again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2004, 07:05   #13
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,737
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

only way to know your best "chunk size" is to experiment, if you copy large files on those drives = large stripe size, if you want to install your OS on it, then a smaller stripe size will improve the performance
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2004, 07:14   #14
Unregistered
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well yes I use the two SATA's as my boot drives. I do transfer large files on my network & burn music & data. (i.e.-like that new DesertCombat 0.7) That was about a 600mb file. Mostly looking for the fastest game & map loads I can get w/these. Also read & write speeds as well. As you can probably tell, I play D.C. So maybe that can give you some more info. But yes, I will experiment w/them some more. Like I said, they're @ 32kb size now & it seems faster. Maybe 16k or 64k will be faster for me. We'll see. Thanx for such a speed reply. Must be a nite-owl like me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2004, 12:59   #15
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,737
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

more like an early bird
was 8am over here

32K should be good already, but watch out with that RAID-0
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 15:54   #16
kristos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What's best for gaming purposes: raid 0 or raid 1?

By reading the article I would of thought raid 1 would be best but you guys all seem to use raid 0 ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 16:08   #17
TeuS
 
Posts: n/a
Default

raid0 is the fastest
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2004, 16:08   #18
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,737
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

RAID 1 provide fail safe, lower write speed, and higher cost.

RAID 0 can provide faster read/write speeds then RAID 1 but it is a risk, if you put your save-games on a none-RAID partition however you can have lightening fast hard drives where the games data files are
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 03:10   #19
kristos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jmke
RAID 1 provide fail safe, lower write speed, and higher cost.

RAID 0 can provide faster read/write speeds then RAID 1 but it is a risk, if you put your save-games on a none-RAID partition however you can have lightening fast hard drives where the games data files are
wait, let me see if I get this: what you are saying is that I should have a number of disk in raid 0 with all the normal files on and keep the save games on a seperate disk that's not in the raid array?
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 08:02   #20
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,737
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

correct
__________________
jmke is offline   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 01:43

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 13:35.


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