2Mb and 8Mb cache size on HDs tested in RAID - Page 2

jmke · 19th June 2003, 12:27

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

9th February 2004, 07:00

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.

jmke · 9th February 2004, 07:05

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

9th February 2004, 07:14

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.

jmke · 9th February 2004, 12:59

more like an early bird

was 8am over here

32K should be good already, but watch out with that RAID-0

kristos · 23rd February 2004, 15:54

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 ...

23rd February 2004, 16:08

raid0 is the fastest

jmke · 23rd February 2004, 16:08

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

kristos · 26th February 2004, 03:10

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?

jmke · 26th February 2004, 08:02

correct

19th June 2003, 12:27	#11
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 78,419	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 __________________

9th February 2004, 07:05	#13
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 78,419	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 __________________

9th February 2004, 12:59	#15
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 78,419	more like an early bird was 8am over here 32K should be good already, but watch out with that RAID-0 __________________

23rd February 2004, 15:54	#16
kristos Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,554	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 ... __________________ "Welcome to the internet; where men are men, women are men, and little girls are FBI agents."

23rd February 2004, 16:08	#18
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 78,419	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 __________________

9th February 2004, 07:00	#12
Unregistered Posts: n/a	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.

9th February 2004, 07:14	#14
Unregistered Posts: n/a	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.

23rd February 2004, 16:08	#17
TeuS Posts: n/a	raid0 is the fastest

26th February 2004, 08:02	#20
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 78,419	correct __________________

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