|
nealh
Regular
Posts: 30
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2002, 08:37:31 AM » |
|
thanks..last night I unrared..35 15 mg files(total was 700mg) going from my C drive to my F drive..they are on the HPT 372 controller as ATA133/100 and it took 8 min..used to take 3 min..wonder if you patch idea will help non raid ...
wonder if I should try georges .20 patch??
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nealh
Regular
Posts: 30
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2002, 07:43:37 PM » |
|
where did you get the raid patch from..thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tabulous
Regular
Posts: 34
Join Date: Apr, 2002
|
|
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2002, 04:21:22 AM » |
|
My raid fell over at the weekend, don't worry george nothing to do with your patches, dodgy fujitsu harddisk. But I thought i might as well get a new pair for my raid, 1hour later I was sat at home with a nice new pair of IBM's (40G deskstar 120GXP's). Set new array up with 16kcluster/16kstirpe. installed WinXP and georges latest and greatest and bang what performace. This is what is have been trying to acheve with the fujitsu's but with no look. Dam these puppies sing......... MSI K7T266 Pro2 RU + 2 IBM's + Georges 20beta4 = large grin..........  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nfiniti9
Regular
Posts: 67
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2002, 12:20:34 PM » |
|
I honestly think after the Cuda IV (raid and non-raid) incident that some drives do not work well in raid under any setup, it seems to be true for maxtor as they are fast in single but barely get over a single drive in raid setup. I only tried one fujitsu raid setup and it sucked bad so I never tried again. They weren't very fast in single setup and failed alot anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Krautsurfer
Green
Posts: 3
Join Date: Jul, 2002
|
|
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2002, 06:10:14 PM » |
|
Hi Neahl,
The raid patch is on the viaarena site in de ide drivers section.
Nfiniti9,
I have two MAXTORS in raid and my performance is now an average of 65KB-71KB sequential read in a single drive setup I had 45KB so this is about 1.5X faster. The write speed is almost doubled so that is the best you can get.
You are right about the fact that some other drives do performe better in a raid setup.
The IBM disks have indeed a better performance in raid but the are also known to have a high failure chance. My next setup proberly will be with Western Digital or with Seagate drivers but I have to do some researching first what the best solution would be then. For now I'm happy with the performance of my system as it is.
I did see in your sig that you are running a seagate raid setup. How is the performance can you post some numbers messured with HDSPEED 0.12.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nfiniti9
Regular
Posts: 67
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2002, 06:57:39 PM » |
|
check in this post one the first page, i posted 2 results, once with quick refresh and one with a 3 sec refresh..
you have almost the same scores as me, definately some of the best i've seen with maxtor drives.. but then again you have a full pci raid card as everyone else i've seen uses onboard something.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tabulous
Regular
Posts: 34
Join Date: Apr, 2002
|
|
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2002, 08:11:40 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tabulous
Regular
Posts: 34
Join Date: Apr, 2002
|
|
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2002, 08:14:44 PM » |
|
sorry forgot the key:
Drive 0 : ata100 on normal IDE(fujistu)
Drive 2 : 0+2 stripe ata100 drives (IBM's)
Drive 3 : RamDrive
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tabulous
Regular
Posts: 34
Join Date: Apr, 2002
|
|
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2002, 08:16:40 PM » |
|
sorry forgot the key:
Drive 0 : ata100 on normal IDE(fujistu)
Drive 1 : 0+2 stripe ata100 drives (IBM's)
Drive 2 : RamDrive
Sandra is the raid 0+2 stripe
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nfiniti9
Regular
Posts: 67
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2002, 08:49:33 PM » |
|
the pictures seem broken tab
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tabulous
Regular
Posts: 34
Join Date: Apr, 2002
|
|
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2002, 04:46:28 AM » |
|
soz guys   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pordoi
Green
Posts: 1
Join Date: Jul, 2002
|
|
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2002, 05:37:07 AM » |
|
What about this? A7M266-D, Fasttrak 2000 in a 64 Bit/66 MHz-Slot running in 32 Bit mode. 2 x IBM DTLA 307030 (Raid-0)  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
GeorgeBreese
Ace
Posts: 2,088
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2002, 09:33:16 AM » |
|
I worked on HDSPEED last night. I found that my "overlapped I/O" code wasn't working right, so I fixed that. I removed a case where the 1-second test was split into four 250ms tests. I also eliminated as many bottlenecks as I could find. And, just for grins, I added more choices of buffer size and test duration, and used multimedia timers to get 1ms accuracy when timing the test.
It's posted on my server as v0.14.
Fixing the overlapped I/O and 250ms test will slow down test results slightly, but will make them more accurate.
I still get 118+ MB/second bandwidth on my KT333+Ultra133+D740X configuration, but now with 0.14 it's more consistent when I change the test duration. So your test results from 0.12 should still be valid, but you might have to find different test settings in 0.14 to match those results.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nfiniti9
Regular
Posts: 67
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2002, 01:38:42 PM » |
|
smokin tab, using the 120GXP's right? Almost bought a pair of those to play with but with serial ata and some new drives coming out in one month decided to wait. I doubt the first gen serial ata drives will be much faster than the 120's but the serial ata will be nice to see. Those cables are so cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tabulous
Regular
Posts: 34
Join Date: Apr, 2002
|
|
« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2002, 06:39:28 PM » |
|
Yeah the 120's are hot man, I was going to wait myself but i saw these at £45, bargin...........
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kali
Green
Posts: 11
Join Date: Jul, 2002
|
|
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2002, 12:48:56 PM » |
|
on my pc i have got best performance with
all latest driver/bios
PCI latency 0.20b4
75=00
76=A0
band 119k seq 75k
with 3com905B-TX always take 3 4k less O_o ...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
llatsni
Green
Posts: 7
Join Date: Mar, 2002
|
|
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2002, 01:59:14 PM » |
|
<< I worked on HDSPEED last night ... but you might have to find different test settings in 0.14 to match those results. >>
George, This new version of HDSpeed cant 'get past' my Zip Drive???
The older version read it fine whether there was a disk in the drive or not. This new version wont do anything once it tries to access the drive? Weird or What.
Is there any way of getting past this?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jamieee
Regular
Posts: 101
Join Date: May, 2002
|
|
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2002, 04:39:17 PM » |
|
I have the same problem w/ HDspeed .14 when it tries to read my 2nd. HD. It simply won't read it & gets stuck there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
GeorgeBreese
Ace
Posts: 2,088
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2002, 06:19:20 PM » |
|
Okay, I can take a hint. I'll look into it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jamieee
Regular
Posts: 101
Join Date: May, 2002
|
|
« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2002, 05:15:06 PM » |
|
Thanx George |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aerowinder
Regular
Posts: 99
Join Date: Jul, 2002
|
|
« Reply #45 on: July 17, 2002, 11:07:09 PM » |
|
When it's optimized for KT333 Chipset, let me know!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
