Strange hd benchmark result

[Chad Williamson]

How do you have those striped drives configured? Are they
Master/Slave on the same IDE channel? That is wast it seem
to be from the score since IDE cannot simultaneously write
to the Master and Slave drive. There is a lot of overhead
for that. If you get a chance try reconfiguring the drives
on different IDE channels and you should see a performance
gain.

Chad
>-----Original Message-----
>I have 2 Maxtor 40G 133 drives (c:) in a striped raid
performance array
>(onboard Promise), and a 3rd identical 40G drive (d:)
used as backup. I
>regularly copy partitions to the backup.
>
>I just benchmarked the drives and got the following.
>
>
>d: non-raid single drive (backups only) ~ 32124k/s
>
>c: raid (2) 40G drives as 1 80G partition ~ 15395k/s
>
>
>I disabled virus protection and many of the apps running
in the sys tray
>prior. How could the raid array be runnning at half the
speed of the
>non-raid drive when all drives are identical?
>
>WinXP
>MSI KT3 Ultra ARU
>1.5G ram
>
>
>.
>

[Nick Mirro]

They're on different channels. The MSI board comes with two slots for a
raid array. One drive for each. I think they are both set to master, but
I'm not 100% sure. The array is functional. Doesn't that mean they're
arranged correctly?

Nick


"Chad Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> How do you have those striped drives configured? Are they
> Master/Slave on the same IDE channel? That is wast it seem
> to be from the score since IDE cannot simultaneously write
> to the Master and Slave drive. There is a lot of overhead
> for that. If you get a chance try reconfiguring the drives
> on different IDE channels and you should see a performance
> gain.
>
> Chad
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I have 2 Maxtor 40G 133 drives (c:) in a striped raid
> performance array
> >(onboard Promise), and a 3rd identical 40G drive (d:)
> used as backup. I
> >regularly copy partitions to the backup.
> >
> >I just benchmarked the drives and got the following.
> >
> >
> >d: non-raid single drive (backups only) ~ 32124k/s
> >
> >c: raid (2) 40G drives as 1 80G partition ~ 15395k/s
> >
> >
> >I disabled virus protection and many of the apps running
> in the sys tray
> >prior. How could the raid array be runnning at half the
> speed of the
> >non-raid drive when all drives are identical?
> >
> >WinXP
> >MSI KT3 Ultra ARU
> >1.5G ram
> >
> >
> >.
> >

[Chad Williamson]

If you have them on separate IDE channels then they are
arranged correctly for speed. They are on separtae IDE
cables I assume. Have you tried to update the drivers for
the device?

--Chad


>-----Original Message-----
>They're on different channels. The MSI board comes with
two slots for a
>raid array. One drive for each. I think they are both
set to master, but
>I'm not 100% sure. The array is functional. Doesn't
that mean they're
>arranged correctly?
>
>Nick
>
>
>"Chad Williamson" > wrote in message
...
>> How do you have those striped drives configured? Are
they
>> Master/Slave on the same IDE channel? That is wast it
seem
>> to be from the score since IDE cannot simultaneously
write
>> to the Master and Slave drive. There is a lot of
overhead
>> for that. If you get a chance try reconfiguring the
drives
>> on different IDE channels and you should see a
performance
>> gain.
>>
>> Chad
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >I have 2 Maxtor 40G 133 drives (c:) in a striped raid
>> performance array
>> >(onboard Promise), and a 3rd identical 40G drive (d:)
>> used as backup. I
>> >regularly copy partitions to the backup.
>> >
>> >I just benchmarked the drives and got the following.
>> >
>> >
>> >d: non-raid single drive (backups only) ~ 32124k/s
>> >
>> >c: raid (2) 40G drives as 1 80G partition ~ 15395k/s
>> >
>> >
>> >I disabled virus protection and many of the apps
running
>> in the sys tray
>> >prior. How could the raid array be runnning at half
the
>> speed of the
>> >non-raid drive when all drives are identical?
>> >
>> >WinXP
>> >MSI KT3 Ultra ARU
>> >1.5G ram
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>

[Nick Mirro]

Thanks for trying to help. Separate ide cables. The controller is promise
MBFastTrak133 Lite with latest driver. Promise won't support it since its
onboard, and the mb manufacturer, MSI doesn't generally reply to email
support requests. This is my second MSI board and I've never gotten replies
to anything.


"Chad Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> If you have them on separate IDE channels then they are
> arranged correctly for speed. They are on separtae IDE
> cables I assume. Have you tried to update the drivers for
> the device?
>
> --Chad
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >They're on different channels. The MSI board comes with
> two slots for a
> >raid array. One drive for each. I think they are both
> set to master, but
> >I'm not 100% sure. The array is functional. Doesn't
> that mean they're
> >arranged correctly?
> >
> >Nick
> >
> >
> >"Chad Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> How do you have those striped drives configured? Are
> they
> >> Master/Slave on the same IDE channel? That is wast it
> seem
> >> to be from the score since IDE cannot simultaneously
> write
> >> to the Master and Slave drive. There is a lot of
> overhead
> >> for that. If you get a chance try reconfiguring the
> drives
> >> on different IDE channels and you should see a
> performance
> >> gain.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >I have 2 Maxtor 40G 133 drives (c:) in a striped raid
> >> performance array
> >> >(onboard Promise), and a 3rd identical 40G drive (d:)
> >> used as backup. I
> >> >regularly copy partitions to the backup.
> >> >
> >> >I just benchmarked the drives and got the following.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >d: non-raid single drive (backups only) ~ 32124k/s
> >> >
> >> >c: raid (2) 40G drives as 1 80G partition ~ 15395k/s
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I disabled virus protection and many of the apps
> running
> >> in the sys tray
> >> >prior. How could the raid array be runnning at half
> the
> >> speed of the
> >> >non-raid drive when all drives are identical?
> >> >
> >> >WinXP
> >> >MSI KT3 Ultra ARU
> >> >1.5G ram
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >