Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Comments- Drive and RAID Performance Database

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,119

    Default

    This forum topic for discussion on the Drive and RAID Performance Database.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,119

    Default

    Hi all,

    We're finally getting closer to a usable DB. I about have a list of what to send in to get your results posted. I think I'll continue with the benchtest screenshot requirement, it seems to alleviate the common errors, especially typos, that plague a database like this.

    I know it's a pain to send them but it gives me the ability to check my typing after entry as well as checking the senders figures.

    My one format question at this point is how to keep the headers in sight as the DB gets bigger and more pages in depth. Maybe have the data scroll but not the headers? That's probably the next step.

    Please feel free to email me and we'll discuss your benchtests and what I need with them. I have a list, just not in a form that should be published here yet. Single drive performance as well as array performance will be represented in the database. Feel free to send your drive performance even if you have no RAID component. Different drives, computers, OS versions, drivers, host cards, all this should be part of the DB.

    Gregory, your success with installing your host card in the B&W 66mhz graphics slot needs to be here also.

    Thanks to everyone for all your previous suggestions, it has helped considerably.

    Rick

    [This message has been edited by ricks (edited 16 May 2002).]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    8

    Default

    I am thoroughly intrigued by the data displayed in the 15k Cheetah vs. 10K Atlas III. The Atlas' sustained read numbers, even when used as a single drive with the ATTO UL3D, are staggering.

    Here is why I am so interested: I am setting up a new Dual Gig to be my primary machine. I have already purchased the ATTO Express PCI UL3D based on my extensive readings of the Gurus web site. I was contemplating purchasing two G2 15k Seagate Cheetahs (18 Gb each) and stripe them internally using one channel of the UL3D. This striped array would be primarily used for Photoshop work and future video dabbling. I am also interested in a fast boot/application drive and was going to place a G2 15k Seagate Cheetah (36 Gb) on the UL3D's second channel and install the drive above the the original 80 Gb ATA drive. The 36 Gb would become the primary boot/app and document disk and the ATA would be the secondary doot drive and used for daily back up. I figure that I could sync the entire contents of the 36Gb to the 80 ATA on a regular, if not daily, basis.

    Given the information in the Cheetah vs. Atlas chart I am considering purchasing the a 36Gb Atlas III in place of the 36 Gb Cheetah due to the Peak and Sustained read numbers which seem like they would help boost boot and application drive activity rates.

    Any thoughts? Am I all wrong on this? I have, in years past, experimented with striped arrays and narrow drives using FWB (sorry for swearing) but have never attempted anything at this level of performance. Given the drive installation mentioned above, should I be concerned about any heat issues with the 3 SCSI drives and 1 ATA drive configuration..... any additional cooling needed?

    Other info that may impact your thoughts: Dual Gig G4, 1.5 Gb Ram. I am making an effort to use OS X almost exclusively which rules out SoftRAID until they release their OS X version. I figured that I would stripe the two 18 Gb Cheetahs using Apple's Drive Utility for the time being and then reformat/restripe when SoftRAID X is released.

    Any and all insight would be greaty appreciated before I throw down the plastic for these drives. If I am making any grave mistakes would someone please slap me back into line.


    Norby

    norbywells@mac.com

    P.S. If and when I do get this all configured, I would be more than happy to provide data per Guru specs for the RAID/Drive database.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Mobius Strip
    Posts
    13,045

    Default

    Norby,

    Stacking the Atlas should be safe, but i wouldn't put X15 above the ATA drive. Rather than X15 you could use a 10K Cheetah and get nearly the same level of performance (but less heat and noise, and see 75MB/s sustained reads and 50+MB/s sustained writes).

    You could put the ATA drive in a FireWire case, it would be bootable and hot swap if you want to keep your Cheetahs etc inside. And stay with all X15's. Looking back, having all drives of the same make etc makes it easy if you want to modify or add to your RAID setup.

    I tried Atlas 10k III, 10K Cheetah, and a pair of X15's. The Atlas died after couple months. The 10k is very good and solid, 50MB/s SW, 60MB/s SR (I didn't have a pair to raid, that is for a single drive). Single X15 came in at 58-60MB/s SW, 115MB/s striping two. Just another drive option to look at.

    Gregory

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,119

    Default

    Norby,

    I've been pondering your questions on Atlas vs Cheetah. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I didn't get Cheetahs for cost reasons at the time, I couldn't afford the 15k Seagates and the new 10k Cheetah wasn't around yet, the AtlasIII's seemed a good compromise and I wanted a chance to test them out.

    Reads are Very impressive on the AtlasIII's. I would love to see them on the new Xserver, 4 of them might just come close to maxing the 533MB/sec bus in the read catagory, but writes would still be around 200, big difference.

    I have no idea what the long term reliability is with the AtlasIII's either. I haven't heard much bad about them and they've been around longer than the current 15k Cheetahs. That said, trying to say the Cheetah's are better long term is stretching things since neither has been around that long. However, historically, Seagate is THE best at reliability.

    I think you takes your pick. That's why we put together a database, from looking at numbers all day it all became just a mass of junk in my semi useless brain, the graphs really made it easy to see.

    I like the AtlasIII's for one other reason, they are the coolest drive I have ever seen. And I include all the IDE models as well. AtlasIII's do not get hot. Amazing. I ran two of them stacked for a while as I was testing in different computers, never noticed any significant heat from them stacked even. That isn't a recommendation to do that long term though. I ended up moving all 4 to a Burly external just to clean things up and leave more room for ATA drives.

    Rick

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Virginia... where one Democrat CAN make a difference
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Perhaps you have a boo boo...

    you list Kaye as getting 88MB a sec using the apple driver (2x120GXP ATA) while Softraid is only doing half that? Is that right?

    In my recent install of 2 10K Cheetahs into my 9600 it was my experience that the apple driver completely blows chunks and in most of the other listings in your database this seems to be proven out. But Kaye gets the Apple driver to work well? Maybe those drives are just afraid of what Kaye will do to them if they don't perform.......

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Damien,

    The numbers are correct but let me explain why. First, getting 88MB a sec using the apple driver (2x120GXP ATA) is on the Acard 6880M in HardRAID mode (HR0) and the Apple Driver is recommended by Acard. That config is now my boot drive for both OS9.2.2 and OS10.1.4.

    While Softraid is only doing half that? Is that right? That is what the ATTO test says, but. In fact, the ATTO test is confused by the fact that the sustained reads graph goes up to about 94MB/s and stays there for nearly the whole test, about 6MB of the 8MB test. So the ATTO test sees that whole long 94MB/s as Peak Read. Never seen a graph like that. Note the MB5 numbers for both tests. The SoftRAID config actually performs equally to the HardRAID config. I could have used SoftRAID for the HardRAID config instead of the Apple driver, but then no OSX bootability. I also keep a pliars close by just to keep everyone in line.

    Once again, you are the first to notice that. k

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Virginia... where one Democrat CAN make a difference
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    So Softraid was so fast that it confused the atto benchmark util..... LOL!

    I noticed this now because I just had experience with just how bad the Apple driver really is :-) Stable, compatible and SLOW!

    Both Softraid and HDST were more than twice as fast as Drive Setup (10K cheetah, OS 9, 9600, 2940U2W card)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Thanks to ricks and Gregory for sharing their thoughts on my impending drive purchase. Due to the heat issue it appears that both of you agree that the Atlas is the cooler of the two drives and would be "safe" to stack above the original ATA 80 Gb drive that came with the machine.

    Gregory, when you state that the Atlas died after a few months was it replaced under warranty?

    It's just that I am so dang impressed with the Atlas sustained read numbers that I am thinking it would make an excellent boot drive.

    Norby

    norbywells@mac.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Mobius Strip
    Posts
    13,045

    Default

    Norby,

    The Atlas is still working. FWB reports an error but maybe it's being conservative and it was a recoverable error. So until I hear from FWB the drive is being used for alternate backup. And it gets 147MB/s peack read, 117Mb/s SUSTAINED read. Writes are 52-51MB/s for peak/sustained. Not shabby.

    HOWEVER, the new Seagate 10k Cheetah is also quiet, cool, and 50MB/s drive. Both sell for about the same, too. Less than $200.

    Can't go wrong either way.

    I spent the last 36 hrs running tests, LLF, verify media and drive. I'm just glad that I've collected as many disk utilities as I have. Each one has been useful and paid for itself more than once.

    Watch out if you ever do need to or choose to use Intech HDST as it defaults to options you don't want. Being overly conservative and cautious. Especially disabling wide 16-bit mode AND did not enable the option to disconnect/reconnect to allow for chained I/O's. (is that what I want to say?)

    I'd jump over to Seagate and Maxtor and Storage Review to review the heat, noise and other features. The Atlas - to me - does have a high pitched noise that often people can't - or don't - hear, I don't hear all the time (mostly in the AM when everything is quiet and things sound louder after sleep).

    Gregory

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    wherever I hang my hat
    Posts
    3,575

    Default

    gents.

    i am staggered by the beauty of what is transpiring here.





  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    bump

  13. #13
    speters1 Guest

    Default

    When it comes to photoshop scratch, which speed test numbers are most important? I am also wondering if 4 Atlas 10kIII's on 1 channel would be faster than 2 drives on 2 channels?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,119

    Default

    ?In my testing I was unable to test all four AtlasIIIs on a single channel because I didn't have the cables. But in testing two drives there was significant advantage to having them split between two channels.

    ?With the newer UL4D there might be no advantage to multiple channels since each channel is capable of saturating the PCI bus. Someday I might have the moola to test that but at this point there is no purpose in me upgrading to the UL4 from the UL3D since the UL3D is faster than my computer can use anyway.

    Rick

  15. #15
    speters1 Guest

    Default

    So waht numbers are most important for photoshop scratch,sust read, sust write, peake read, peak write?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Mobius Strip
    Posts
    13,045

    Default

    All of it. Storage Review builds a file pattern for testing various real world uses, workstation, file server, web server, they are all different. Capturing, reading, random reads, sequential reads. ATTO is basically not testing very much. Its what everyone uses, but it is nearly "junk."

    On my B&W, with one Atlas 10K-4, the sustained reads were 110MB/s, the peak read was 145MB/s which held for 6MB of the 8MB file test segment. Which means that it was testing the drive's built in cache which allocates 6MB of the 8MB for reads and pre-fetches. You would need Intech or another more complex program and test to learn anything real.

    However, I do buy various drives, 15K Cheetahs, Z15 IBMs, 10K Cheetahs (various models), and a number of Atlas 10k II, III, and IV. The Atlas drives are my preferred, and the 10K IV would be great to RAID, but they are good just as a single drive - affordable doesn't hurt.

    You use to need to "short stroke" a drive and create your fastest stripped raid on the outer third of the drive, that use 4, 6, 8 drives and thereby get 220MB/s sustained writes. The max the Mac could deliver.

    Most drivers have some default custom configurations for video, audio, server, even for photoshop sometimes, by tweaking the cache segments and other mode pages settings. SoftRAID, FWB HDT, ATTO ETP, they all have options. FWB HDT use to have an option to create a photoshop scratch volume - you can use different size memory pool, segment size, etc and then people will test until they get the best overall performance for their use.

    Learning a little, then playing with various drives, drivers, and even controllers. Some people have used dual Miles2 cards to create a dual channel setup in 9600, using one upper and lower bus master slot.

    Ultra320 I've found already to offer superior performance to Ultra160. To get the most, though, I'd need to sell my UL3S and get a UL4S.

    The Atlas drives tend to show higher sustained reads than Cheetahs. They've been building 10K drives with 8MB cache longer, too I'm pretty sure.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,119

    Default

    ?I do not know how to quantify Photoshop acceleration from a RAID array scratch disk. And believe me, I have tried!

    ?I built the four drive AtlasIII array for exactly that reason 9Photoshop scratch space) and used ever test utility I could lay my hands on to make similar and repeatable benchtests on various computers with other testers. That's why we ended up using and relying so much on the ATTO test, it both made sense in that the displayed data fit our model. And it was repeatable in other computer models and with various arrays combinations.

    ?The data is severely limited, I'll be the first to admit. ATTO tests only up to 8 MB file sizes. That means a large SCSI array doesn't even NEED to activate the heads to platters, ATTO tests only caching.

    ?But cache is part of the overall performance of a drive/bus/array.

    ?In the end all I can say is that my four drive, two channel array makes Photoshop sit up and say "how fast did you want?" Progress bars FLY Performance is WAY above what I get with just the Acard RAID designated scratch. And SCSI s still king for reliability.

    ?I would probably today NOT build a four drive external. I would get the very fastest two drives from Seagate and hook them via a UL4D on one channel internally. Lower cost and plenty of performance, maybe even close to my four drive. And this internal setup would cost a bunch less than half what my four drive external did in 2002.

    ?The Dual UL4D would allow me the luxury of expansion externally if I ever need that in the future. That's the only reason I would choose the UL4D over the UL4S.

    Rick

  18. #18
    speters1 Guest

    Default

    Here is what just got. ATTO ul3d and 2 Atlas10kIII 160, and 2, 4 connector internal cables and terminators all for $400. Thsi is goung to be used for photoahop scratch. I was considering getting 2 more drives and and getting an external case from hypermicro. Getting 2 more Atlas's and an external case is going to be cheaper than buying 2 new 15k Cheetahs. I can't put them inside because I already have 3 drives in there. So, in my case, do you think I am doing the right thing (going with the 4 drives in external case)? Onelast thing, can you put 4 drives in one case and hook up 4 drives to 2 channels? Do the make a case that has 2 connections outside?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Mobius Strip
    Posts
    13,045

    Default

    Does PS even benefit from 15K drives that much? I didn't think it created random disk patterns that would. One thing you probably want to do, and some disk drivers will, is to use hfs+ with something other than the default 4k block size, something like 64, 128 or 256 (256 is only available when using SoftRAID). That is what FWB HDT PS scratch volume was doing in part.

    You external RAID box with cable and terminator, $149 cable, $79 terminator, then the cost of box ($110+), plus cost of two drives.

    Atlas 10K-3 drives: expect to get about 110MB/s per channel for two drives. You can put three on one channel, but you can't get more than 220MB/s no matter what you use, though it will feel fast... !

    The Atlas and Cheetah 10K drives are capable of 80% saturation of a channel during reads, and delivers 70MB/s... an X15.3 only gets 75-77MB/s (and that was in 73GB drive test, 18 or 36GB drives have fewer platters and read heads, and you pay TWICE as much for 15K drive.

    * Four drive RAID:
    Extra case, cable, and terminator for external channel $325+.
    Two 10K-3 Atlas drives $109 ea.

    If you are ready to spend $530 just for two more drives and equipment, you could buy two 36GB Cheetahs ($179 ea) that deliver 140MB/s and 73GB of storage. If you need the extra 70MB/s, three drives... that extra little bit costs a LOT.

    - G.

    I've spent a fortune a couple times over learning to set up my first, second, and third RAID boxes. I wish I knew years ago what I learned by doing, and of course, drives just keep getting better. I knew it was important to do it right the first time, but I didn't know what that meant. And I couldn't afford to do it right in one fell swoop.

    [This message has been edited by Gregory (edited 04 April 2003).]

  20. #20
    speters1 Guest

    Default

    Hypermicro has external cables that are $27, and terminators that are $20. Are these ok?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •