1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Results of ICH10R RAID-5 4x2TB - *UPDATE - Perc 6/i results Post #76*

Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by cyrax83, Jun 10, 2010.

  1. cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    So i've got 5x2TB but only tested on 4 as one had data on it, I figured results would be very similar.

    This is on 4x2TB EADS drives. I certainly hope it wont die once i add the 5th drive which is an EARS into the mix :Paranoid:

    This is on a ICH10R motherboard (EP45-UD3R) RAID implementation. Do you think these results are adequate for a file server (media HD movies and tv shows) so mostly reads after initial load. Can't really afford a $400 raid card.

    Looks like maybe 128kb stripe is the way to go ? Also would writes decrease a little and reads increase once i add the 5th drive ?

    32kb stripe
    [​IMG]

    64kb stripe
    [​IMG]

    128kb stripe
    [​IMG]

    EDIT:

    I've added the 5th drive and created the full 8TB array:

    [​IMG]

    Edit 2:

    Writes too slow on ICH10R for raid 5 imo. Ended up buying a PERC6/i as per post #36. Will post up results when its arrived and fitted
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2010
  2. sreg0r

    sreg0r Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Melbourne
    You'd have absolutely no problem streaming with those results. For a single HD stream of a blu-ray movie you're going to need at most 6MB/s but normally less. I'd be more concerned about the connection between the server and your other computers being a potential bottleneck or area of issue.

    If you're mainly storing larger files (videos, music) then a larger stripe size is better, it just becomes less efficient if you're storing smaller files but even that shouldn't concern you too much if you have adequate storage.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    Well eventually going to upgrade to gigabit, and as long as it can take maybe 3-4 simultaneous HD movie read streams without lagging I'll be happy

    cheers.
     
  4. thewonderer

    thewonderer Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    73
    very nice results! wish mine was that fast and i bought a cheapy highpoint raid card (2640x1).

    The only thing to bear in mind is that if you change motherboard, I am pretty sure you won't be able to take your raid setup with you as the new M/B will have a different controller. I read that diskinternals.com have a tool to help recreate a lost raid so you may be OK.

    Someone out there may have more knowledge about this...

    I think you will be fine with the EARS drive as long as the other drive uses the 4k sectors as well. If you encounter any issues it's worth downloading the wdidle3 tool (1.05) and setting each drives idle to a longer period than 8 seconds or off completely.
     
  5. noobmastery

    noobmastery Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    ACT
    I doubt it'll be a huge issue when using an ICH10R, the array could be moved to any intel chipset board with a RAID supporting southbridge.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    I thought the EARS use 4k sector size and the EADS use 512b sector size ?
    I didn't set any jumpers or anything on the EADS, should I have ?
    Edit: I've read that the EARS model has a jumper you can set on pin 7-8.
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/04/01/the-facts-4k-advanced-format-hard-disks/2
    Does this actually turn the EARS model into a 512kb sector drive, and should I be setting it before adding it into my EADS array ?

    I'm using windows 7. The boot drive is seperate to the RAID array.

    so confusing:

    I'll see if i have space to dump the 2TB of data somewhere else on the EARS and test it out.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2010
  7. rowan194

    rowan194 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,044
    EARS drives use 4k sectors internally, and emulate a standard 512 byte sector drive. Writes of a single 512 byte sector suffer because the drive has to read 4k, update 512b, write 4k - which imposes a penalty because the drive has to wait for the platter to rotate and the sector to pass under the heads again. On a normal drive it's just a straight 512b write in one go. If partitions/file systems are not sitting on 4k boundaries then this becomes even worse, since writing 4k worth of data (or even 1k) actually requires reading, updating and writing twice. If they're aligned then writing 4k of data is a single step.

    The jumper solves the problem of unaligned partitions but does not change anything else. I'm pretty sure W7 is "advanced technology" aware which means EARS users don't need to do anything, and setting that jumper would actually CAUSE the alignment problem rather than solve it.

    In your case you have an EADS drive so there's no issue at all; EARS are so far the only drives that have the unusual sector format.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    Thanks for the info - but that doesn't really answer the question that if i'm building raid-5 array with 4xEADS and 1xEARS, is there anything additional I should do ?
     
  9. Chris McMahon

    Chris McMahon Taking a break

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,214
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    So you're only running 100Mb/s (~10MB/s) ethernet?

    Sounds like only 2 steams could saturate your bandwidth.

    Maybe your first priority should be upgrading to gigabit.
     
  10. rowan194

    rowan194 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,044
    Sorry, I missed that you'd be adding an EARS. As per my reply I'm pretty sure W7 is "alignment aware" so it's a non issue. Someone else can confirm. :)
     
  11. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    i've added the 5th drive and created the full 8TB array. screenshot in first post.

    bit disappointed with write speeds. I tested copying a Hd movie over from a hard drive to the array. Started off at 100mb/sec then dropped to a steady 22-25mb/sec :(:(

    anything i can do to improve short of a raid card ? (too expensive at the moment for 5 drives)

    It's on 128kb stripe, and i created the simple volume as 512kb allocation size.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2010
  12. Renza

    Renza Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,966
    Location:
    Melbourne
    i personally wouldnt trust onboard raid, i used to run a small raid 5 array on my ICH10R and it was forever having probems, and would take forever to rebuild.

    invest in a perc5i, they are cheap these days, and much faster (and reliable in the case of a rebuild or failure)
     
  13. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    I would, but from what i've seen, RAID cards that can support 5 or more sata drives are $400+....
     
  14. noobmastery

    noobmastery Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    ACT
    I've been using onboard RAID for a few years and never had a problem with the intel ones


    Second hand a perc 5i is a tad over 200 @ ebay
     
  15. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
  16. MetalPhreak

    MetalPhreak Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,759
    Location:
    Perth
    You need to enable write-back caching on the intel raid. Download intels raid manager if you haven't already. Significantly improves write speeds but if you have a power outage while its writing to the array you run the risk of losing some data (or have corruption) as any data in the write cache is lost before it can be writted to the drives. But if you're copying to the raid while it loses power anyway, you are inherently going to lose data anyway (regardless of caching). Especially since its only a data hdd it shouldnt matter too much :) Just don't use cut and paste. Copy, wait, delete :thumbup:
     
  17. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    Cheers. I actually did enable write-back cache but it didnt do much.

    If anything it decreased reads and writes a little on ATTO

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  18. OP
    OP
    cyrax83

    cyrax83 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,082
    Location:
    hurstville, sydney
    time to hunt down a rocketraid or perc5 card i think :Paranoid:
     
  19. rowan194

    rowan194 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,044
    A basic UPS will help save you from a world of pain, a minor power glitch no longer causes a violent reboot, CHKDSK and a multi-hour array rebuild...
     
  20. aza2001

    aza2001 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,017
    Location:
    Northmead
    I think if you can't spend the cash on hardware raid look at software raid with Linux.

    Very very stable and a shit load better performance with low spec'd hardware
    :thumbup:
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: