2CPU

Main Menu

· Content
· News
· Articles
· Mailinglists
· Knowledgebase
· Trouble Tickets
· Files
· Glossary
· Links
· Compatibility Lists
· Forums

News

· News Overview
· News Channels
· News Archive
· Search News
· Submit News

What's New

Login to see an overview of all news stories since your last visit.

News Channels

· General Site News
· Folding@Home
· SETI@Home
· General Web News
· General Distributed Computing
· RC5
· General Articles
· Hardware
· Motherboards
· Video Cards
· Storage
· Cases
· Optical Drives
· Barebones, Servers and SFFs
· Processors
· General Hardware
· Operating Systems
· Applications
· How-To
· General Technical
· Frequently Asked Questions
· Editorials
· Press Releases

News Tags

The news tag list is currently empty

Online Users

There are currently 15 user(s) online

Managed with Contentteller(R) Community Edition, (C) 2002 - 2009 Esselbach Internet Solutions. The Community Edition of Contentteller(R) is free software released under the GNU/GPL v3

Latest News

· Best CPU: 10 top processors from AMD and Intel
· Happy New Year
· AMD aim Opteron at the Cloud
· Cisco doing the silicon shuffle
· Juniper goes after the SDN market
· China gives birth to Godson, rival Intel
· HP intros the Proliant SL4500 series Server
· Tech Jobs and Minimum wage
· Linux Mag's Linux for Small Business Servers
· AMD's Sweet 16

Top News

· Best CPU: 10 top processors from AMD and Intel
· Samsung To Enter the Server Market?
· Weekend Topic: Should employers be able to fire employees caught looking for job
· Site Redesign: Comments? Suggestions? Help?
· Poll Time: Milkshake - Beverage or Dessert?
· Help Wanted!
· Neoseeker plays with Iwill's DVD266-R!
· Honesty: The best policy?
· No comment!
· It's Official: nitro_fish owns me...

Latest Poll

There are currently no polls in the news database

News Archive

· November 2015
· January 2013
· December 2012
· November 2012
· October 2012
· August 2012
· July 2012
· June 2012
· May 2012
· April 2012
· March 2012
· February 2012
· January 2012
· December 2011
· November 2011
· April 2011
· March 2011
· February 2011
· January 2011
· November 2010
· October 2010
· September 2010
· August 2010
· July 2010
· June 2010
· May 2010
· April 2010
· March 2010
· February 2010
· January 2010
· December 2009
· September 2009
· August 2009
· July 2009
· June 2009
· May 2009
· April 2009
· March 2009
· February 2009
· January 2009
· December 2008
· November 2008
· October 2008
· September 2008
· August 2008
· July 2008
· June 2008
· May 2008
· April 2008
· March 2008
· February 2008
· January 2008
· December 2007
· November 2007
· October 2007
· September 2007
· August 2007
· July 2007
· June 2007
· May 2007
· April 2007
· March 2007
· February 2007
· January 2007
· December 2006
· November 2006
· October 2006
· September 2006
· August 2006
· July 2006
· June 2006
· May 2006
· April 2006
· March 2006
· February 2006
· January 2006
· December 2005
· November 2005
· October 2005
· September 2005
· August 2005
· July 2005
· June 2005
· May 2005
· April 2005
· March 2005
· February 2005
· January 2005
· December 2004
· November 2004
· October 2004
· September 2004
· August 2004
· July 2004
· June 2004
· May 2004
· April 2004
· March 2004
· February 2004
· January 2004
· December 2003
· November 2003
· October 2003
· September 2003
· August 2003
· July 2003
· June 2003
· May 2003
· April 2003
· March 2003
· February 2003
· January 2003
· December 2002
· November 2002
· October 2002
· September 2002
· August 2002
· July 2002
· June 2002
· May 2002
· April 2002
· March 2002
· February 2002
· January 2002
· December 2001
· November 2001
· October 2001
· September 2001
· August 2001
· July 2001
· June 2001
· May 2001
· April 2001
· March 2001
· February 2001
· January 2001
· December 2000
· November 2000
· October 2000
· September 2000
· August 2000
· July 2000
· June 2000
· May 2000
· April 2000
· March 2000
· February 2000
· January 2000

Theme Selector

The theme override option is disabled

Welcome to our website

To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

2CPU.com » News » January 2005 » RAID-5 On The Desktop - Hardware vs. Onboard Compared

RAID-5 On The Desktop - Hardware vs. Onboard Compared

Posted by: duke on: 01/10/2005 03:17 PM [ Print | 6 comment(s) ]

GamePC has thrown together an interesting comparison of onboard, software-based RAID controllers and add-in hardware-based controllers. Which would better suit your needs and budget?
Onboard RAID-5 technologies help ease the amount of setup by the end-user (as RAID-5 arrays can be setup quickly in the BIOS, instead of in the OS) and are a bit more flexible. Onboard RAID-5 controllers still typically divert RAID-5 processing to the system's main CPU, which can lead to performance slowdowns in heavy situations. Still, considering these onboard RAID-5 solutions are


Digg it! Slashdot Del.icio.us Technorati Fark it! Binklist Furl Newsvine Windows Live Netscape Google Bookmarks Reddit! LinkaGoGo Tailrank Wink Dzone Simpy Spurl Yahoo! MyWeb NetVouz RawSugar Smarking Scuttle Magnolia BlogMarks Nowpublic FeedMeLinks Wists Onlywire Connotia Shadows Co.mments

« Exploit code attacks unpatched IE bug · RAID-5 On The Desktop - Hardware vs. Onboard Compared · Intel and AMD's 2005 Plans Revealed »

Comment

Contrablue
Registered User


Posts: 68
Joined: 2004-12-21

#33860 Posted on: 01/11/2005 12:58 AM
Greetings,

I was surprised that GamePC didn't test the Areca SATA RAID controller -- after all, it posted spectacular scores in a recent review in tweakers.net (see http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/525/3). So I decided to use the same benchmarks GamePC used on my own Areca-based RAID5 setup to get a feel for how the GamePC results would have looked with the inclusion of the Areca.

Before I enumerate the results of my tests, I should mention that my configuration differed a bit from the one used in GamePC. GamePC's configuration used a 3.2 ghz Pentium w/ 1gb SDRAM; they used a 10K RPM Raptor drive (the fastest SATA drive available at this writing) for the OS, with a separate RAID 5 array made up of 3x Maxtor DiamondMax 200gb drives. My own configuration (see sig below) differed in that I used a 4x drive array (this would give me a possible 20% transfer rate advantage), but I have no separate drive for the OS (which would somewhat offset my transfer rate advantage). Also, though I have dual processors, I'm using Opteron 244s which are thought to have performance equivalent to, at most, a 3.0 ghz Pentium IV. Another difference is that my OS is 32-bit Windows 2003 Server (I used the older SCSIPort driver), whereas GamePC used 32-bit Windows XP SP2. Given that I used SCSIPort, I don't think the OS made a significant difference in the scores.

Here are my results (in parenthesis I included the GamePC's results for the best scoring RAID card in that test).

Areca 1110 PCI-X SATA RAID Controller w/ 4x Seagate 7200.7 200gb drives in a RAID 5 Array

DISK SPEED 32

Access Time: 12.5 ms (not tested by GamePC)
Read Burst: 574.3 mbps (SI 3114 -- 106.9)
Peak Transfer: 304K (Broadcom 4452 -- 92K)
Avg Transfer: 220K (SI 3114 -- 83K)

HD TACH Long Test

Burst Xfer: 558.7 (SI 3114 -- 104.9)
Avg Xfer: 151.3 (SI 3114 -- 91.9)
CPU Use: 4% (3Ware 9500 -- 1%)
Access Time: 12.5ms (3Ware 9500 -- 13.3ms)


DISCUSSION

My system, due to the addition of one more drive to the RAID 5 array, but with some offsetting disadvantages, should have had an advantage of perhaps 10% in these benchmark tests -- most of the other important configuration parameters between the GamePC test system and my rig are comparable.

The big difference, it seems, between my system and the configurations tested by GamePC was in the SATA RAID controller -- which is what we're trying to test anyway. But the Areca controller did so much better than any of the controllers tested by GamePC -- 5 times faster burst transfer, 2 times faster average transfer -- that I began to wonder if there were other differences between my and GamePCs configurations.

There is one significant configuration parameter that GamePC did not document in their benchmarks: the speed and width of the PCI bus to which they connected their tested controllers. In my case, I plugged the Areca in to an available 64-bit 133mhz PCI-X slot on my DK8X mobo. I'm pretty sure that the ASUS mobo used by GamePC has comparable PCI-X slots, but it's not clear that GamePC used one. If GamePC used a non-PCI-X slot, or used a 32-bit PCI slot, then they potentially hampered 3 of their 4 test results (the Silicon Image 3114 is built in to the ASUS mobo) -- possibly with very severe consequences.

I'm assuming that the people at GamePC are more expert than me in testing, and would not have made the mistake of putting a high-performance RAID adapter like the 3Ware Escalade into a 32-bit PCI slot. If this is the case, the Areca SATA RAID controller deservers much more attention (and consideration by members of 2cpu especially) than it was given in the the probably flawed Tom's review or the glowing Tweaker's comparison.

Regards,
Contra

DK8X, 2x Opteron 285, BFG 6800 Ultra, 8x 512mb Corsair Twinx PC3200, Areca 1110 SATA RAID 5, 4x Seagate 200gb 7200.7

Comment

FrostByte
Registered User


Posts: 39
Joined: 2002-08-14

#33861 Posted on: 01/11/2005 06:08 AM
Hello I think it's an Asus P5AD2 Premium Socket775 since this board has an onboard Silicon Image 3114 controller with software RAID5 support

http://http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=3&l2=11&l3=0&model=73&modelmenu=1

thus the board has no PCI-X slots just a legacy PCI, a pair of PCI-express 1x and a PCI-express 16x slot

I was under the impression GamePC was reviewing RAID5 as a desktop solution not intended for high end workstation/entry level server markets

FrostByte

"you can order a computer on a computer from a computer, and now your talking to a computer, show me the humans!"

Comment

Contrablue
Registered User


Posts: 68
Joined: 2004-12-21

#33862 Posted on: 01/11/2005 08:48 AM
Hi Frostbyte -

I went over to the ASUS site you linked and checked out the motherboard they used in their recent test of RAID controllers. You appear quite correct -- the motherboard used by GamePC in their tests almost certainly lacked 64-bit PCI OR PCI-X 133 connectors.

In plugging a modern, high performance RAID controller (and the three non-mobo solutions all qualify) into a 32-bit PCI slot, the GamePC reviewer unwittingly invalidated his review by:

(1) Strongly biasing the results in favor of the onboard SI 3114 (which in other benchmarks has generally performed far below the hardware RAID solutions)

(2) Operating the hardware RAID cards in manner not recommended by their manufacturers.

From the 3Ware 9500 Manual:

"Although the controller fits in both 32-bit and 64-bit PCI or
PCI-X slots with 5V as well as with 3.3V, install it in a 64-
bit slot to take full advantage of the controller

DK8X, 2x Opteron 285, BFG 6800 Ultra, 8x 512mb Corsair Twinx PC3200, Areca 1110 SATA RAID 5, 4x Seagate 200gb 7200.7

Comment

pwdrhnd23
Registered User



Posts: 14
Joined: 2002-10-11

#33863 Posted on: 01/11/2005 10:14 PM
I would have liked to see the software based raid as well, just to see if these controllers merit their price tags. I have never seen any numbers comparing the software raid-5 to hardware, at the very least it would be a good standard to measure other implementations.

Comment

NegativeEntropy
Registered User


Posts: 39
Joined: 2001-06-02

#33864 Posted on: 01/12/2005 09:40 AM
Um, is it just me, or should any RAID-5 performance comparison spend at least as much time measuring/evaluating write performance as read performance? Historically, write performance is the weakest point of RAID 5 and they had one (1!) synthetic benchmark "measuring" it (without benchmark settings even documented). Disappointing.

Comment

shoarthing
Duellist


Posts: 3061
Joined: 2000-07-25

#33865 Posted on: 01/12/2005 12:45 PM
Originally posted by NegativeEntropy
Um, is it just me, or should any RAID-5 performance comparison spend at least as much time measuring/evaluating write performance as read performance? Historically, write performance is the weakest point of RAID 5 and they had one (1!) synthetic benchmark "measuring" it (without benchmark settings even documented). Disappointing.
- exactly: others have tried to pin this down in the multiple threads this for some reason occupies.

Asus P5WDH; watercooled E6420/PSU/GPU/[encapsulated]HDDs/NBridge/SBridge/VRMs; 4GB Elixir/Nanya PC6400; 2407WFP; mac OS X 10.4.10

2CPU.com » News » January 2005 » RAID-5 On The Desktop - Hardware vs. Onboard Compared