In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote:
On Mar 29, 11:29 am, "markm75" wrote:
On Mar 29, 5:59 am, Arno Wagner wrote:





In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Maurice Volaski wrote:

markm75 wrote:

I think right now on Raid5, sataII, i'm getting a write speed of 57 MB/
s (bypassing windows cache, using SIsandra to benchmark).. if you dont
bypass the windows cache this becomes more like 38 MB/s..
Aren't these numbers reversed? Anyway, good drives should be 75
MB/second when the cache is bypassed. Not bypassing it should give
significantly greater performance.

With a reasonable buffer (not cache) implementation, yes. Something
seems wrong or MS screwed up rather badly in implementing this.

But the 75MB/s figure only applies to the start of the disk.
At the end it is typically is somewere in the 35...50MB/s range,
since the cylinders contain less sectors.

Arno

Apologies.. Yeah when bypassing the cache I got an index of 57MB/s...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If I use the option, checked off, "Bypass windows cache" I do in fact
get HIGHER values than when not bypassing the cache..

I know this sounds reversed, but it is what happens.

It is possible. It does however point to some serious problem
in the write-buffer design.

Arno