If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
Norm X wrote:
Hello fellow enthusiasts, I finally did the work of moving a 'system reserved' partition from a Win10 HDD to my 240GB SSD, in front of the Win10 C:\ partition, and now, with the help of EasyBCD, I was able to boot SSD and remove the original install HDD. By today's standards a 240 GB SSD is tiny. So I had a 278 GB Seagate HDD 'DATA' D:\ drive for pagefile, web cache, temp files, program installs and for my old stuff. Even 278 GB is tiny for my needs. So I used nVidia's BIOS to create a 2 drive RAID 0 storage array. A 2 drive RAID 0 storage array is twice as fast and has twice the storage capacity. I used Partition Magic DVD to format it to NTFS. The RAID drive is visible, there. During construction, I disabled the SSD, so not to make a catastrophic mistake. I removed the single 'DATA' HDD and I have a USB/SATA adapter so I can copy the DATA file system to the RAID array. However, when I enabled and booted back into Win10 on the SSD, the RAID array was invisible in 'My PC' or 'Disk Management'. Blame is not enough. I'm looking for a solution, in which I can make the RAID array visible. I used Safe Mode once, but maybe there are Settings I should know about. Thanks in advance. And where is the NVidia RAID driver for Win10 coming from ? Do they even make such a thing ? Paul |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
On 11/9/2016 6:46 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2016-11-10 02:17, Norm X wrote: Hello fellow enthusiasts, I finally did the work of moving a 'system reserved' partition from a Win10 HDD to my 240GB SSD, in front of the Win10 C:\ partition, and now, with the help of EasyBCD, I was able to boot SSD and remove the original install HDD. By today's standards a 240 GB SSD is tiny. So I had a 278 GB Seagate HDD 'DATA' D:\ drive for pagefile, web cache, temp files, program installs and for my old stuff. Even 278 GB is tiny for my needs. So I used nVidia's BIOS to create a 2 drive RAID 0 storage array. A 2 drive RAID 0 storage array is twice as fast and has twice the storage capacity. And has no redundancy whatsoever. Make sure you have a good backup scheme. [...] Have a good day, Yep. I figure that RAID 0 is about one quarter as reliable as a single drive. I foolishly did a system that way years ago and learned my lesson pretty quickly since, despite a nightly backup, I never was able to set things right. No, I'll take a single drive over that sort of RAID, and I still backup critical data two two different external destinations (USB-3 drive and a 12tB WHS) nightly but will admit that a properly-done RAID 1 system would be easier if one is so inclined. The good thing about having one backup on a removable USB-3 drive is that it can be taken to the bank and locked up in the vault on a regular basis. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
John McGaw wrote in
: On 11/9/2016 6:46 PM, Wolf K wrote: On 2016-11-10 02:17, Norm X wrote: Hello fellow enthusiasts, I finally did the work of moving a 'system reserved' partition from a Win10 HDD to my 240GB SSD, in front of the Win10 C:\ partition, and now, with the help of EasyBCD, I was able to boot SSD and remove the original install HDD. By today's standards a 240 GB SSD is tiny. So I had a 278 GB Seagate HDD 'DATA' D:\ drive for pagefile, web cache, temp files, program installs and for my old stuff. Even 278 GB is tiny for my needs. So I used nVidia's BIOS to create a 2 drive RAID 0 storage array. A 2 drive RAID 0 storage array is twice as fast and has twice the storage capacity. And has no redundancy whatsoever. Make sure you have a good backup scheme. [...] Have a good day, Yep. I figure that RAID 0 is about one quarter as reliable as a single drive. I foolishly did a system that way years ago and learned my lesson pretty quickly since, despite a nightly backup, I never was able to set things right. No, I'll take a single drive over that sort of RAID, and I still backup critical data two two different external destinations (USB-3 drive and a 12tB WHS) nightly but will admit that a properly-done RAID 1 system would be easier if one is so inclined. The good thing about having one backup on a removable USB-3 drive is that it can be taken to the bank and locked up in the vault on a regular basis. Of course you could always to a RAID 0+1, which would take four drives. Get the speed and the redundancy. [RAID 0+1 is using two drives as a RAID 0 single virtual drive, then using another two drives in another RAID 0 array, then using those two sets of drives as a RAID 1 array.] It is basically the same as doing a RAID 1 array with drives with twice the capacity, but depending on the data written and where it resides on the drive, probably won' be as fast as the RAID 0 array. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
Hello fellow enthusiasts,
I finally did the work of moving a 'system reserved' partition from a Win10 HDD to my 240GB SSD, in front of the Win10 C:\ partition, and now, with the help of EasyBCD, I was able to boot SSD and remove the original install HDD. By today's standards a 240 GB SSD is tiny. So I had a 278 GB Seagate HDD 'DATA' D:\ drive for pagefile, web cache, temp files, program installs and for my old stuff. Even 278 GB is tiny for my needs. So I used nVidia's BIOS to create a 2 drive RAID 0 storage array. A 2 drive RAID 0 storage array is twice as fast and has twice the storage capacity. I used Partition Magic DVD to format it to NTFS. The RAID drive is visible, there. During construction, I disabled the SSD, so not to make a catastrophic mistake. I removed the single 'DATA' HDD and I have a USB/SATA adapter so I can copy the DATA file system to the RAID array. However, when I enabled and booted back into Win10 on the SSD, the RAID array was invisible in 'My PC' or 'Disk Management'. Blame is not enough. I'm looking for a solution, in which I can make the RAID array visible. I used Safe Mode once, but maybe there are Settings I should know about. Thanks in advance. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
Paul wrote,
And where is the NVidia RAID driver for Win10 coming from ? Do they even make such a thing ? Paul Thanks Paul, Yes that's it. During my long migration path from Win7 on a 3 drive RAID 0 storage array nVidia drivers got screwed up. I did Win10 upgrade from network download. I found the 3 drive RAID 0 storage array to be stable over a period of 8 years under Vista-32, Vista-64 and Win7-64. I created three partitions over the years. I made 2 of those partitions into Win-10, but I was not happy with them for lack of device support of one kind or other. So Win-10 can be happy with a 3 drive RAID 0 storage array until the nVidia device drivers and software become corrupted. Then I migrated Win10 to SSD. nVidia drivers and software is still there but the software does not work properly. The only service that works correctly is Smart drive detection every one hour. Another confounding issue is my AT GPI board and software. nVidia provided an on board GPI that supported several VIA resolutions but not HDMI. In order to go backwards I need remove ATI device, drivers and software and boot with a VGA monitor and do Win10 update. This was/is on my to-do list. I should upgrade the GPU to nVidia to support more hungry software. Then the nVidia web site would do device detection and correction better. I need more power and more storage on my server. I am not yet to load it up with radiological data or software, MITK (Germany) and InVesalius 3.0 (Brazil). My acquired chest wall defect problem of ten years continues to deteriorate because of neglect by radiology in the third rate Island at which I live. Then there is my need for astronomy software. If I had the money I'd just go out and buy a powerful server. Then again if I had the money I would go to the Mayo clinic. Thanks again, I now know what to do. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
"Paul" wrote
In the INF files for these chipsets, they use Class Codes to identify how the SATA ports are set. CC0101 = IDE mode CC0104 = AHCI CC0106 = RAID Thanks, I checked the nVidia INF and indeed CC104 is set. You can use CPUZ (portable version ZIP) to verify it is 620i. http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html Thanks I did that. Also I ran the CPUZ stress test and found my Q6600 is comparable to the 1 GHz AMD E1 2100, on sale at Amazon, Jan. 2016 for USD $526. "Paul" wrote However, when I enabled and booted back into Win10 on the SSD, the RAID array was invisible in 'My PC' or 'Disk Management'. Blame is not enough. I'm looking for a solution, in which I can make the RAID array visible. I used Safe Mode once, but maybe there are Settings I should know about. Thanks in advance. And where is the NVidia RAID driver for Win10 coming from ? Do they even make such a thing ? Paul For the record, I set up a System Reserved partition on my Kingston SSD and was able to remove the Win10 HDD and strore it marked 'Win10 backup'. I kept struggling to make an nVidia 2 drive RAID 0 storage array work but Win10 refused to recognize it. With Win10 it "my way or the highway". So, I did more research and found that Win10 supports RAID ony when it is made in Win10. For interested readers, there is information on the web. I followed the recipe given, and had a 465 GB 2 drive RAID 0 storage array. I copied files form my old 'DATA' HDD to the new RAID array and removed the old DATA HDD into storage marked 'old DATA backup'. Below I have pasted the CrystalDiskMark benchmarks. CrystalDiskInfo tells me all drives are healthy. Whereas CrystalDiskMark says the C: SSD is SATA/300, elsewhere in Windows it is said to be SATA600. Note the comparison of speeds, SSD is near RAID speed, faster in Sequential Write. Like ReadyBoost, a disk cache is stored in the Win10 SSD, speeding up seek, in the real world. Pagefile, temp files, browser cache and others are set to to RAID D: DATA. Downloaded programs are installed onto the RAID, for speed and to conserve valuable storage on the SSD. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 224.239 MB/s Sequential Write : 130.096 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 217.403 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 117.391 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 24.737 MB/s [ 6039.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 15.418 MB/s [ 3764.1 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 29.575 MB/s [ 7220.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 15.520 MB/s [ 3789.2 IOPS] Test : 50 MB [C: 43.0% (96.1/223.5 GB)] (x5) Date : 2016/11/12 15:46:01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 183.668 MB/s Sequential Write : 187.428 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 58.436 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 93.133 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 1.086 MB/s [ 265.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 2.643 MB/s [ 645.4 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 2.168 MB/s [ 529.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 3.393 MB/s [ 828.4 IOPS] Test : 50 MB [D: 19.9% (92.7/465.8 GB)] (x5) Date : 2016/11/12 15:47:09 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
Norm X wrote:
"Paul" wrote In the INF files for these chipsets, they use Class Codes to identify how the SATA ports are set. CC0101 = IDE mode CC0104 = AHCI CC0106 = RAID Thanks, I checked the nVidia INF and indeed CC104 is set. You can use CPUZ (portable version ZIP) to verify it is 620i. http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html Thanks I did that. Also I ran the CPUZ stress test and found my Q6600 is comparable to the 1 GHz AMD E1 2100, on sale at Amazon, Jan. 2016 for USD $526. "Paul" wrote However, when I enabled and booted back into Win10 on the SSD, the RAID array was invisible in 'My PC' or 'Disk Management'. Blame is not enough. I'm looking for a solution, in which I can make the RAID array visible. I used Safe Mode once, but maybe there are Settings I should know about. Thanks in advance. And where is the NVidia RAID driver for Win10 coming from ? Do they even make such a thing ? Paul For the record, I set up a System Reserved partition on my Kingston SSD and was able to remove the Win10 HDD and strore it marked 'Win10 backup'. I kept struggling to make an nVidia 2 drive RAID 0 storage array work but Win10 refused to recognize it. With Win10 it "my way or the highway". So, I did more research and found that Win10 supports RAID ony when it is made in Win10. For interested readers, there is information on the web. I followed the recipe given, and had a 465 GB 2 drive RAID 0 storage array. I copied files form my old 'DATA' HDD to the new RAID array and removed the old DATA HDD into storage marked 'old DATA backup'. Below I have pasted the CrystalDiskMark benchmarks. CrystalDiskInfo tells me all drives are healthy. Whereas CrystalDiskMark says the C: SSD is SATA/300, elsewhere in Windows it is said to be SATA600. Note the comparison of speeds, SSD is near RAID speed, faster in Sequential Write. Like ReadyBoost, a disk cache is stored in the Win10 SSD, speeding up seek, in the real world. Pagefile, temp files, browser cache and others are set to to RAID D: DATA. Downloaded programs are installed onto the RAID, for speed and to conserve valuable storage on the SSD. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 224.239 MB/s Sequential Write : 130.096 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 217.403 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 117.391 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 24.737 MB/s [ 6039.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 15.418 MB/s [ 3764.1 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 29.575 MB/s [ 7220.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 15.520 MB/s [ 3789.2 IOPS] Test : 50 MB [C: 43.0% (96.1/223.5 GB)] (x5) Date : 2016/11/12 15:46:01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 183.668 MB/s Sequential Write : 187.428 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 58.436 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 93.133 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 1.086 MB/s [ 265.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 2.643 MB/s [ 645.4 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 2.168 MB/s [ 529.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 3.393 MB/s [ 828.4 IOPS] Test : 50 MB [D: 19.9% (92.7/465.8 GB)] (x5) Date : 2016/11/12 15:47:09 Win10 has Software RAID. Even WinXP had Software RAID (using the Tomshardware recipe and "liberating" some files from sone other OS). The deal is, Home has "striped", which is the kind you like. Whereas Pro includes "mirrored" for redundancy. http://superuser.com/questions/10010...aid-windows-10 Your Southbridge needs SATA III ports, to reach SATA 600 speeds. My new machine has four SATA II ports (and I plug red cables into those). My machine has two SATA III ports (and I plug black data cables into those). If testing an SSD, I use the SATA III ports. I have one hard drive, that might justify using a SATA III port, as the beginning of the disk is just fast enough to notice some "clipping" on transfer rate via a SATA II port. I don't know if NVidia has ever put a SATA III port on anything. It's more likely to be SATA II. The behaviors are for the most part, backward compatible. So even SATA I kit works with SATA III stuff. You're supposed to be able to mix and match like with IDE ribbon cables, and get something to work. You can never really trust a utility to show the "current operating mode" versus the "fastest mode the Southbridge offers". Your utility might be showing either of those. Modern SSDs should be able to do 500 in CrystalDiskMark, if they're on a SATA III port. And I would think Win10 would offer Hardware RAID, as long as a proprietary driver package and RAID control panel were added. Intel has these. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
On 11/13/2016 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
Norm X wrote: "Paul" wrote In the INF files for these chipsets, they use Class Codes to identify how the SATA ports are set. CC0101 = IDE mode CC0104 = AHCI CC0106 = RAID Thanks, I checked the nVidia INF and indeed CC104 is set. You can use CPUZ (portable version ZIP) to verify it is 620i. http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html Thanks I did that. Also I ran the CPUZ stress test and found my Q6600 is comparable to the 1 GHz AMD E1 2100, on sale at Amazon, Jan. 2016 for USD $526. "Paul" wrote However, when I enabled and booted back into Win10 on the SSD, the RAID array was invisible in 'My PC' or 'Disk Management'. Blame is not enough. I'm looking for a solution, in which I can make the RAID array visible. I used Safe Mode once, but maybe there are Settings I should know about. Thanks in advance. And where is the NVidia RAID driver for Win10 coming from ? Do they even make such a thing ? Paul For the record, I set up a System Reserved partition on my Kingston SSD and was able to remove the Win10 HDD and strore it marked 'Win10 backup'. I kept struggling to make an nVidia 2 drive RAID 0 storage array work but Win10 refused to recognize it. With Win10 it "my way or the highway". So, I did more research and found that Win10 supports RAID ony when it is made in Win10. For interested readers, there is information on the web. I followed the recipe given, and had a 465 GB 2 drive RAID 0 storage array. I copied files form my old 'DATA' HDD to the new RAID array and removed the old DATA HDD into storage marked 'old DATA backup'. Below I have pasted the CrystalDiskMark benchmarks. CrystalDiskInfo tells me all drives are healthy. Whereas CrystalDiskMark says the C: SSD is SATA/300, elsewhere in Windows it is said to be SATA600. Note the comparison of speeds, SSD is near RAID speed, faster in Sequential Write. Like ReadyBoost, a disk cache is stored in the Win10 SSD, speeding up seek, in the real world. Pagefile, temp files, browser cache and others are set to to RAID D: DATA. Downloaded programs are installed onto the RAID, for speed and to conserve valuable storage on the SSD. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 224.239 MB/s Sequential Write : 130.096 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 217.403 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 117.391 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 24.737 MB/s [ 6039.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 15.418 MB/s [ 3764.1 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 29.575 MB/s [ 7220.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 15.520 MB/s [ 3789.2 IOPS] Test : 50 MB [C: 43.0% (96.1/223.5 GB)] (x5) Date : 2016/11/12 15:46:01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 183.668 MB/s Sequential Write : 187.428 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 58.436 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 93.133 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 1.086 MB/s [ 265.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 2.643 MB/s [ 645.4 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 2.168 MB/s [ 529.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 3.393 MB/s [ 828.4 IOPS] Test : 50 MB [D: 19.9% (92.7/465.8 GB)] (x5) Date : 2016/11/12 15:47:09 Win10 has Software RAID. Even WinXP had Software RAID (using the Tomshardware recipe and "liberating" some files from sone other OS). The deal is, Home has "striped", which is the kind you like. Whereas Pro includes "mirrored" for redundancy. http://superuser.com/questions/10010...aid-windows-10 Your Southbridge needs SATA III ports, to reach SATA 600 speeds. My new machine has four SATA II ports (and I plug red cables into those). My machine has two SATA III ports (and I plug black data cables into those). If testing an SSD, I use the SATA III ports. I have one hard drive, that might justify using a SATA III port, as the beginning of the disk is just fast enough to notice some "clipping" on transfer rate via a SATA II port. I don't know if NVidia has ever put a SATA III port on anything. It's more likely to be SATA II. The behaviors are for the most part, backward compatible. So even SATA I kit works with SATA III stuff. You're supposed to be able to mix and match like with IDE ribbon cables, and get something to work. You can never really trust a utility to show the "current operating mode" versus the "fastest mode the Southbridge offers". Your utility might be showing either of those. Modern SSDs should be able to do 500 in CrystalDiskMark, if they're on a SATA III port. And I would think Win10 would offer Hardware RAID, as long as a proprietary driver package and RAID control panel were added. Intel has these. Paul The differences between drives and types can be pretty stark in the same system. Out of curiosity I ran Norm X's benchmarks on my C: (a Samsung 840EVO 256gB drive) and my D: partition (1/3rd of a WD 'Green' 3tB drive). Both are connected to SATA III ports on my daily-driver machine which uses an Intel H170 chipset. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s] * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 545.349 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 334.785 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 316.417 MB/s [ 77250.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 288.280 MB/s [ 70380.9 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 519.023 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 273.043 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 39.237 MB/s [ 9579.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 86.256 MB/s [ 21058.6 IOPS] Test : 50 MiB [C: 48.6% (107.3/220.8 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/11/13 10:47:14 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) Not too shabby for a last-generation SSD although those last random numbers seem to lack a bit. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s] * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 338.156 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 130.299 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 5.199 MB/s [ 1269.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 2.291 MB/s [ 559.3 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 215.587 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 132.337 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 3.554 MB/s [ 867.7 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 2.178 MB/s [ 531.7 IOPS] Test : 50 MiB [D: 41.4% (385.4/931.5 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/11/13 10:41:26 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) The sequential number on this spinning drive are pretty good but those random numbers are a real shocker. I guess that those 'green' drives had to save power somewhere besides spinning slower. I've not noticed any actual usability problems with the D:, E:, and F: partitions on that spinning drive but I use it mostly for data storage with just a few seldom-used throwaway programs installed on the D: partition. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
Just for grins and completeness I just ran the same test on my K: drive
which is an external USBIII enclosure holding a salvaged 3tB WD 'Red' drive. I really don't know what the relative performance between the 'Red' and 'Green' drives is and I've always assumed that they were pretty much the same with a few firmware tweaks for NAS use. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s] * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 154.136 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 344.519 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 3.791 MB/s [ 925.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1.992 MB/s [ 486.3 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 207.623 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 161.693 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 4.610 MB/s [ 1125.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 2.634 MB/s [ 643.1 IOPS] Test : 50 MiB [K: 0.0% (0.7/2794.4 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/11/13 11:14:32 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) Notice the strange swapping of the first sequential numbers between the D: and K: drives -- weird. Even weirder the last random tests are actually better on the USB-connected drive. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How to enable a healthy RAID storage array on Win10?
John McGaw wrote:
Just for grins and completeness I just ran the same test on my K: drive which is an external USBIII enclosure holding a salvaged 3tB WD 'Red' drive. I really don't know what the relative performance between the 'Red' and 'Green' drives is and I've always assumed that they were pretty much the same with a few firmware tweaks for NAS use. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s] * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 154.136 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 344.519 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 3.791 MB/s [ 925.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1.992 MB/s [ 486.3 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 207.623 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 161.693 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 4.610 MB/s [ 1125.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 2.634 MB/s [ 643.1 IOPS] Test : 50 MiB [K: 0.0% (0.7/2794.4 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/11/13 11:14:32 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) Notice the strange swapping of the first sequential numbers between the D: and K: drives -- weird. Even weirder the last random tests are actually better on the USB-connected drive. Normally the software would ask for "uncached" access. So that OS caches would not affect the results. However, the track cache on the drive probably still works, regardless. You could look at the USB drive properties. and see if it is set for "Performance" or "Quick Removal". The same sort of thing happens with SATA drives. And at the time I didn't trace it down. It seems if you have SATA drives set for AHCI, and the BIOS is set to "HotPlug=disable", a number of the recent Windows OSes use a huge cache while doing so. If HotPlug is enabled again (and you can see all your SATA drives in the Safely Remove menu), the system write cache is relatively disabled. On the new machine, I've had as much as 5GB of write data stored in RAM (and charged to the system), when a writing process is too fast for the disk. If Hutplug is enabled, allowing ejection of disks, the OS stops using that cache. But really, none of this is supposed to affect a disk benchmark program, as they're supposed to defeat caches when running tests. It's still pretty hard to get reproducible results. Especially difficult, is benching the cache RAM inside the hard drive and getting a believable number. The developer of the benchmark knows a SATA III disk with 128MB cache RAM, should be able to run the link at 550MB/sec or whatever, and then they have to adjust the benchmark until those results come out on a burst test. Paul |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAID Storage Array for my Western Digital 250gb drives? - Help! | Storage | Storage & Hardrives | 2 | September 15th 08 10:35 AM |
Connect Storage RAID Array to a Cluster | my-dba | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | January 5th 07 08:05 PM |
How I built a 2.8TB RAID storage array | Yeechang Lee | Storage & Hardrives | 42 | March 3rd 05 12:04 AM |
How I built a 2.8TB RAID storage array | Yeechang Lee | Storage (alternative) | 42 | March 3rd 05 12:04 AM |
How I built a 2.8TB RAID storage array | Yeechang Lee | Homebuilt PC's | 31 | February 22nd 05 06:40 PM |