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
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
I have an idea to construct a disk array that can provide
2400 MB / second read performance and provide the reliability of RAID 1 mirroring. All that I need to know is how to directly hook up 24 drives to a single workstation. I have a need for a system that can read 1.6 GB files directly into memory in one second or less. What I need is a sort of virtual memory system with a variable page size of at least 500MB. I only need to be able to read these files quickly, writing them can be at single disk write speed. If I can connect 24 drives up to a single workstation, I can read 1/24th of the file sized increments into a single memory buffer at 1/24th of the file sized offsets. This would only require a single seek per drive. If these drives each provide 100 MB per second sustained read performance, then the drives can read at about the maximum speed that RAM can be written to. The missing piece of this plan is knowing the best hardware combination to use, and whether or not any existing hardware combination will meet these requirements. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1reliability
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:15:39 -0500, Peter Olcott rearranged some electrons
to say: I have an idea to construct a disk array that can provide 2400 MB / second read performance and provide the reliability of RAID 1 mirroring. All that I need to know is how to directly hook up 24 drives to a single workstation. I have a need for a system that can read 1.6 GB files directly into memory in one second or less. What I need is a sort of virtual memory system with a variable page size of at least 500MB. I only need to be able to read these files quickly, writing them can be at single disk write speed. If I can connect 24 drives up to a single workstation, I can read 1/24th of the file sized increments into a single memory buffer at 1/24th of the file sized offsets. This would only require a single seek per drive. If these drives each provide 100 MB per second sustained read performance, then the drives can read at about the maximum speed that RAM can be written to. The missing piece of this plan is knowing the best hardware combination to use, and whether or not any existing hardware combination will meet these requirements. Have you considered solid-state disks? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
"david" wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:15:39 -0500, Peter Olcott rearranged some electrons to say: I have an idea to construct a disk array that can provide 2400 MB / second read performance and provide the reliability of RAID 1 mirroring. All that I need to know is how to directly hook up 24 drives to a single workstation. I have a need for a system that can read 1.6 GB files directly into memory in one second or less. What I need is a sort of virtual memory system with a variable page size of at least 500MB. I only need to be able to read these files quickly, writing them can be at single disk write speed. If I can connect 24 drives up to a single workstation, I can read 1/24th of the file sized increments into a single memory buffer at 1/24th of the file sized offsets. This would only require a single seek per drive. If these drives each provide 100 MB per second sustained read performance, then the drives can read at about the maximum speed that RAM can be written to. The missing piece of this plan is knowing the best hardware combination to use, and whether or not any existing hardware combination will meet these requirements. Have you considered solid-state disks? I am guessing that my solution (at least for read only) will beat their performance at a tiny fraction of their cost. http://www.violin-memory.com/assets/techbrief_gen1.pdf |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
Peter Olcott wrote:
"david" wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:15:39 -0500, Peter Olcott rearranged some electrons to say: I have an idea to construct a disk array that can provide 2400 MB / second read performance and provide the reliability of RAID 1 mirroring. All that I need to know is how to directly hook up 24 drives to a single workstation. I have a need for a system that can read 1.6 GB files directly into memory in one second or less. What I need is a sort of virtual memory system with a variable page size of at least 500MB. I only need to be able to read these files quickly, writing them can be at single disk write speed. If I can connect 24 drives up to a single workstation, I can read 1/24th of the file sized increments into a single memory buffer at 1/24th of the file sized offsets. This would only require a single seek per drive. If these drives each provide 100 MB per second sustained read performance, then the drives can read at about the maximum speed that RAM can be written to. The missing piece of this plan is knowing the best hardware combination to use, and whether or not any existing hardware combination will meet these requirements. Have you considered solid-state disks? I am guessing that my solution (at least for read only) will beat their performance at a tiny fraction of their cost. http://www.violin-memory.com/assets/techbrief_gen1.pdf The best commodity device (in terms of pricing), is the Gigabyte iRAM with SATA interface. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480 It was available in several versions, but as far as I know, the one that gets power (but not digital signals) from a PCI slot, is the one most often "seen in the wild". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-RAM http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7563 An experimenter on 2cpu.com tested the PCI powered version on an Areca card, and found that proper RAID cards (like an Areca), didn't like the iRAM because it doesn't emulate enough of a SATA disk. The iRAM does work with things like the RAID interface on a Southbridge chip. That limits the number of iRAMs that could be used, to six or so. The iRAM interface is SATA 150MB/sec, and the actual transfer rate is lower than that. (A sample thread. Areca 1160 has a status of POS or "piece of ****", when used with the iRAM.) http://forums.2cpu.com/archive/index.php/t-77526.html Otherwise, you'd be getting RAM based storage, for the price of DDR RAM. The last 1GB DDR I bought (good stuff), cost $35 and you can get them for less than that. This is another example of a product based on RAM. I think the prices are without RAM installed, but I could be wrong. http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/0704...rosHDIIproduct Dan answers the question, from Apr 2008. http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00025.htm Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
"Paul" wrote in message ... Peter Olcott wrote: "david" wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:15:39 -0500, Peter Olcott rearranged some electrons to say: I have an idea to construct a disk array that can provide 2400 MB / second read performance and provide the reliability of RAID 1 mirroring. All that I need to know is how to directly hook up 24 drives to a single workstation. I have a need for a system that can read 1.6 GB files directly into memory in one second or less. What I need is a sort of virtual memory system with a variable page size of at least 500MB. I only need to be able to read these files quickly, writing them can be at single disk write speed. If I can connect 24 drives up to a single workstation, I can read 1/24th of the file sized increments into a single memory buffer at 1/24th of the file sized offsets. This would only require a single seek per drive. If these drives each provide 100 MB per second sustained read performance, then the drives can read at about the maximum speed that RAM can be written to. The missing piece of this plan is knowing the best hardware combination to use, and whether or not any existing hardware combination will meet these requirements. Have you considered solid-state disks? I am guessing that my solution (at least for read only) will beat their performance at a tiny fraction of their cost. http://www.violin-memory.com/assets/techbrief_gen1.pdf The best commodity device (in terms of pricing), is the Gigabyte iRAM with SATA interface. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480 It was available in several versions, but as far as I know, the one that gets power (but not digital signals) from a PCI slot, is the one most often "seen in the wild". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-RAM http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7563 An experimenter on 2cpu.com tested the PCI powered version on an Areca card, and found that proper RAID cards (like an Areca), didn't like the iRAM because it doesn't emulate enough of a SATA disk. The iRAM does work with things like the RAID interface on a Southbridge chip. That limits the number of iRAMs that could be used, to six or so. The iRAM interface is SATA 150MB/sec, and the actual transfer rate is lower than that. (A sample thread. Areca 1160 has a status of POS or "piece of ****", when used with the iRAM.) http://forums.2cpu.com/archive/index.php/t-77526.html Otherwise, you'd be getting RAM based storage, for the price of DDR RAM. The last 1GB DDR I bought (good stuff), cost $35 and you can get them for less than that. This is another example of a product based on RAM. I think the prices are without RAM installed, but I could be wrong. http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/0704...rosHDIIproduct Dan answers the question, from Apr 2008. http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00025.htm Paul I asked Intel if they have any boards that will meet my requirements. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
Peter Olcott wrote:
I asked Intel if they have any boards that will meet my requirements. Do you mean a motherboard like the Skulltrail ? http://www.intel.com/products/deskto...S-overview.htm http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Prod...ProductID=2864 You can also browse through here. http://www.intel.com/products/mother...dr+prod_boards ******* There is another possibility here, only this uses an Nvidia chipset. MSI P7N Diamond. Four large PCI Express slots. Hard to find a block diagram. Claims 16,16,16,8 for lane wiring. The first two 16 are done with Nforce200 switch. Leaving the 16,8 to be done by the Southbridge, as I don't see any other chips for the job. It is hard for me to believe there are 24 lanes on one chip, which is why I'd prefer to find a block diagram. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813130158 The basic premise behind the 780i is here. Even though the diagram is labeled 780i for both chips, it is actually 780i and 570i. http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3180&p=2 The 570 is listed as 16,8 here. So it does look like the MSI board would give you at least x8 performance on each of four slots, but in an ATX form factor 12"x9.6" motherboard. http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce5_specs_amd.html More details on the board here. Check the CPU support chart, before buying a processor. http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?f...2&maincat_no=1 Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
The key question is whether or not any of these alternatives
is feasible. It would seem that the key aspect of this key question would be whether or not any of these boards can provide enough simultaneous bandwidth from their expansion slots. I really need at least 400 MB per second simultaneously from each of six slots. That should (hopefully) provide my required 1600 MB per second, even from the slow part of the drive. "Paul" wrote in message ... Peter Olcott wrote: I asked Intel if they have any boards that will meet my requirements. Do you mean a motherboard like the Skulltrail ? http://www.intel.com/products/deskto...S-overview.htm http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Prod...ProductID=2864 You can also browse through here. http://www.intel.com/products/mother...dr+prod_boards ******* There is another possibility here, only this uses an Nvidia chipset. MSI P7N Diamond. Four large PCI Express slots. Hard to find a block diagram. Claims 16,16,16,8 for lane wiring. The first two 16 are done with Nforce200 switch. Leaving the 16,8 to be done by the Southbridge, as I don't see any other chips for the job. It is hard for me to believe there are 24 lanes on one chip, which is why I'd prefer to find a block diagram. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813130158 The basic premise behind the 780i is here. Even though the diagram is labeled 780i for both chips, it is actually 780i and 570i. http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3180&p=2 The 570 is listed as 16,8 here. So it does look like the MSI board would give you at least x8 performance on each of four slots, but in an ATX form factor 12"x9.6" motherboard. http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce5_specs_amd.html More details on the board here. Check the CPU support chart, before buying a processor. http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?f...2&maincat_no=1 Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
Peter Olcott wrote:
The key question is whether or not any of these alternatives is feasible. It would seem that the key aspect of this key question would be whether or not any of these boards can provide enough simultaneous bandwidth from their expansion slots. I really need at least 400 MB per second simultaneously from each of six slots. That should (hopefully) provide my required 1600 MB per second, even from the slow part of the drive. P7N Diamond +------------------------------- x1 | +---------------------------- x1 | | +----------+ ??? +-----------+ 12.8GB/sec ___/ DDR2-800 ---| 780i |-------| Nforce200 |---- x16 3.6Gb/sec Two sticks \ DDR2-800 ---| | | Switch |---- x16 3.6GB/sec +----------+ +-----------+ | | Hypertransport | Likely 4GB/sec, a *guess* | Enough for x16 to spread around | +-----------+ | 570i |----------------------- x16 2GB/sec | |----------------------- x8 2GB/sec | |------- (PCI) | |------- (SATA) | |------- four x1, for onboard usage. +-----------+ First of all, the output of Nforce200 is (2) x16 PCI Express revision 2.0, which would be a total of 16GB/sec. The input to the Nforce200 cannot sustain that. And in any case, your storage cards are going to be running with revision 1.0 speeds, so when using storage cards, the max bandwidth you could pull from the two slots, would be 8GB/sec total. It could be that the input bus to Nforce200, is 16 lanes at 4.5GT/sec. A "normal" PCI Express lane runs at 2.5GT/sec. So there is 4GB/sec * (4.5/2.5) or 7.2GB/sec feeding into the Nforce200. That means you could have 3.6GB/sec on each of the "x16" outputs. This is still plenty, with respect to your requirement of 400MB/sec from each. The Hypertransport leading to the 570i, could be a 4GB/sec one. This is a guess based on the fact that the chipset is advertised as a "3x16" platform. So the x8 and x16 likely share 4GB/sec of bandwidth, making two solid x8 slots in practice. That would be 2GB/sec per slot. Activities from other 570i interfaces, would cut into the bandwidth slightly, such as a burst from the SATA ports. Maybe if you set up a SATA four drive RAID0, a burst from that would provide the most competition with the other slots. That still leaves enough bandwidth to have more than 400MB/sec on the PCI Express slots. So while there is some detail missing in the diagram, I'm not overly concerned about the available bandwidth. The memory supports up to DDR2-1200. You might be using DDR2-800 in there. That would be 6.4GB/sec per memory DIMM. Two DIMMs operating in dual channel gives 12.8GB/sec, which is just enough to match the 3x16 bandwidth. And memory does not actually sustain that kind of bandwidth forever. But again, compared to your total 1.6GB/sec requirement, there is likely more than enough capacity in the memory subsystem. Your cards might use 25% of the practical bandwidth. If you can find a better diagram than this one, then that would help fill in the details. http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...-block_lrg.png Paul |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1reliability
On Sep 3, 11:30*pm, Paul wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote: The key question is whether or not any of these alternatives is feasible. It would seem that the key aspect of this key question would be whether or not any of these boards can provide enough simultaneous bandwidth from their expansion slots. I really need at least 400 MB per second simultaneously from each of six slots. That should (hopefully) provide my required 1600 MB per second, even from the slow part of the drive. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * P7N Diamond * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +------------------------------- x1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | *+---------------------------- x1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | *| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +----------+ *??? *+-----------+ 12.8GB/sec *___/ DDR2-800 ---| * 780i * |-------| Nforce200 |---- x16 *3.6Gb/sec Two sticks * * \ DDR2-800 ---| * * * * *| * * * | *Switch * |---- x16 *3.6GB/sec * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +----------+ * * * +-----------+ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *| Hypertransport * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *| Likely 4GB/sec, a *guess* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *| Enough for x16 to spread around * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +-----------+ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * 570i * *|----------------------- x16 *2GB/sec * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * |----------------------- x8 * 2GB/sec * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * |------- (PCI) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * |------- (SATA) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * |------- four x1, for onboard usage. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +-----------+ First of all, the output of Nforce200 is (2) x16 PCI Express revision 2.0, which would be a total of 16GB/sec. The input to the Nforce200 cannot sustain that. And in any case, your storage cards are going to be running with revision 1.0 speeds, so when using storage cards, the max bandwidth you could pull from the two slots, would be 8GB/sec total. It could be that the input bus to Nforce200, is 16 lanes at 4.5GT/sec. A "normal" PCI Express lane runs at 2.5GT/sec. So there is 4GB/sec * (4.5/2.5) or 7.2GB/sec feeding into the Nforce200. That means you could have 3.6GB/sec on each of the "x16" outputs. This is still plenty, with respect to your requirement of 400MB/sec from each. The Hypertransport leading to the 570i, could be a 4GB/sec one. This is a guess based on the fact that the chipset is advertised as a "3x16" platform. So the x8 and x16 likely share 4GB/sec of bandwidth, making two solid x8 slots in practice. That would be 2GB/sec per slot. Activities from other 570i interfaces, would cut into the bandwidth slightly, such as a burst from the SATA ports. Maybe if you set up a SATA four drive RAID0, a burst from that would provide the most competition with the other slots. That still leaves enough bandwidth to have more than 400MB/sec on the PCI Express slots. So while there is some detail missing in the diagram, I'm not overly concerned about the available bandwidth. The memory supports up to DDR2-1200. You might be using DDR2-800 in there. That would be 6.4GB/sec per memory DIMM. Two DIMMs operating in dual channel gives 12.8GB/sec, which is just enough to match the 3x16 bandwidth. And memory does not actually sustain that kind of bandwidth forever. But again, compared to your total 1.6GB/sec requirement, there is likely more than enough capacity in the memory subsystem. Your cards might use 25% of the practical bandwidth. If you can find a better diagram than this one, then that would help fill in the details. http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...rce-780i/780i-... * * Paul So six slots could simultaneously provide at least 400 MB per second? If the answer is yes, then the next question would be: Can hard drive controller cards provide at least 400 MB per second: 100 MB per second each from simultaneously reading four different drives? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability
PeteOlcott wrote:
On Sep 3, 11:30 pm, Paul wrote: Peter Olcott wrote: The key question is whether or not any of these alternatives is feasible. It would seem that the key aspect of this key question would be whether or not any of these boards can provide enough simultaneous bandwidth from their expansion slots. I really need at least 400 MB per second simultaneously from each of six slots. That should (hopefully) provide my required 1600 MB per second, even from the slow part of the drive. P7N Diamond +------------------------------- x1 | +---------------------------- x1 | | +----------+ ??? +-----------+ 12.8GB/sec ___/ DDR2-800 ---| 780i |-------| Nforce200 |---- x16 3.6Gb/sec Two sticks \ DDR2-800 ---| | | Switch |---- x16 3.6GB/sec +----------+ +-----------+ | | Hypertransport | Likely 4GB/sec, a *guess* | Enough for x16 to spread around | +-----------+ | 570i |----------------------- x16 2GB/sec | |----------------------- x8 2GB/sec | |------- (PCI) | |------- (SATA) | |------- four x1, for onboard usage. +-----------+ First of all, the output of Nforce200 is (2) x16 PCI Express revision 2.0, which would be a total of 16GB/sec. The input to the Nforce200 cannot sustain that. And in any case, your storage cards are going to be running with revision 1.0 speeds, so when using storage cards, the max bandwidth you could pull from the two slots, would be 8GB/sec total. It could be that the input bus to Nforce200, is 16 lanes at 4.5GT/sec. A "normal" PCI Express lane runs at 2.5GT/sec. So there is 4GB/sec * (4.5/2.5) or 7.2GB/sec feeding into the Nforce200. That means you could have 3.6GB/sec on each of the "x16" outputs. This is still plenty, with respect to your requirement of 400MB/sec from each. The Hypertransport leading to the 570i, could be a 4GB/sec one. This is a guess based on the fact that the chipset is advertised as a "3x16" platform. So the x8 and x16 likely share 4GB/sec of bandwidth, making two solid x8 slots in practice. That would be 2GB/sec per slot. Activities from other 570i interfaces, would cut into the bandwidth slightly, such as a burst from the SATA ports. Maybe if you set up a SATA four drive RAID0, a burst from that would provide the most competition with the other slots. That still leaves enough bandwidth to have more than 400MB/sec on the PCI Express slots. So while there is some detail missing in the diagram, I'm not overly concerned about the available bandwidth. The memory supports up to DDR2-1200. You might be using DDR2-800 in there. That would be 6.4GB/sec per memory DIMM. Two DIMMs operating in dual channel gives 12.8GB/sec, which is just enough to match the 3x16 bandwidth. And memory does not actually sustain that kind of bandwidth forever. But again, compared to your total 1.6GB/sec requirement, there is likely more than enough capacity in the memory subsystem. Your cards might use 25% of the practical bandwidth. If you can find a better diagram than this one, then that would help fill in the details. http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...rce-780i/780i-... Paul So six slots could simultaneously provide at least 400 MB per second? If the answer is yes, then the next question would be: Can hard drive controller cards provide at least 400 MB per second: 100 MB per second each from simultaneously reading four different drives? The board has four worthwhile slots. The two PCI Express x1 slots aren't going to be as capable as a x8 or x16 slot. (About 200MB/sec each.) The answer about controllers, depends on what software is added, between the controllers and the OS. One of my assumptions was, that *perhaps* you could use the Tomshardware Windows RAID hack to combine the bandwidth of 16 disks at 100MB/sec each. I selected a non-RAID card in that case, so 16 separate disks are presented to the OS, assuming that the Tomshardware RAID hack would allow their bandwidth to be combined. (User sees combined bandwidth 1600MB/sec) | Tomshardware_RAID_Hack_For_WinXP | | | | ------- ------- ------- ------- Four separate cards | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sixteen disks If you use Areca cards, we know already from seeing manufacturer data, that they can produce 800MB/sec limited by their IOP. But with the Areca cards, you'd need another layer of software to combine the bandwidth of two cards. (User sees combined bandwidth 1600MB/sec) | (Need a way to RAID0 these two arrays ???) ------ what product does this ? | | | | (800MB/sec each) --------------- --------------- Two separate cards | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sixteen disks (Velociraptor) The Areca solution means you need fewer slots, or potentially you could get more bandwidth etc., but it also means identifying the software that allows the output of the Areca disks to be combined. If you're writing your own software, then you can do that part yourself (assuming non-blocking I/O in Windows, so two program threads could read to memory buffers simultaneously). Alternately, the software might be something commercial that allows RAID0 combination of separate arrays. In the second figure, maybe if the arrays appear as volumes to the OS, you could use the Tomshardware hack to combine them ? Perhaps you could test this concept, using only four disks to start and a couple of onboard controllers on an ordinary motherboard, to see if the "striped" option here, would allow two arrays to be combined. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pen,925-3.html (User sees combined bandwidth) | Tomshardware_RAID_Hack_For_WinXP ("striped") | | | | --- --- Two onboard controllers, RAID0 each | | | | Four disks What you'd do for the experiment, is set up each array of two disks individually. Use HDTach or HDTune to benchmark each array. Then add in the Tomshardware hack, combining the two arrays by using Windows to "stripe" the volumes. Then run HDTach or HDTune on the resulting virtual array. So you should be able to do a partial proof of concept with simple ingredients. What cannot be known in advance, is the degree to which it scales and everything works to deliver more than 1000MB/sec when the real hardware config is set up. So whatever you do, this is still going to be an expensive experiment -- unless you can find an article where someone has tested a similar concept, you won't know for sure about the scaling, or whether the thing runs out of steam at such high bandwidths (CPU limit). For example, any time that software has to do memory to memory copies of data, that just kills performance, so if any part of the software is doing that, it will crush the performance. The small experiment with the four disks above, may not be able to show you that limitation. That is why using a single controller, capable of doing more than 800MB/sec, is more attractive. With that working for you, you're more likely to see a benchmark, before buying equipment. Paul |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability | Peter Olcott | General | 10 | September 4th 08 11:00 PM |
Hi i want to buy an hd and i cant find any new on the read and write speed on a particlar hard disk dirve like western digital DH | DDC | Asus Motherboards | 15 | September 25th 05 09:45 PM |
Disk read speed benchmark wanted | Mark Fineman | Storage (alternative) | 1 | April 27th 04 11:28 PM |
Disk read speed benchmark wanted | Folkert Rienstra | Storage (alternative) | 1 | April 1st 04 04:48 AM |
to read data from RAID disk from another computer. | Zhang Weiwu | General | 3 | February 19th 04 12:24 PM |