Just benched my RAID 0 array, how am I getting < 1.5Mbps?

[BrokenVisage]

HD Tach confirms what HD Tune measured

I had recently bought two of those $100 320GB Seagates to run them in a RAID 0 setup. I made sure to cover all my bases for it: got SATA II cables, removed the microscopic jumpers on each to get SATA II speeds, and set the array up with a 16k stripe for performance. Are these numbers normal? My MB's onboard Silicon Image RAID can support 3.0Mbps speeds, so why can't my array acheive that?

Any help or explanations would be great, thanks.

 

[Bobthelost]

You've got 13.5K posts and you still don't know what SATAII is?

Use the bloody search engine, it's crap but this has been answered so many times even it should find it for you.

:roll:

Edit: Yes it's normal.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
You've got 13.5K posts and you still don't know what SATAII is?

Use the bloody search engine, it's crap but this has been answered so many times even it should find it for you.

:roll:

Edit: Yes it's normal.

I don't understand how my postcount has ANYTHING to do with my knowledge of computers, which is fairly extensive just not in this area.

Also, the bloody search engine doesn't answer my question, I searched SATA II, SATAII, SATA 2, SATA2, RAID benchmark.. so maybe you could help me out and find a couple of these threads for me.

Fine, you tell me the numbers are normal, thanks but could you maybe explain WHY I'm not getting better speeds?

 

[Mindflux]

Your post count is indicative of time spent on anandtech's forums.

It obviously wasn't spent wisely.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Well your first problem is that it's not 1.5Mbps, it's 150MB/s (megabits vs megabytes and your decimal point).

SATA's theoretical bandwidth is 150MB/s, SATA II's theoretical bandwith is 300MB/s. That's just for the interface between your hard drive and your motherboard. Hard drives themselves can't reach that level of output. You're hitting about 60MB/s per drive (120MB/s total) which is about right.

Your RAID setup is fine.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Lol, 1.5Mbps is DSL speed :laughl I think hes confused Gbps and Mbps, it's 1.5Gbps which is basically 150MB/s. You're unlikely to get 150MB/s bandwidth even in raid due to the drives no fully utilizing the bandwidth of the bus. Even SCSI drives don't go higher than like 80MB/s per drive, the only thing that can is that gigabyte ram drive thing.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Well your first problem is that it's not 1.5Mbps, it's 150MB/s (megabits vs megabytes and your decimal point).

SATA's theoretical bandwidth is 150MB/s, SATA II's theoretical bandwith is 300MB/s. That's just for the interface between your hard drive and your motherboard. Hard drives themselves can't reach that level of output. You're hitting about 60MB/s per drive (120MB/s total) which is about right.

Your RAID setup is fine.

Thank you, I was just seeing some much higher numbers with other setups and wondered if I did something wrong setting up mine. And as for you Mindflux.. all-knowing, all-lurking master of Anandtech, you can file your little forum observations about my postcount and the contributions I make on this forum up your ass for all I care.. you don't know crap about me, my posts, or how I contribute to this forum. Just keep lurking and making little inane observations.

 

[Mindflux]

Yawn.

You keep on posting 25+ posts a day. I'll keep my life.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Mindflux
Yawn.

You keep on posting 25+ posts a day. I'll keep my life.

Good to know, I'll happily keep my 25+ posts a day and my life too if it means I won't turn into some bland little SOB like you.

 

[Mindflux]

hoho! what big words you are using.

d.i.a.f

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Mindflux
hoho! what big words you are using.

d.i.a.f

The biggest word I used was "happily", I'm sorry if you can't comprehend those tricky 3-syllable adverbs, but I can't take your lack of education into consideration when typing a post, I'm sorry I just can't! Thanks for all your help though..

 

[krotchy]

Your raid is working faster than I would figure using a software raid, your definitely doing good.

 

[Mindflux]

yawn. I was referring to your 'adult' abbreviations.

I didn't call you a S.O.B, or anything other than an incopetent boob (in a roundabout way). You're the one that went along and started dragging out the acronyms that shouldn't even have come into consideration.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Mindflux
bla bla bla troll b1tch whine.

WTF? Don't flame in the technical forums, do it in off topic or PMs. And what made you stroll in and pick a fight anyway? I'll be surprised if your post aren't deleted or your account suspended.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
You've got 13.5K posts and you still don't know what SATAII is?

Use the bloody search engine, it's crap but this has been answered so many times even it should find it for you.

:roll:

Edit: Yes it's normal.

I don't understand how my postcount has ANYTHING to do with my knowledge of computers, which is fairly extensive just not in this area.

Also, the bloody search engine doesn't answer my question, I searched SATA II, SATAII, SATA 2, SATA2, RAID benchmark.. so maybe you could help me out and find a couple of these threads for me.

Fine, you tell me the numbers are normal, thanks but could you maybe explain WHY I'm not getting better speeds?

Ya man, its probably just a bunch of bumps in the FS/FT section.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Mindflux
yawn. I was referring to your 'adult' abbreviations.

I didn't call you a S.O.B, or anything other than an incopetent boob (in a roundabout way). You're the one that went along and started dragging out the acronyms that shouldn't even have come into consideration.

No, you didn't call me any names, you just made insinuations that I have no life due to a large postcount that was accumulated "unwisely" which I can only assume means you think I just troll and nef all day. Yeah, I nef on ATOT during my mostly boring workdays, but I also try to help here, in Video, and wherever else I stumble upon.

I just wanted some second thoughts on my RAID array, not an overview of my time on AnandTech from someone who has been lurking here since 99'. I don't want to continue this feud either, so I'll apologize "I'm sorry" for calling you a bland SOB and just drop it at that. I'm done with this thread, thanks to those who contributed.

 

[Mindflux]

Word.

Good luck with the array

Bygones be Bygones.

 

[Cerb]

Fine, you tell me the numbers are normal, thanks but could you maybe explain WHY I'm not getting better speeds?

You're using the wrong controller. Everyone else here is basically pointing out that if you read more than you posted, you might have been able to figure that out, and maybe even figure out proper abbreviations. We all came in expecting you to be getting sh!t performance, around 1.5Mb/s; when, in fact, you're getting great performance, of near 600x what is in the thread title and OP text.

My MB's onboard Silicon Image [3114] can support 3.0Mbps speeds, so why can't my array acheive that?

See the bolded part (it's not a RAID controller, either). Also, it won't get too much faster using the native controller. I mean, 150MB/s or so, maybe. Maybe.

OK, now see the PCI 2.1 bandwidth. Note there will be some overhead involved, hence ~110MB/s.

 

[Mindflux]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Mindflux
bla bla bla troll b1tch whine.

WTF? Don't flame in the technical forums, do it in off topic or PMs. And what made you stroll in and pick a fight anyway? I'll be surprised if your post aren't deleted or your account suspended.

You're the one misquoting and avoiding the word filters with numbers... I'd say that's a direct violation of the forum rules.

 

[savvy]

Why can't a Lifer ask a serious question?