New Atlas 10k III not breaking over 40MB/sec...**UPDATE** WinXP Write performance issues

[Davegod75]

SP1 where are you? heck where is w2k sp3?

 

[Poontos]

<< SP1 where are you? heck where is w2k sp3? >>


XP is more of a "playful" OS, so it does not surprise me that 2000 has a better understanding of SCSI.

XP is a desktop OS, and the words XP & SCSI just don't mix to me.

From Winsupersite.com

<< Q: When will XP SP1 ship?
A: Microsoft says late 2002, but sources tell me that SP1 will be finalized in August 2002, with a September 2002 street date. This will give PC makers time to integrate the new XP into PCs for the 2002 holiday season. >>



SP3 should be out within the next couple of months.

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< SP1 where are you? heck where is w2k sp3? >>


XP is more of a "playful" OS, so it does not surprise me that 2000 has a better understanding of SCSI.

XP is a desktop OS, and the words XP & SCSI just don't mix to me.

From Winsupersite.com

<< Q: When will XP SP1 ship?
A: Microsoft says late 2002, but sources tell me that SP1 will be finalized in August 2002, with a September 2002 street date. This will give PC makers time to integrate the new XP into PCs for the 2002 holiday season. >>



SP3 should be out within the next couple of months. >>


XP IS a professional OS as XP Professional takes the place of Windows 2000 Professional and XP Home takes the place of Win98/WinMe. There is NO reason why it should be so much slower in the SCSI department IMHO.

Sure, XP may be more "colorful" but the fact that reads are as fast (and actually a bit faster than Win 2000) shows that there is something else screwed up in the system that Microsoft has failed to get around to.

 

[Poontos]

<< XP IS a professional OS as XP Professional takes the place of Windows 2000 Professional and XP Home takes the place of Win98/WinMe. There is NO reason why it should be so much slower in the SCSI department IMHO. >>


XP may in fact have attempted to replace Windows 2000 Professional, but IMHO and thousands of other IT managers, at this point there is no sense in replacing rock solid 2000 Pro workstations with XP.

Now, in comparison to 2000 Pro's relationship to the 2000 Server products, and XP Pro's relationship, 2000 Pro obviously has closer ties. With that in mind, desktop OSes are usually not associated with server components, e.g. SCSI interfaces. Therefore, I am not too surprised that Microsoft's SCSI support on a desktop OS, specfically XP, is lacking. Although, this does not mean it is OK, but just ain't a surprise considering the above.



<< Sure, XP may be more "colorful" but the fact that reads are as fast (and actually a bit faster than Win 2000) shows that there is something else screwed up in the system that Microsoft has failed to get around to. >>


Well, good luck and I am always interested in the resolutions. But, my stance can be re-read just a few lines above -- Desktop OS and common desktop motherboards (non-server boards), and especially "colorful" XP does not bring SCSI to mind when thinking of storage interfaces.

 

[Hard_Boiled]

Win2000 = NT 5.0
WinXP = NT 5.1

How'd MS screw that one up? XP is practically the same as Win2000, I would think something like write performance would remain unchanged. I was planning on upgrading to XP soon, but I'll just wait a little longer now until they hammer this problem out.

 

[NFS4]

<< XP may in fact have attempted to replace Windows 2000 Professional, but IMHO and thousands of other IT managers, at this point there is no sense in replacing rock solid 2000 Pro workstations with XP.

Now, in comparison to 2000 Pro's relationship to the 2000 Server products, and XP Pro's relationship, 2000 Pro obviously has closer ties. With that in mind, desktop OSes are usually not associated with server components, e.g. SCSI interfaces. Therefore, I am not too surprised that Microsoft's SCSI support on a desktop OS, specfically XP, is lacking. Although, this does not mean it is OK, but just ain't a surprise considering the above. >>


Your opinion has no bearing really on what Microsoft intends for Windows XP The fact remains that Windows XP is STILL Windows 2000 Professional with more feaures and more user oriented conveniences to help out the consumer. More driver support, better integration, etc.

Home is the desktop oriented version (hence it's lack of features). Pro is the full-fledged mack-daddy workhorse operating system like Windows 2000 Professional. Why else would it support DUAL PROCESSORS??? I'm sure that Besty Buy and CompUSA are selling dual systems on the shelves...yeah right I wonder why Windows XP has built in SCSI drivers and support for every major vendor out there (yeah, they don't care about SCSI in Windows XP...suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure). I don't care WHAT you THINK of Windows XP as an operating system, the fact remains that it is simply NT 5.1 and is NOT far removed from Windows 2000 in performance or capabilities. So please, get over that fact and get to the underlying mechanics of the operating system. Windows XP is meant to replace Windows 2000. It makes NO SENSE on Microsoft's part to neuter SCSI performance or "leave" something out on purpose. If you see some justification for that, I'd really like to know what b/c it doesn't make any sense. It'd be like saying that Microsoft purposely leaves security breaches in IE and Windows so they can have all the negative publicity when they are discovered. It doesn't make sense.


<< Well, good luck and I am always interested in the resolutions. But, my stance can be re-read just a few lines above -- Desktop OS and common desktop motherboards (non-server boards), and especially "colorful" XP does not bring SCSI to mind when thinking of storage interfaces. >>


Again, what gives you the idea that XP doesn't bring SCSI to mind? Do you have any proof? Any papers? Or are you just looking for a SIMPLE explanation to what is a more complex question/problem? Windows XP is NT 5.1 Windows 2000 is NT 5.0. They are the same basic building block.

SCSI reads are equal if not better than Windows 2000.
SCSI writes are seriously subpar than Windows 2000.

It is more than likely a bug. You make it seem as though Microsoft is purposely neutering Windows XP SCSI performance so that more people will stick with an almost 3 year old Windows 2000. Where's the logic in that? There IS no logic in it. Microsoft is moving EVERYONE over to the NT 5.1 kernel along with 64-bit Windows XP and Windows.NET server. Do you think that Microsoft actually WANTS to give people a reason to stick with an older OS and miss out on some $$$? Come on, you gotta do better than that

 

[pm]

So, NFS, aside from minor performance decrepancies, what do you think of your drive vs. whatever you had before?

Is SCSI worth it? Assuming you had paid a retail price for the drive (not FS/FT) would you think it worth the difference? Do you notice any difference at all?

 

[NFS4]

<< So, NFS, aside from minor performance decrepancies, what do you think of your drive vs. whatever you had before?

Is SCSI worth it? Assuming you had paid a retail price for the drive (not FS/FT) would you think it worth the difference? Do you notice any difference at all? >>


I haven't been using it long enough to make an opinion yet. I just got it up and running Thursday night. I was away from the computer most of Friday, and I'm not even at my computer right now. So give me at least a week to form an opinion on what my feeling are on the decision I made.

 

[Pabster]

NFS4:

It's the VIA-based mainboard, trust me. I've got a single 36GB 10K III running on a 29160 under XP, bursting off the charts (80MB+). It's incredibly fast. Then again, it is running on an i845-D chipset board.

 

[NFS4]

<< NFS4:

It's the VIA-based mainboard, trust me. I've got a single 36GB 10K III running on a 29160 under XP, bursting off the charts (80MB+). It's incredibly fast. Then again, it is running on an i845-D chipset board. >>


Pabster, if you actually read the thread, you'd see that my original problem has already been fixed by simply changing SCSI channels (I had the drive on channel A instead of B).

Secondly, the issue at hand that we are talking about now is NOT the burst speeds. And its NOT relegated to VIA boards. It happens on NVIDIA, VIA, SIS, and Intel boards. It concerns writes and reads in Windows XP, not bursts speeds. In fact, nForce boards are showing the WORST performance when it comes to writes in Windows XP. None of the chipsets experiences read/write performance issues in Windows 2000.

Go read the thread over at StorageReview (linked above) before you come in here with your VIA bashing:disgust:

 

[Pabster]

NFS4 wrote:

"Go read the thread over at StorageReview (linked above) before you come in here with your VIA bashing"

I wasn't VIA bashing, but, I didn't read the entire thread. I apologize.

That said, I've never been able to garner acceptable burst speeds (let alone r/w figures) on any VIA board. I haven't tried nForce with a SCSI setup, although SiS performed very well, as does i845-D.

 

[NFS4]

<< NFS4 wrote:

"Go read the thread over at StorageReview (linked above) before you come in here with your VIA bashing"

I wasn't VIA bashing, but, I didn't read the entire thread. I apologize.

That said, I've never been able to garner acceptable burst speeds (let alone r/w figures) on any VIA board. I haven't tried nForce with a SCSI setup, although SiS performed very well, as does i845-D. >>



Well, if you HAD read the thread (or even looked at the thread title or the last 10 or so posts), you'd see that we're talking about read/write performance...not bursts. And if you're running Windows XP, your write speeds on SCSI WILL be low. Download ATTO and see for yourself.

 

[rmblam]

FWIIW I have the same issue (sub write performance) with my Tiger MP setup and XP.

The dynamic disk scenario is interesting. I get better benches now with dynamic disk enabled on each of my Atlas 10K III's over my X15-36LP which is not set as a "dynamic disk". There is uncertainty whether I can convert my boot drive to dynamic and not screw everything up.

I'm waiting for SP1 before I mess with it any more.

 

[NinjaGnome]

I sense a lot of anger in you NFS4. You'll just have to wait for the patch and see.

 

[NFS4]

<< I sense a lot of anger in you NFS4. You'll just have to wait for the patch and see. >>


There's no anger. Pabster and I are ALWAYS at each others' throats

 

[NFS4]

Well, I'm actually thinking about going back to Windows 2000 SP2 shortly to at least test out the performance differential btw the two operating systems. I don't know how long I'll be able to stick with Win2k though b/c I've been spoiled by Windows XP

 

[Pariah]

Anyone cared to ponder yet that maybe ATTO is the problem not WinXP? Might not want to throw all your eggs into one basket, try other BM's before drawing conclusions.

 

[NFS4]

<< Anyone cared to ponder yet that maybe ATTO is the problem not WinXP? Might not want to throw all your eggs into one basket, try other BM's before drawing conclusions. >>


If you read the Storage Review thread, you'll see that the problem is confirmed with not only ATTO, but with other benchmarks as well. It is also confirmed with file copying from drive to drive in Windows XP and Windows 2000.

 

[NFS4]

NE1 else found out any new info?

 

[pm]

So, it's been a week or more. Did I miss your assessment of IDE vs. SCSI (AKA "what I had" vs. "what I have now"), NFS, or have you yet to post it?

 

[joohang]

<< So, it's been a week or more. Did I miss your assessment of IDE vs. SCSI (AKA "what I had" vs. "what I have now"), NFS, or have you yet to post it? >>


I want to know also.

 

[NFS4]

So, it's been a week or more. Did I miss your assessment of IDE vs. SCSI (AKA "what I had" vs. "what I have now"), NFS, or have you yet to post it?

I want to know also.

Here's what I told pm:

So far, the BIGGEST advantage has been when recording large TV captures and the resulting rip to DIVX. Before, my hard drive would bog down, and make my system chug once the file sizes grew. The Atlas just seems to take it in strides.

Other than that, programs seem to load maybe a little bit faster, but I haven't noticed an overwhelmingly apparent difference in speeds at anything other than the TV capturing and ripping. That's mainly what I wanted it for anyway.

But I feel that the overall "lack of general speed" over IDE is more due to the whole Windows XP/SCSI issues that has been brewing for a while now. I've been going through the thread over at Storage Review and performance is downright horrendous in Windows XP with SCSI drives across the board in benchmarks and real-world performance. Microsoft is currently working on a patch.

I'm tempted to install Windows 2000 and see what the differences would be (but I can't bear to live w/o WinXP)

 

[mastertech01]

I believe that anyone who is expecting SCSI drives to blow past the fastest IDE drives today is in for a rude awakening. If one only measures the value of the drive itself, and its performance characteristics, rather than to measure the value of the SCSI interface as a whole they will meet with disappointment. ATA has a place and a purpose, and SCSI has its place and purpose. No one interface is perfect heaven for everyone. Measure your need, and fill it. If its all about money, then SCSI is likely not your cup of tea.