Raid 0 performance problems

[ksheeran]

I have currently built a new conroe PC using a GB 965p s3 MB and have suspected that the Raid 0 drive (2 WD Sata ii 250GB HDD's) has been under performing as I have been having problems with my video editing software.

I still have my old editing PC, a GB 915p Duo Pro with a Raid 0 configuration using 2 WD SATA 200GB HDD's so I decided to run a benchmark test with Performance Test V6.0 and got some rather unusual figures.

New PC Raid 0 Drive(s)

Sequential read test - 69 MB/s
Sequentiual write test - 65 MB/s
Random seek test - 4.6 MB/s

Old PC Raid 0 Drive(s)

Sequential read test - 113 MB/s
Sequentiual write test - 115 MB/s
Random seek test - 6.0 MB/s

It appears the old PC is out performing the new one at twice the speed.
I know they haven't different raid controllers but the performance difference is a bit extreme.

I have upto date drivers installed and am unsure on where the problem is.

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[choirbass]

the only thing that comes to mind for such a decrease in speed is the transfer mode being used by the drives... it could very well be that the new drives are using a PIO setting, instead of DMA...

you can change it to DMA from the ata disk controllers properties in device manager

its also possible that a bios setting may need to be changed

 

[WizardOZ]

Based on your system descriptiom I am assuming that you are also using this setup to store ypur data files as well. If this is correct, you have much bigger things to worry about than the speed of your system. Specifically, that all of your data is at serious risk of being lost.

RAID 0 has no fault tolerance at all and is subject to a higher risk of hardware failure thaqn the individyual drives are.

BAck up your data first. Then deal with the performance issue.

Mind you, anyone stupid enough to put their data files on a RAID 0 deserves whatever happens to them, IMHO.

 

[RJ]

I have currently built a new conroe PC using a GB 965p s3 MB and have suspected that the Raid 0 drive (2 WD Sata ii 250GB HDD's) has been under performing as I have been having problems with my video editing software.

I still have my old editing PC, a GB 915p Duo Pro with a Raid 0 configuration using 2 WD SATA 200GB HDD's so I decided to run a benchmark test with Performance Test V6.0 and got some rather unusual figures.

New PC Raid 0 Drive(s)

Sequential read test - 69 MB/s
Sequentiual write test - 65 MB/s
Random seek test - 4.6 MB/s

Old PC Raid 0 Drive(s)

Sequential read test - 113 MB/s
Sequentiual write test - 115 MB/s
Random seek test - 6.0 MB/s

It appears the old PC is out performing the new one at twice the speed.
I know they haven't different raid controllers but the performance difference is a bit extreme.

I have upto date drivers installed and am unsure on where the problem is.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Stupid question....
Are you in RAID 0 or RAID 1? It seems as if your performance is equal to a single drive.
I haven't had time to check your specs, are you running the RAID array on the Intel controller or the Gigabyte one?
I've got 3 Raptors in RAID on the ICH8R and get over 180 mb/s, like I've gotten on other setups. What kind of cables do you have? Do they seem kinda thin? That would effect performance. I forget which motherboard I got recently that had cheesy SATA cables....directly into the garbage!

 

[ksheeran]

I understand the risks of Raid 0 on the drives but as stated it is for video editing which means the footage is effectively archived on a mini DV tape. Project files get backed up onto other disks.

I've checked the DMA settings in device manager, the system has:

A c:\ drive configured as Sata
A f:\ drive configured as Sata
And an e:\ drive which has the 2 250GB SATA WD drives RAID 0

The MB is a GB 965p s3

In device manager under IDE ATA / ATAPI controllers I have:

-Intel ICH8 2 port Serial ATA Storage Contoller - 2825
-Intel ICH8 4 port Serial ATA Storage Contoller - 2820
-3 Primary IDE Channels each has Device 0 and 1 (All have 'DMA if available')
The first instance has device 0&1 xfer mode as Not applicable (N/a)
The second instance has device 0 as 'Ultra DMA Mode 5' device 1 as N/a
The third instance has device 0 as 'Ultra DMA Mode 4' device 1 as N/a
-3 Secondary IDE Channels has Device 0 and 1 (All have 'DMA if available')
The first instance has device 0&1 xfer mode as Not applicable (N/a)
The second instance has device 0 as 'Ultra DMA Mode 5' device 1 as N/a
The third instance has device 0&1 xfer mode as Not applicable (N/a)
-A Standard Dual Channel PCI Contoller

I can't seem to make any sensible pattern out of all that?

Under SCSI and Raid Controllers I have only the GIGABYTE GBB36X controller listed.

Hopefully someone out there may know whats going on.

Thanks again.

 

[jitpublisher]

Sorry to jump in here, but I have to point something out to all the would be RAID 0 nay-sayers.
A single drive also has "0" fault tolerance.
You lose 1 drive, you lose everything. So what's the difference?
Been running RAID 0 configurations for years, on lots of different machines.
Never had problems with them, or at least any more problems with them than a PC with a single drive configuration.
No matter what type of drive or how you have it (or them)set up, if you don't want to lose critical data, you back up.

 

[Mobius]

A large cap Raptor is faster.
And more reliable.

RAID 0 was invented for people with no money.
And little brain.

 

[chyort]

more drives, bigger chance of something failing, as opposed to a single drive... but yeah i agree raid 0 isn't as bad as everyone makes it sound

 

[jt001]

A single drive also has "0" fault tolerance.
You lose 1 drive, you lose everything. So what's the difference?

Because you're adding more disks into the equation, also if you're using a crappy raid controller(such as onboard) disks can fall out for no reason.

But I see where you're coming from, if someone isn't gonna backup an array they probably wouldn't backup a single disk either so either way data will eventually be lost.

With that said, on a decent RAID controller you should be fine, in the 13 years I've been using computers I've never had a drive physically fail that wasn't my fault.

 

[apache_lives]

Based on your system descriptiom I am assuming that you are also using this setup to store ypur data files as well. If this is correct, you have much bigger things to worry about than the speed of your system. Specifically, that all of your data is at serious risk of being lost.

RAID 0 has no fault tolerance at all and is subject to a higher risk of hardware failure thaqn the individyual drives are.

BAck up your data first. Then deal with the performance issue.

Mind you, anyone stupid enough to put their data files on a RAID 0 deserves whatever happens to them, IMHO.

LOL if one drive dies, you loose your data, in Raid 0 if one drive dies YOU LOOSE YOUR DATA, whats the difference? even tho yeah twice the parts etc.

Thank god for Intels Matrix raid and servers 8)

 

[jitpublisher]

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean.
Yes, you are adding another component so your chances of 1 or the other failing are a little higher. Out of 100 drives, how many would you expect to fail in a 5 year period, which is longer than most even keep a system anyway. Maybe 1 or 2 drives fail? So you have a 2% chance. You add a second drive, the chance then theoretically jumps to 4%? Add in a little more for a controller failure and ignorant user factor (that can be a big one maybe we should leave that one out?) and you get maybe a 6% chance?


I have been running RAID for years, and maybe I am just lucky, but never really had any problems. Yep, and maybe RAID is a poor mans Raptor. I spent 1/3 the cost for my RAID 0 setup than a single 150 gig raptor costs. For me anyway, I think I am getting good performance for the price.

 

[ksheeran]

Yeah ... ok.

A lot of you seem to have opinions on Raid 0 but that doesn't really help answer the original question, anyone out there with sufficient knowledge to SOLVE the problem or offer suggestions would be greatly appreciated or at least recommend a forum where someone may be able to help.

Thanks again to those who've tried to help.