Got my RAID-0 3x15,000rpm setup going

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:28 pm

Finally had a bit of time to play with all these 15,000rpm SCSI SCA drives I've been collecting. Things are looking good so far.

HD Tune: ADAPTEC RAID 0 Benchmark (3 x Fujitsu MAU3073NC 15,000rpm 73gb drives)
Transfer Rate Minimum : 162.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 189.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 178.7 MB/sec
Access Time : 5.9 ms
Burst Rate : 119.0 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 11.4%

VS

HD Tune: WD Velociraptor 300gb (found on another site)
Transfer Rate Minimum : 73.9 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 123.3 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 102.0 MB/sec
Access Time : 7.0 ms
Burst Rate : 184.5 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 3.5%

I was mostly suprised by the SCSI's excessive use of the CPU (might be because of my average controller card). The velociraptor got me on the burst rate, but I assume that's because of it's monster cache.

I'm gonna test the setup a bit further, but if it's good & stable, I'll be throwing it into my main comp with some Vista 64, just because I'm crazy.

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:51 pm

Yeah, I have tons of SCSI stuff laying around. I got a SCSI raid card from Ego, but it would not work with the MSI mobo. It was some type of conflict. I even updated the bios on the card, and still the same issue. It works with another mobo though.

I've been thinking about selling all my SCSI stuff that I have accumulated over the last 8 years. I even have some Plextor SCSI CD-rom burners and readers that still work. In my old rig that I built in 2003, I still have them installed, and they still work great for ripping music with EAC.

Are those numbers ultra 320 or Ultra 640?

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:03 pm

Yeah, I've still got a bunch of SCSI stuff that I haven't touched for years. I have a MegaRAID 1200 card (full length PCI slot, about 1 1/2' long). I also have a Pioneer 6x DVD slot load drive (wish I could still get slot loaders, they're my favorite). I have a Plextor recorder too (one of the special ones that could do everything in Clone CD).

Are those numbers ultra 320 or Ultra 640?

The controller card & drives are both Ultra320

I have about 8 10,000 rpm drives sitting around too that I wanna test, but the 15,000 ones were begging for attention.

Key Keeper · Post by **Key Keeper** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:58 pm

I have never messed with SCSI drives/controllers. Would like to toy around with them but wouldnt even know where to get started. Is there really that much performance gains over sata II since the data would ultimatley get transfered through the PCI or PCI-E bus? Just seems like more links in the chain robbing bandwidth and extra unecessary lanes being flooded.

b-man1 · Post by **b-man1** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:19 pm

Key Keeper wrote:I have never messed with SCSI drives/controllers. Would like to toy around with them but wouldnt even know where to get started. Is there really that much performance gains over sata II since the data would ultimatley get transfered through the PCI or PCI-E bus? Just seems like more links in the chain robbing bandwidth and extra unecessary lanes being flooded.

depends on the controller and the pci slot type it's in. a typical controller we use at work is a pci-e w/ 256 or 512MB of cache. the I/O on a pci-e or pci-x is so much more than standard pci. they are also basically fully independent and put no cpu load on the server. SAS is really where it's at (at least IMO)...and you can get 15k rpm 2.5" SAS drives for much cheaper now.

BUT...it ultimately depends what the array will be used for, what raid level...even how the partition is formatted and aligned. it can get pretty specific, such as what you do for Exchange:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/libr ... 98219.aspx

obviously you don't care to go to that level on a home system, but for work with thousands of people hitting the server, ever bit helps.

Key Keeper · Post by **Key Keeper** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:54 pm

Well I would just use it for a windows installation...call me simple lol. I noticed that most the scsi drives are not very large, guess thats why there is so many in a an array. I would just run 2 or 4 in raid 0 or 5 for the performance I/O. Im guessing with that rpm, overhead wouldnt be so noticable with raid 5.

b-man1 · Post by **b-man1** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:41 pm

raid 0 is just too scary for my taste...i don't know what i would put on that to risk it.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:45 pm

I certainly wouldn't keep my documents on a RAID 0 drive, but I don't mind it for my windows drive. If it gets hosed, I just load a backup.

Key Keeper · Post by **Key Keeper** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:57 pm

b-man1 wrote:raid 0 is just too scary for my taste...i don't know what i would put on that to risk it.

Well currently Im running raid 0 on 4 yr old WD 80gb drives.....

Ive never made a backup of my C drive but I always have a back up of unrecoverables on disc. The rest is spread out over 2 other drives and one external. If someone wants to part with two scsi drives and a controller for a decent price lemme know, Im willing to toy with it. Im guessing need a pci-e controller though to see a difference over sata raid 0.

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:04 am

I have always used my SCSI for my boot drive only. I liked SCSI because of the quality of the drives and components. Its a shame that they don't make SCSI CD & DVD drives like they did years ago.

I think your best performance comes from having the controller built into the motherboard, as any add-in card will be slower since it has to go through the bus. The problem are the motherboards with SCSI 320 or 640 are expensive server type motherboards.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:59 am

I've got tons of SCSI drives if you are wanting (all 10,000rpm or higher). Not many controllers though. The thing that sucks for the SCA drives it the need for 80pin to 68pin adapters & the need to get a cable with a terminator (those combined can cost $30 or higher).