Supermicro Boards vs. Adaptec SCSI RAID

Discussion in 'Supermicro' started by Steffen Bruns, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. Hi!

    We have several Supermicro Server Barebones (PIV, XEON) and we are wondering
    about the poor SCSI performance of the RAID-Arrays controlles by the Adaptec
    zero channel RAID cards.
    Some servers use the 2010S, some the 2015S, some RAID1, some RAID5 arrays,
    all equipped with up-to-date drives (10k rpm U320). Reading performance of a
    RAID1 is about 35 MB/s seq, of a RAID5 (64k) below 30 MB/s, regardless of
    the use of Linux or W2k server. Single drive performance must be twice as
    that.
    Has anybody a solution for this?


    Regards,
    Steffen Bruns
     
    Steffen Bruns, Jul 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steffen Bruns

    Guest

    Not a solution, but an idea. I assume that your Adaptec RAID cards are
    being plugged into PCI slots. There may be your issue, the PCI bus. I have
    long felt that RAID controllers built-in to a Mobo had the advantage of not
    being on the PCI bus and therefore could be much faster as a result. I
    don't have the equipment nor desire to test this out, so it's only a hunch.
    DER
     
    , Jul 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > Not a solution, but an idea. I assume that your Adaptec RAID cards
    > are being plugged into PCI slots. There may be your issue, the PCI
    > bus.


    In most of the servers there is a 533 MHz PCI-Bus.

    > I have long felt that RAID controllers built-in to a Mobo had
    > the advantage of not being on the PCI bus and therefore could be much
    > faster as a result.


    Most RAID controllers built on a Mainboard use the PCI bus, there are only a
    few versions (IDE) which directly use the Southbridge.


    Steffen
     
    Steffen Bruns, Jul 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Steffen Bruns

    Guest

    Yea, you're right. As I said, it was only an idea!

    DER
     
    , Jul 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Steffen Bruns

    Chris Guest

    I'm sure Ive read somewhere in a Supermicro manual that the built in SCSI
    controller bypases some of the PCI bus which speeds things up. I think that
    was on a P6DBS or DGU or similar - maybe not relevant in later server
    solutions though.

    Chris

    <> wrote in message
    news:iT9Mc.12006$eM2.10673@attbi_s51...
    > Yea, you're right. As I said, it was only an idea!
    >
    > DER
     
    Chris, Jul 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Steffen Bruns

    NoMooreLies Guest

    Steffen Bruns wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > We have several Supermicro Server Barebones (PIV, XEON) and we are wondering
    > about the poor SCSI performance of the RAID-Arrays controlles by the Adaptec
    > zero channel RAID cards.
    > Some servers use the 2010S, some the 2015S, some RAID1, some RAID5 arrays,
    > all equipped with up-to-date drives (10k rpm U320). Reading performance of a
    > RAID1 is about 35 MB/s seq, of a RAID5 (64k) below 30 MB/s, regardless of
    > the use of Linux or W2k server. Single drive performance must be twice as
    > that.
    > Has anybody a solution for this?
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    > Steffen Bruns
    >
    >


    Adaptec cards - either 0 channel or more - are generally stable, and that's about all.
    You might also check your cables and termininators to make sure they are all 160 or 320 spec.

    You should also try your question at storagereview.com.
    Later
     
    NoMooreLies, Jul 28, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stephan Grossklass
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    523
    Stephan Grossklass
    Jun 25, 2003
  2. Geert Pirens
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    405
    Geert Pirens
    Apr 22, 2004
  3. pkassies
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    374
    Jonas Warnqvist
    Jul 6, 2004
  4. Jonathan Rogers
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,021
    Jonathan Rogers
    Oct 10, 2004
  5. S
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    564
Loading...

Share This Page