Poor SATA RAID0 performance with IC7-G?

Discussion in 'Abit' started by RJGraham, May 1, 2005.

  1. RJGraham

    RJGraham Guest


    I've just moved from a Gigabyte board to a IC7-G.

    I have two 120 GB, 7200 rpm SATA drives in a RAID0 config, ICH5R, and am
    seeing SiSoft benchmarks in the 64 MB/s range. DiskSpeed32 reports similar

    An equivalent SiSoft reference drive benchmark shows about 92 MB/s.

    On my gigabyte board, I'm sure I was getting around 84 MB/s with the same

    First, do my benchmarks seem low?
    Is there anything I can tweak?

    Thanks for any help,

    RJGraham, May 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. RJGraham

    Jim Guest

    I'm running 2 -80GB SATA drives in RAID0 mode & here's my results;

    Benchmark Breakdown
    Buffered Read : 186 MB/s
    Sequential Read : 79 MB/s
    Random Read : 7 MB/s
    Buffered Write : 148 MB/s
    Sequential Write : 71 MB/s
    Random Write : 10 MB/s
    Average Access Time : 8 ms (estimated)
    Jim, May 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RJGraham

    TomG Guest

    have you tried it with no AV software running?


    Thomas Geery
    Network+ certified

    ftp://geerynet.d2g.com Abit Mirror <----- Cable modem IP
    This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
    over 130,000 FTP users served!
    TomG, May 1, 2005
  4. RJGraham

    RJGraham Guest

    Wow, I don't know what to make of this, here are my results with virus
    scanner disabled.

    Benchmark Breakdown
    Buffered Read : 79 MB/s
    Sequential Read : 84 MB/s
    Random Read : 23 MB/s
    Buffered Write : 107 MB/s
    Sequential Write : 85 MB/s
    Random Write : 55 MB/s
    Average Access Time : 32 ms (estimated)

    My average access time seems way off.

    Unfortunately I didn't save my results for the gigabyte board, but I do
    recall that I was close to the 2xRAID0, 120GB, 7200 RPM reference benchmark.

    Now, my RAID drives aren't identical, one is a 120GB WDC and the other is a
    Seagate 120 GB, both 7200 rpm.

    Should this affect performance?

    Is the SiSoft benchmark sensitive to disk frag?

    Thanks for your help,

    RJGraham, May 1, 2005
  5. RJGraham

    RJGraham Guest

    Yes, AV was disabled.


    RJGraham, May 1, 2005
  6. RJGraham

    Jim Guest

    I saved the following quoted message from Bill Drake, posted here back in
    May of 2003. You might review your settings (during boot-up & in RAID bios
    settings). NOTE: file versions have been updated since the following was
    originally posted!
    Jim, May 1, 2005
  7. RJGraham

    Jim Guest

    Here's mine (revised) with A-V disabled;

    Benchmark Breakdown
    Buffered Read : 193 MB/s
    Sequential Read : 106 MB/s
    Random Read : 8 MB/s
    Buffered Write : 140 MB/s
    Sequential Write : 84 MB/s
    Random Write : 11 MB/s
    Average Access Time : 7 ms (estimated)
    Jim, May 2, 2005
  8. RJGraham

    RJGraham Guest

    Thanks Jim.

    I think these instructions pretty much describe how to set up RAID0, which
    is what I've done.

    I don't see any hints about RAID0 performance, although I don't follow what
    he says about mode 7....

    RJGraham, May 2, 2005
  9. RJGraham

    RJGraham Guest

    Thanks Jim,

    Geeze, I wonder what my problem is ;(

    RJGraham, May 2, 2005
  10. RJGraham

    Geoff Guest

    what is the spec of the rest of your pc, it does effect raid performance
    raid0 is a like a car with a big engine but no handling i suppose
    you can charge down the straights, but when it comes you corners you go slow
    this is also why the access time is reported as kinda high, basicly raid0 is
    good at Sequential, but crap at random

    here is 2 benchmarks to compare with though (yes i was bored)

    NF7 2 (nforce2)
    1x200gig on ata133 (normal ide)

    Benchmark Breakdown
    Buffered Read : 57 MB/s
    Sequential Read : 62 MB/s
    Random Read : 34 MB/s
    Buffered Write : 112 MB/s
    Sequential Write : 63 MB/s
    Random Write : 43 MB/s
    Average Access Time : 13 ms (estimated)

    this drive is on the old PCI bus, prob same as your raid controller (?), so
    you have same problem as me, speed limit of 107meg sec or so, but as i have
    a powerful pc it max's it out, this drive used to get about rubbish numbers
    on pc's i'v had over the years, the buffered read used to be about 60-70meg,
    and the random read was something like 40-50 meg (my drive showed up the
    really bad pci bus on via chipsets of the time (KT266 and KT333 at least),
    it is getting on a bit now though i must say, also i feel like i'm the only
    person who has owned one of these ever....

    Benchmark Breakdown
    Buffered Read : 107 MB/s
    Sequential Read : 107 MB/s
    Random Read : 107 MB/s
    Buffered Write : 97 MB/s
    Sequential Write : 98 MB/s
    Random Write : 98 MB/s
    Geoff, May 2, 2005
  11. RJGraham

    Jim Guest

    I didn't either, but I believe he was talking about the original/first
    run version 1.0 IC7-G, not the current revised version 1.1 IC7-G. Abit
    never revised their IC7-G manuals to match the newer BIOS screen
    settings of version 1.1.

    Just choose the mode that gives you "Enhanced Mode" (supports up to 6
    drives), SATA1 as IDE-3 Master, SATA2 as IDE-4 Master, with OnChip
    IDE-1 & Ide-2 enabled. Then setup your RAID - BIOS itself, create the
    RAID0 array & that's about it.

    For settings, the only possible glitch might be where you HAD to reboot
    before continuing;

    Beyond those items, it then becomes an issue of your HDD's being too
    far mis-matched for good RAID0 performance.
    Jim, May 2, 2005
  12. RJGraham

    Spajky Guest

    Randy , for any good benchmarking, you should disable (temporary) all
    unneeded stuff running in the background & clear booted system.

    Than for getting any comparable results /& any tweaking/ (if not done
    on the same machine), you have to have a reliable benching program &
    certain proper drivers & DMA for chipset/HD controller
    for HD benching instaled !

    For fast & "idiot proof" real_life comparision of any PC use SiSoft
    Sandra 2001pro (NOT higher versions!) & check only Drive index !!!
    (forget about all that MB/s stuff)

    you can get it here /stripped 460kB, no install; read Read_me file

    For your info some results:
    my QuantumF+AS 20G (7,2kRpm, 2Mb cache) gets 19.500 points,
    WD 800JB 23k points
    WD 1200JD 28k
    WD Raptor76Gb /10kRpm,8Mb/ 42.000 points

    For this last one means, that is almost 2,2 times as fast as mine! ...
    Spajky, May 2, 2005
  13. RJGraham

    TomG Guest

    My IC7-G is much closer to what Jim has posted, not quite as fast but not
    far off his mark, using Sandra 2K5 Pro. I usually like to use DiskSpeed32
    (available on my server at the address below in the /utilities folder I
    believe...) and I'll have to run that when I get time. DiskSpeed32 takes a
    good deal longer to run as it is a more comprehensive test...

    your issue could be the mismatched drives (both of mine are identical make
    and model bought at the same time...) I would guess. I do know that after
    SP2 was installed onto my system, the AV software I was running at the time
    was NAV2K4 and it had serious issues after the application of SP2. I had to
    remove and reinstall NAV to get past the problem.


    Thomas Geery
    Network+ certified

    ftp://geerynet.d2g.com Abit Mirror <----- Cable modem IP
    This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
    over 130,000 FTP users served!
    TomG, May 3, 2005
  14. RJGraham

    RJGraham Guest

    Thanks Tom.

    I guess the IC7 is more sensitive to the drive mismatch than my GigaByte
    board, even though both use the same 875P chipset ??

    Or perhaps I just need to do a fresh XP install ??

    (rhetorical questions here ;)

    I am running SP2 with Trend Micro PC-Cillin. Turning Av on/off didn't seem
    to affect the benchmark.

    Anyway, I'm not going to obsess over this since it looks like it's not a
    simple configuration issue.

    RJGraham, May 3, 2005
  15. RJGraham

    TomG Guest

    I suppose a fresh install might be an approach... equally important would be
    the raid 0 stripe size (mine is 16K) and the file system type (NTFS for me)
    and the sector size (512K)...

    stripe size has made big differences in my experience...


    Thomas Geery
    Network+ certified

    ftp://geerynet.d2g.com Abit Mirror <----- Cable modem IP
    This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
    over 130,000 FTP users served!
    TomG, May 4, 2005
  16. RJGraham

    Jim Guest

    I went with 16k on both.
    Jim, May 4, 2005
  17. RJGraham

    TomG Guest

    I said 512K for he sector size but meant 512 bytes as opposed to 512K!


    Thomas Geery
    Network+ certified

    ftp://geerynet.d2g.com Abit Mirror <----- Cable modem IP
    This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
    over 130,000 FTP users served!
    TomG, May 5, 2005
  18. RJGraham

    RJGraham Guest

    Thanks all for your advice.


    RJGraham, May 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.