Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(1) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 ]

Conclusion

Well, it’s high time we summed up all results and evaluated the highs and lows of each of the tested RAID controllers.

GigaRAID ITE IT8212F. It didn’t impress us when working in DataBase IOMeter pattern. It also worked not that convincing in FileServer, WebServer and WorkStation patterns. The results obtained in SequentialRead ranked it as the slowest of all. It managed to improve the situation a little bit in SequentialWrite, where it outperformed the rivals with the RAID 1 array. I assume that ITE IT8212F controller doesn’t suit well for RAID arrays used as a disk subsystem for servers and workstations. However, when the RAID array worked as a disk subsystem of an ordinary home PC, ITE IT8212F controller showed its real best. Although it was still behind Promise solutions when working with RAID 0 array in FC-Test and WinBench99, with RAID 1 it turned into an indisputable leader. Therefore, with all certainty I would recommend this controller for RAID 1 arrays intended to perform routine tasks.

VIA VT6410. If we were discussing the controllers in alphabetical order, this one would be mentioned in the very end. However, since it got “virtually” tied up with the previous model during our test session, and demonstrated similar characteristics, we will continue with it now.

VT6410 behaves as an outsider in DataBase, FileServer, WebServer and WorkStation Intel IOMeter patterns, just like ITE IT8212F. It performed a little better in SequentialRead and SequentialWrite patterns. In the first one it outperformed other RAID controller when working with RAID 1 array, and in the second one it also won in case of RAID 0. I have to admit that this controller is also not the best choice for workstation and server disk subsystem. However, it looks highly positive in WinBench99 and FC-Test, being the leader with RAID 0 array, and a highly efficient solution with RAID 1. That is why, I would call it a great choice for a home user.

Promise FastTrak TX2000. This controller appeared a great product in almost all Intel IOMeter patterns leaving the other controller from promise slightly behind. This way I would recommend it for work with RAID arrays in low-end servers and workstations. TX2000 loses a little bit of its advantage in WinBench99 and FC-Test, which is mostly true for RAID 1 configuration.

Promise FastTrak 133Lite. In fact, its features are very similar to those of the just mentioned TX2000 model that is why everything we have just said about TX2000 is true for 133Lite, too. I only have to stress that in almost all the benchmarks 133Lite yields a little bit to its counterpart. And of course, its functionality is somewhat limited by its “lite” nature.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 1
Discussion started: 01/27/04 02:48:06 AM
Latest comment: 01/27/04 02:48:06 AM

View comments

Add your Comment




Latest materials in Storage section

Article Rating

Article Rating: 5.0000 out of 10
 
Rate this article:
Excellent
Average
Poor