Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]

Performance in FC-Test

For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the disk and formatted in NTFS and then in FAT32. A file-set is then created, read from the disk, copied within the same partition and copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the disk is calculated. The Windows and Programs file-sets consist of a large number of small files whereas the other three patterns (ISO, MP3, and Install) include a few large files each.

We’d like to note that the copying test is indicative of the drive’s behavior under complex load. In fact, the disk is working with two threads (one for reading and one for writing) when copying files.

This test produces too much data, so we will only discuss the results achieved with the Install, ISO and Programs file-sets in NTFS. The rest of the results can be learned in the reviews dedicated to each specific controller.

When writing the Install file-set, the Areca and Adaptec are ahead with RAID0 and RAID10 whereas the Promise and LSI are on the losing side.

The 3ware controller joins the Adaptec as a leader with RAID5 and RAID6. The LSI isn’t so bad now while the Promise is downright hopeless.

Take note that the Areca is much worse processing files with 2GB of onboard memory rather than with the default amount. That’s very, very odd.

The Areca is much better than the others with RAID0 and RAID10 but is challenged by the HighPoint with the checksum-based arrays. In every case, save for RAID0, the Adaptec and LSI perform rather depressingly slow. The Promise has no chance at all in the writing test.

The controllers are similar to each other when writing smaller files. Take note of the performance hit that occurs when the average file size is reduced.

The LSI and HighPoint controllers are somewhat better than the others at reading the mixed files of the Install pattern. The 3ware and Promise are slow (the Promise should have done better even with turned-off deferred writing).

The Areca is fast on large files, enjoying a large lead over the closest pursuer HighPoint. The Areca’s RAID10 results are indicative of how important it is to be able to read from disks alternately.

The 3ware and Promise are slow again and the LSI looks poor when reading from RAID10 (it is the tradeoff of the excellent algorithm of finding the luckier disk).

We’ve got the same losers with small files. The leaders are new: the LSI and HighPoint are now contending for first place.

When copying the mixed Install pattern, the Adaptec, HighPoint and LSI are ahead with three array types. The LSI falls behind with RAID10, being replaced by the Areca which takes top place with RAID10. The Promise is always the worst controller due to its lack of deferred writing.

There are only two leaders with large files, namely the HighPoint and the Areca. The latter is much faster with RAID10 but somewhat slower with the other array types. The other controllers are much slower than the leaders.

Copying small files of the Programs pattern is rather difficult for all the controllers. The LSI and Adaptec are just a little better than the others.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]


Comments currently: 2
Discussion started: 11/09/09 05:37:26 PM
Latest comment: 11/10/09 01:47:23 AM

View comments

Add your Comment