Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

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

Performance in WinBench99

We use the Winbench package to test the disk subsystem as if it worked in a desktop computer. We format the array of total 240GB capacity in NTFS using the standard tools (the default cluster size is 4KB) and in FAT32 using Paragon Partition Manager (the cluster size is 32KB). We also perform tests on 32 gigabytes of the array in NTFS and FAT32 (using the Disk Manager of Windows 2000 for partitioning).

So, let’s start with a FAT32 logical volume of 240GB capacity.


Click to enlarge

Here are the linear read speeds of the controllers at the Beginning and End of the logical volume:

HighPoint’s results chnage for the worse from the rest of the controllers, but this only confirms the results we received in the Sequential Read pattern.

You can check the linear read graphs for the arrays:

  • RAID0 on Acard 6890S (Graph);
  • RAID0 on Adaptec 1210SA (Graph);
  • RAID0 on HighPoint RR1520 (Graph);
  • RAID0 on Intel ICH5-R (Graph);
  • RAID0 on Promise FT S150 TX2 Plus WT (Graph);
  • RAID0 on Promise FT S150 TX2 Plus WB (Graph);
  • RAID0 on Silicon Image Sil3112 (Graph);
  • RAID0 on LSI SATA150-2 (Graph);
  • RAID0 on VIA V8237 (Graph).

Next come two integral tests, Business Disk Winmark and High-End Disk Winmark.

The controller from HighPoint is unlike the others in Business Disk Winmark. This performance may be caused by the peculiarity of its driver. Other controllers run at smaller, but acceptable speed.

The two integrated controllers took the first two places in High-End Disk Winmark. I guess this success can be explained by the more advantageous connection type (these controllers are integrated into the chipset; they are not “PCI-devices” and, in theory, have higher bandwidth to access the memory).

HighPoint showed a surprisingly poor result. This one-sided optimization of the driver is rather strange, you know.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 5
Discussion started: 02/03/04 03:15:58 PM
Latest comment: 03/20/04 10:55:32 AM

View comments

Add your Comment