Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share

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

Performance in FC-Test

For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the virtual disk of the RAID array and formatted in NTFS and then in FAT32. After that a file-set is created of the hard disk. It is then read from the disk, copied within the same partition and then copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the array 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 HDD 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 of the Install, ISO and Programs patterns in NTFS which illustrate the most characteristic use of the arrays. You can use the links below to view the other results:

The Promise is better at creating files on mirror arrays. This is especially conspicuous with the RAID10 which is quite fast on the Promise but very slow on the Highpoint. The Promise has problems with the single drive, though. That’s not a big deal, but not good, either.

It is simple and clear with RAID0: the Highpoint is better at creating large files while the Promise at creating small files.

It’s vice versa with RAID5. The Highpoint is better with small files whereas the Promise, with large files. Take note that the degraded arrays do not lose much speed when working with files.

The RAID6 standings are the same as with RAID5, but with one odd peculiarity. The Promise acts up with the degraded arrays again: they are faster on large files than the normal array. What did they write into the firmware we wonder?

It is not so simple when we are reading files from the mirror arrays. The Highpoint fails with RAID10 whereas the Promise, with RAID1. And there is a small oddity again: the single drive is always faster than the RAID1 array on the Highpoint. Can the controller be waiting until data is surely written to both disks?

The Highpoint doesn’t have problems when reading from RAID0 arrays, but these arrays all have similar speeds on the Promise. There is no scalability you might hope for.

The Promise is surely better with RAID5, especially with the degraded array. The controller has miraculous firmware indeed.

The same miraculous firmware algorithms work for the Promise when reading from RAID6 arrays. As a matter of fact, this is the consequence of both controllers having problems in ordinary modes. The problems are serious judging by the modest results. We guess the owner of the Promise should take one drive out right after they create a RAID6 array.

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


Comments currently: 1
Discussion started: 10/12/08 10:01:54 AM
Latest comment: 10/12/08 10:01:54 AM

View comments

Add your Comment