Performance in WinBench 99

We use WinBench 99 to record the data-transfer graph for each array:

• HighPoint RR3220, 1 disk
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID1, 2 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID10, 4 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID0, 2 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID0, 3 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID0, 4 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID5, 3 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID5, 4 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID5, 4 disks minus one
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID6, 4 disks
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID6, 4 disks minus one
• HighPoint RR3220, RAID6, 4 disks minus two
• Promise EX8350, 1 disk
• Promise EX8350, RAID1, 2 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID10, 4 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID0, 2 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID0, 3 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID0, 4 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID5, 3 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID5, 4 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID5, 4 disks minus one
• Promise EX8350, RAID6, 4 disks
• Promise EX8350, RAID6, 4 disks minus one
• Promise EX8350, RAID6, 4 disks minus two

We’ll compare the data-transfer rates at the beginning and end of the virtual disks:

The HighPoint is surprisingly worse with RAID1. Otherwise, the results are predictable.

The graphs are exactly as they are expected to be with RAID0.

The HighPoint is surprisingly slow with the degraded RAID5. The other results are normal.

The HighPoint has problems with the degraded RAID6 arrays irrespective of the number of failed disks.