Here are the linear read graphs for your reference:

• 1 HDD – JBOD
• 2 HDD – RAID 0
• 2 HDD – RAID 1
• 3 HDD – RAID 0
• 3 HDD – RAID 5
• 4 HDD – RAID 0
• 4 HDD – RAID 10
• 4 HDD – RAID 5

I was very curious to dig a little bit more into the read speed being inadequate to the RAID array type and the number of HDDs involved. Therefore, I carried out a few additional tests for RAID 4:

Intel SCRS14L controller does support RAID 4, but this array type is not so widely spread as RAID 5, for instance, that is why we didn’t dwell on the results for it in this review.

• 3 HDD – RAID 4
• 4 HDD – RAID 4

Now come the results for Average Access Time:

The leadership here belongs to the mirrored arrays, namely to RAID 1 and RAID 10. All the others do not show any noticeable performance difference.

Now let’s check how fast our controller is in FAT32:

RAID 1 and RAID 10 moved one step lower compared with what we saw in NTFS. However, we immediately notice that the performance of RAID 0 array of three HDDs is higher than that of a RAID 0 array of four drives. As we have seen earlier today, something like that has already happened in SequentialWrite pattern.

Just like in NTFS, disabling the lazy writing matters a lot for the entire array performance.