Very Very Slow RAID Setup
Also, if that card has LED activity and error headers per disk, connect them up to see if it's complaining about a particular disk. #6 Railgun, May 17, 2012 Last Re: Is it normal that using the Raid Controller slows down boot time and waking up from sleep considerably? Backup means that you can restore data. Creating a file on the single (non-raid) disk, is fine: Code: [email protected]:/# dd if=/dev/zero of=ddfile.big bs=1MB count=1k 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 14.9 s, 68.7 click site
I tested the file benchmark using HD Tune Pro. Raid10 writes to the stripped disks (increased performance) and then the raid card will "copy" (mirror) the data to the redundant array. Small highend Oracle databases where money is no object is one such case.Generally RAID5 performs very well (not best) across a lot of usage scenarios, and starting with a good controller Want to set up RAID 1; please help! http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1796966/system-slow-raid-set.html
Does Raid 1 Slow Down Performance
Stay logged in Search titles only Posted by Member: Separate names with a comma. so long as you don't overfill it or write major GB's beyond the arrays available space over shorter worksessions. For pete's sake it's all on the original post. Example: from 12 HDD in RAID10 out of order 3 HDD.
- raid0 with 4 = fail is not clueless in the case of the op it is the truth.
- You are currently viewing LQ as a guest.
- As a matter of fact it is expected that a Windows installation fails to boot if the SATA mode was changed from AHCI to RAID or vice versa.
- At least I sure as hell hope it doesn't..
- Sorry, then I don't know.
- Odel888 Jul 8, 2014 9:55 AM I got this new Z87-Pro MB from Asus with an i7-4770K and had the same results with a H87M-E board.My problem is the Intel RAID
If you are using RAID5 for write many or random performance.... The SCSI disk would like give better random access times, meaning accessing lots of small files would be quicker, but the RAID 0 array will give better throughput, meaning accessing large Also comes in handy for checking and setting SCT ERC. Raid 0 If you have one drive that's dying, I suppose it's possible.
I'm running into the same issue with a little home NAS I built with two Samsung F4EG HD155UI 1.5GB drives running in software RAID1. If your system doesn't support TRIM it'll keep it fast longer and it'll make reinstalling windows easier as a majority of your info will be on the other drive. Speed within a card in this respect doesn't necessarily make it hotter. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/229079-32-very-slow-raid proofMar 20, 2007, 7:37 PM Google does not use RAID.
Sorry, then I don't know. Crystal Disk Mark describe RAID 5 is being a very slow file system for databases and this is precisely because of the poor write performance. But no these are Seagate Barracuda LPs (5900 PM) from late 2009, so they don't have the 4k sector size (FDISK reports 512) Also I didn't think that sector size effected They now all have the same latest firmware.
Raid 1 Performance Vs Single Drive
The OM should gave what that specific beep means. Do you recommend that I go back and perform a SE now, or would you see if everything holds up ok on the new array?Click to expand... Does Raid 1 Slow Down Performance hehe) My Raid Controller is this one 3ware 9650SE-4LPML and has served nicely for many years. Raid Performance Comparison gse1Mar 20, 2007, 11:00 PM Quote: So I should install the OS on the SCSI and everything else on the two SATAs?
I used 2 x 500GB EVO drives, and they do better as single drives in JBOD than in any type of array.The answer I keep finding is the 3d NAND chips http://hcsprogramming.com/raid-1/raid-0-to-raid-0-1.php All of the OCZ naysayers are really starting to sound clueless.Click to expand... >comments are about OCZ's horrible reliability >posts screenshot that has no statistical significance in regards to reliability Good Please verify this information as I thought I had read online before that it was the case.As to how I magically changed from one controller mode to another without reinstalling from The Intel ICH10R (the onboard SATA controller that is usually paired with the x58 chipset) does not do the parity calculations, they get offloaded to your CPU. Raid 5
It details specs and has nice pictures of the case. I restored to a previous version earlier than yesterday, and the same problem existed. All in all, it handles very nicely. 4 x 7200RPM 1.5TB Hard Drives. navigate to this website It will take days until I get a reply though and on the off chance that I can fix this myself I wanted to consult with you guys here in this
Ah, I think I might know why that's the case now. But that's neither here nor there and going way OT. But your point-of-view on RAID5 certainly seems strange from my years as a consultant and from what I have learned from for example HP's enterprice storage courses.
Featured SponsorsSponsor ShowcasesAquatuningFeenixAsusSound BlasterView MoreSelect OneAquatuningAsusFeenixIn WinSound Blaster Recent Reviews See All the Latest Reviews Tesoro Zone Balance Gaming Chair Reviewed by WilliamGayde Introduction A proper gaming chair won't make
What I know is that since it is so easy to pop an SSD laptop or tablet to look something up online in a sec and put it back to sleep pantomshardwareDec 3, 2015, 10:34 PM 13thmonkey said: RAID 0 is not worth the hassle, its faster, but not so you'd notice, it's more than twice as likely to fail. Odel888 Aug 1, 2014 3:21 PM (in response to sylvia_intel) Sylvia,Yes, the important consideration in my case is that just plugging a Western Digital 2TB Black Hard Disk adds significant delay Open 'Device Manager'. 2.
I had a similar problem a little while ago, where writing was very slow with Raid 1. Oh, one more point, for a Netapp system RAID-DP numbers are almost identical to the RAID-10 numbers in terms of MTTDL. Aha, that makes sense.But it worked perfectly as a raid 0. http://hcsprogramming.com/raid-1/two-raid-0-and-one-non-raid-drive.php A friend has 2 * 2TB RAID5 arrays in his desktop.
Initialize the array. Left column - number of HDD in RAID. This is a HBA product rather than a ROC product. Do you recommend that I go back and perform a SE now, or would you see if everything holds up ok on the new array? #20 bryanW1995, May 18, 2012
They are not even boot disks and are not even formatted! If you've got three disks I'd recommend you use the first 2 for a RAID 0 setup and use the third disk to backup data using some kind of automatic tool. Similar Threads - Insanely slow speeds Forum Date QNAP TS-228 NAS and slow USB 3.0 performance Memory and Storage Dec 21, 2016 G551VW-FY212T slow hdd Memory and Storage Nov 28, 2016 Like Show 0 Likes(0) Actions 3.
As others have noted in those threads, there is barely any CPU activity showing when writing with RST anyway, so extra processing power can't be the reason hardware RAID is better. I also suggested to check his drives. Open the Intel Rapid Storage Technology Control Panel. You can not post a blank message.
I have yet to try Ubuntu on this particular PC. They were lightning fast.One of them started to crash. Heck I might take ~4, especially because I'd love to have more experience with exploding arrays due to face planting drives.Return to posts indexReport Post•Re: Pulled RAID 5 drives have very I used the following page to help me decide: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/RAID-SCALING-CHARTS,1735-4.html Rule of thumb: Documents = Small data stripe size.
So, this is not a slow machine, and I thought I would upgrade the SSD's in RAID0 to get faster speeds. If I was to raid 0, I would definitely use 2 of the same type drives. My reads are lightning fast - which yours should be for loading a playlist. Is it so hard to create a 5 year warranted reliable hard disk that has a fast time-to-ready?First, I want to reassure you I went through all BIOS settings to reduce
In Raid5, you get n-1 drives. his raid 0 is dead my advice is free repeat free. 4 ssd's in a raid0 do not need much push to efff up.