ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together - OS2

This is a discussion on ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together - OS2 ; The 915P chipset P4 2.8G motherboard in my eCS system died a month ago, at least in part due to 1 or more bad caps, at age 40 months on a 36 month warranty. I ordered http://www.intel.com/products/deskto...T-overview.htm with G965 chipset ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together

  1. ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together

    The 915P chipset P4 2.8G motherboard in my eCS system died a month ago, at
    least in part due to 1 or more bad caps, at age 40 months on a 36 month
    warranty. I ordered
    http://www.intel.com/products/deskto...T-overview.htm
    with G965 chipset and onboard video to replace it using the old RAM & CPU.

    I found my existing eCS install would not boot on it. I installed rc5 with
    little trouble, ran Sysbench on it a bunch of times with various settings
    alterations. I wound up doing a BIOS update that helped some, but not enough,
    and ultimately decided it was defective and returned it to the vendor.

    In part due to the large consumption of my time with the above and shipping
    delay, I ordered another P4 and 2 2G DDR2 sticks, and 2 other motherboards:
    http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Pro...uID=44&LanID=9
    http://www.foxconnchannel.com/produc...D=en-us0000297

    The Foxconn arrived first. It behaved much better than the Intel. The
    original eCS booted up without objection. I did more benchmarking with both
    new and old CPU and RAM, then boxed it up.

    Next day I ran similar tests with the eCS, which behaved similarly to the
    Foxconn. It's still in the case pending my determination of what if anything
    to do next.

    The problem is that on the Intel & Foxconn boards, Seagate SATA2 drives (I
    have 4: 2 160G, 1 320G, 1 500G, all with speed limit jumpers removed after
    performing most tests) perform adequately on the Sysbench File I/O & Disk I/O
    tests, but perform dismally on the simultaneous I/O tests, roughly 20% or
    less of expected performance.

    On the eCS board the problem is the same, but only on the Intel & Foxconn is
    there a workaround. That is, if I put all HDs on sequential ports on the
    Intel or Foxconn, then the simultaneous I/O performance seems OK. IOW, drives
    on ports 1 & 2 ("master" & "slave") both perform adequatly on all tests, but
    if the drives are on any of 1, 3 or 5 ("master") only and none on 2, 4 or 6
    ("slave"), then performance on simulIO suffers severely.

    The eCS board has no SATA port "2" or "4". It has template spaces on the
    board where those ports would have gone if they existed, and the BIOS assumes
    they exist. What is has are masters 1, 3, 5 & 7, and slave 6. Wierd. A
    JMicron chip exists to host IDE, normal mode or (sucky single cable) BIOS
    RAID, and #"7" SATA port.

    When I boot into maintenance mode (older 14.100c_W4 kernel and 1.7.10
    DaniS506) with 2 SATA + IDE CD, ibms506$ reports port "1" on controller 2,
    port "3" (logical 2) on controller 3, & IDE on controller 4. When I boot
    normally into eCS with 14.104 kernel and 1.8.5 DaniS506, port 1 is controller
    0, port 3 is controller 1, etc. as shown on
    http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/bench/sysbenc...-danis506b.txt .

    http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/bench/sysbenc...-danis506c.txt shows the
    additional DaniS506.ADD parameters I tried to improved performance, which
    didn't help. http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/bench/sysbench/resul562.html shows the
    nearly last Sysbench test results, where I put only a single SATA2 device on
    each of the ICH8 & JMicron chips. http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/bench/sysbench/ has
    all my various recent results.

    I also tried a Seagate PATA as sole JMicron device with only 1 SATA2 Seagate
    on ICH8, but simulIO on both was again bad. A WD on PATA, like the Samsung
    and Hitachi on SATA, performed respectably on simulIO. Putting an only
    Seagate on the only "slave" SATA port didn't help.

    http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/bench/sysbench/resul560.html was done on rc5, with
    ACPI enabled and MP kernel, instead of 1.14 with neither ACPI nor MP kernel,
    but there was no material difference in disk benchmarks. The eCS motherboard
    BIOS has no disable ACPI option, while the Foxconn does, and the Intel did.

    Anyone have similar experience, or know some other way to get the Seagates to
    perform like the Hitachi & Samsung on simulIO? Are the Seagates surfacing a
    flaw in the Sysbench simulIO test? I'm having a hard time understanding how
    in any other way it's possible for the simulIO test to be so out of line with
    the other disk performance tests.

    Is there any practical real world way to simulate the simulIO test to confirm
    or deny the Sysbench test's validity?
    --
    "Love is not easily angered. Love does not demand
    its own way." 1 Corinthians 13:5 NIV

    Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

    Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

  2. Re: ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together

    On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:43:01 UTC in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, Felix Miata
    wrote:

    > Is there any practical real world way to simulate the simulIO test to confirm
    > or deny the Sysbench test's validity?


    Run sysbench with the /debug switch and pipe the output to a file. The
    individual outputs from the disk tests should be in that log. I wonder if the 4
    results are being added up and wrap round at some power of 2.

    Yep, there is. It misreports the numbers when they hit 65535KB/sec and they
    wrap to zero.

    --
    Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
    Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

  3. Re: ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together

    On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:43:01 UTC in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, Felix Miata
    wrote:

    > Is there any practical real world way to simulate the simulIO test to confirm
    > or deny the Sysbench test's validity?


    Fix here - http://www.os2warp.org/sysbench/sysb094d.zip

    --
    Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
    Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

  4. Re: ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together

    On 2008/08/07 20:29 (GMT-0400) Trevor Hemsley apparently typed:

    > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:43:01 UTC in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, Felix Miata wrote:


    >> Is there any practical real world way to simulate the simulIO test to confirm
    >> or deny the Sysbench test's validity?


    > Fix here - http://www.os2warp.org/sysbench/sysb094d.zip


    A 10 year old version of Sysbench? O_O
    --
    "Love is not easily angered. Love does not demand
    its own way." 1 Corinthians 13:5 NIV

    Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

    Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

  5. Re: ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together

    On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:38:06 UTC in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, Felix Miata
    wrote:

    > On 2008/08/07 20:29 (GMT-0400) Trevor Hemsley apparently typed:
    >
    > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:43:01 UTC in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, Felix Miata wrote:

    >
    > >> Is there any practical real world way to simulate the simulIO test to confirm
    > >> or deny the Sysbench test's validity?

    >
    > > Fix here - http://www.os2warp.org/sysbench/sysb094d.zip

    >
    > A 10 year old version of Sysbench? O_O


    A typo, should've been http://www.os2warp.org/sysbench/sysb095d.zip

    --
    Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
    Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

  6. Re: ICH8, DaniS506, Sysbench, Seagate - not playing nice together

    On 2008/08/08 02:56 (GMT-0500) Trevor Hemsley apparently typed:

    > On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:38:06 UTC in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, Felix Miata wrote:


    >> On 2008/08/07 20:29 (GMT-0400) Trevor Hemsley apparently typed:


    >> > Fix here - http://www.os2warp.org/sysbench/sysb094d.zip


    >> A 10 year old version of Sysbench? O_O


    > A typo, should've been http://www.os2warp.org/sysbench/sysb095d.zip


    I thought so. I tried that before writing but got a 404. Thanks for quick fix
    for the URL and the app. Much better now, 74.219M/s instead of 10.whatever on
    a ST160. :-)
    --
    "Love is not easily angered. Love does not demand
    its own way." 1 Corinthians 13:5 NIV

    Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

    Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

+ Reply to Thread