Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps - Storage

This is a discussion on Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps - Storage ; On or about Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:57:13 +0800 did "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" dribble thusly: > >Chipset is nForce 570 Ultra. Whatever possessed you to think it would? 3.0Gbps indicates the maximum interface transfer rate for a single drive ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

  1. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    On or about Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:57:13 +0800 did "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)"
    dribble thusly:

    >
    >Chipset is nForce 570 Ultra.


    Whatever possessed you to think it would? 3.0Gbps indicates the maximum
    interface transfer rate for a single drive (which no current SATA drive can
    meet, much less exceed). It has nothing to do with the speed of an array of
    drives, each of which has their own connection (it's not like parallel SCSI).

    At most, you can expect performance of P*N, where P is the performance of one
    drive, and N is the number of drives.

  2. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Previously Mike Ruskai wrote:
    > On or about Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:57:13 +0800 did "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)"
    > dribble thusly:


    >>
    >>Chipset is nForce 570 Ultra.


    > Whatever possessed you to think it would? 3.0Gbps indicates the maximum
    > interface transfer rate for a single drive (which no current SATA drive can
    > meet, much less exceed). It has nothing to do with the speed of an array of
    > drives, each of which has their own connection (it's not like parallel SCSI).


    > At most, you can expect performance of P*N, where P is the performance of one
    > drive, and N is the number of drives.


    Indeed. Another one that looked at the highest number and though
    that it could be reached. The interface is allways faster than the
    disk, in order for it to not be a bottleneck. Current disks can
    reach something like 1Gbps maximum and typically slow down to
    around half that at the end of the disk. RAID0 is not necessarily
    that much faster.

    Arno

  3. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    >> Whatever possessed you to think it would? 3.0Gbps indicates the maximum
    >> interface transfer rate for a single drive (which no current SATA drive can
    >> meet, much less exceed). It has nothing to do with the speed of an array of
    >> drives, each of which has their own connection (it's not like parallel SCSI).

    > Indeed. Another one that looked at the highest number and though
    > that it could be reached. The interface is allways faster than the
    > disk, in order for it to not be a bottleneck. Current disks can
    > reach something like 1Gbps maximum and typically slow down to
    > around half that at the end of the disk. RAID0 is not necessarily
    > that much faster.


    Is there a way/program that measures the speed of data transfer in the
    SATA cables? HDTune doesn't seem to do it as the interface of my PC was
    SATA II.

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
    /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.10
    ^ ^ 12:16:01 up 15:33 0 users load average: 1.00 1.00 1.00
    ? ? (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

  4. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) wrote:

    > Is there a way/program that measures the speed of data transfer in the
    > SATA cables? HDTune doesn't seem to do it as the interface of my PC was
    > SATA II.

    HDTach free version.

    ---
    Ed Light

    Better World News TV Channel:
    http://realnews.com

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org
    http://antiwar.com

    Iraq Veterans Against the War:
    http://ivaw.org
    http://couragetoresist.org

    Send spam to the FTC at
    spam@uce.gov
    Thanks, robots.

  5. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    >> Is there a way/program that measures the speed of data transfer in the
    >> SATA cables? HDTune doesn't seem to do it as the interface of my PC
    >> was SATA II.

    > HDTach free version.


    It really does?

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
    /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.10
    ^ ^ 19:43:01 up 23:00 0 users load average: 1.01 1.03 1.00
    ? ? (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

  6. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) wrote:
    >>> Is there a way/program that measures the speed of data transfer in
    >>> the SATA cables? HDTune doesn't seem to do it as the interface of my
    >>> PC was SATA II.

    >> HDTach free version.

    >
    > It really does?
    >


    Yes, it calls it the "Burst Speed".

    ---
    Ed Light

    Better World News TV Channel:
    http://realnews.com

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org
    http://antiwar.com

    Iraq Veterans Against the War:
    http://ivaw.org
    http://couragetoresist.org

    Send spam to the FTC at
    spam@uce.gov
    Thanks, robots.

  7. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    >>> HDTach free version.
    >> It really does?

    > Yes, it calls it the "Burst Speed".


    Do you happen to know why HDTune doesn't report 3Gbps burst speed?
    HDTach really reported burst speed of 3Gbps....

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
    /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.10
    ^ ^ 15:11:01 up 1 day 18:28 2 users load average: 1.21 1.19 1.25
    ? ? (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

  8. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) wrote:
    >>>> HDTach free version.
    >>> It really does?

    >> Yes, it calls it the "Burst Speed".

    >
    > Do you happen to know why HDTune doesn't report 3Gbps burst speed?
    > HDTach really reported burst speed of 3Gbps....
    >


    I haven't used HDTune.
    ---
    Ed Light

    Better World News TV Channel:
    http://realnews.com

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org
    http://antiwar.com

    Iraq Veterans Against the War:
    http://ivaw.org
    http://couragetoresist.org

    Send spam to the FTC at
    spam@uce.gov
    Thanks, robots.

  9. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) wrote:
    >>>> HDTach free version.
    >>>
    >>> It really does?

    >>
    >> Yes, it calls it the "Burst Speed".

    >
    >
    > Do you happen to know why HDTune doesn't report 3Gbps burst speed?
    > HDTach really reported burst speed of 3Gbps....
    >


    HDtach and HDtune both report read burst speed, which should be the speed
    *measured* when copying data from the HD's cache into the PC's main
    memory. For the measured burst speed to be equal to the SATA link
    peak speed (150/300 MB/s for SATA-I/II), every component in the chain
    between the HD's cache and the PC's main memory must be at least as
    fast as the SATA link, including the data mover engine between the
    HD's cache and the SATA, and the data mover engine(s) between the SATA
    link and the PC's main memory.

    HDtach and HDtune do not always agree on read burst speed. For example,
    the WD740 on this P4 with a SATA-I link is reported by HDtach as 119.4 MB/s
    read burst, while HDtune shows 101.9 MB/s. Since HDtach's reported data
    agrees with Storage Review and with WDC's (vendor) site, you can easily
    guess whether I believe HDtach or HDtune.
    --
    Cheers, Bob

  10. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    > HDtach and HDtune do not always agree on read burst speed. For example,
    > the WD740 on this P4 with a SATA-I link is reported by HDtach as 119.4 MB/s
    > read burst, while HDtune shows 101.9 MB/s. Since HDtach's reported data
    > agrees with Storage Review and with WDC's (vendor) site, you can easily
    > guess whether I believe HDtach or HDtune.


    Thanks.

    --
    @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
    / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
    /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.10
    ^ ^ 12:09:01 up 3 days 15:26 2 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.00
    ? ? (CSSA):
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

  11. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Bob Willard wrote in news:8pWdnapx8vebYu3VnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comcast.com
    > Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) wrote:
    > > > > > HDTach free version.
    > > > >
    > > > > It really does?
    > > >
    > > > Yes, it calls it the "Burst Speed".

    > >
    > >
    > > Do you happen to know why HDTune doesn't report 3Gbps burst speed?


    > > HDTach really reported burst speed of 3Gbps....


    Bull****.

    > >

    >
    > HDtach and HDtune both report read burst speed, which should be the speed


    > *measured*


    Which is why a "reported burst speed of 3Gbps" is impossible.

    > when copying data from the HD's cache into the PC's main
    > memory. For the measured burst speed to be equal to the SATA link
    > peak speed (150/300 MB/s for SATA-I/II), every component in the chain
    > between the HD's cache and the PC's main memory must be at least as
    > fast as the SATA link, including the data mover engine between the
    > HD's cache and the SATA, and the data mover engine(s) between the SATA
    > link and the PC's main memory.


    You can't move data exclusively without issuing commands to start it.
    You can only start 256 sectors per command at a time.
    Commands and data are encapsulated in protocol.
    IOW, it's impossible to measure a "reported burst speed of 3Gbps".

    >
    > HDtach and HDtune do not always agree on read burst speed. For example,
    > the WD740 on this P4 with a SATA-I link is reported by HDtach as 119.4 MB/s
    > read burst, while HDtune shows 101.9 MB/s.


    > Since HDtach's reported data agrees with Storage Review


    Strange that huh, since SR use HD Tach to begin with.

    > and with WDC's (vendor) site,


    No kidding. Any reason why I can't find that then?

    > you can easily guess whether I believe HDtach or HDtune.


    Yep, that word guess is quite appropriate here.

  12. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Squeeze wrote:

    Nothing of any consequence! On Tuesday (July 22, 2007), "Squeeze" and
    his alter ego (Folkert Rienstra), posted 18 totally worthless replies,
    in .

    Also, of note, those were the >only< articles deposited, here, on that
    particular date!


    Cordially,
    John Turco

  13. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Eric Gisin wrote:
    >
    > "John Turco" wrote in message news:4889563D.A43200DE@concentric.net...
    > > Squeeze wrote:
    > >
    > > Nothing of any consequence! On Tuesday (July 22, 2007), "Squeeze" and
    > > his alter ego (Folkert Rienstra), posted 18 totally worthless replies,
    > > in .
    > >
    > > Also, of note, those were the >only< articles deposited, here, on that
    > > particular date!

    >
    >
    > Johnny Turd, when have you ever posted anything worthwhile???



    Hello, Eric:

    Anybody - other than your new-found "hero," Folkert Rienstra, of course -
    has contributed more on-topic messages, than >you< have, Captain Canuck.

    Then, again, you're a top poster, as well as a troll. The Dour Dutchman®,
    himself, bothers to respond in-line, at least.

    Too lazy, are you?


    Cordially,
    John Turco

  14. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    "John Turco" wrote in message news:488EAC30.6B979199@concentric.net...
    > Eric Gisin wrote:
    >>
    >> "John Turco" wrote in message news:4889563D.A43200DE@concentric.net...
    >> > Squeeze wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Nothing of any consequence! On Tuesday (July 22, 2007), "Squeeze" and
    >> > his alter ego (Folkert Rienstra), posted 18 totally worthless replies,
    >> > in .
    >> >
    >> > Also, of note, those were the >only< articles deposited, here, on that
    >> > particular date!

    >>
    >>
    >> Johnny Turd, when have you ever posted anything worthwhile???

    >
    >
    > Anybody - other than your new-found "hero," Folkert Rienstra, of course -
    > has contributed more on-topic messages, than >you< have, Captain Canuck.
    >
    > Then, again, you're a top poster, as well as a troll. The Dour Dutchman®,
    > himself, bothers to respond in-line, at least.
    >
    > Too lazy, are you?
    >

    Like all grammar nazis, you criticize style not content.
    You can't answer my question so you go off on a tangent.

    So Turd boy, when have you ever posted on topic and useful???


  15. Re: SATA II RAID 0 not reaching 3.0 Gbps

    Eric Gisin wrote:
    >
    > "John Turco" wrote in message news:488EAC30.6B979199@concentric.net...




    > >> Johnny Turd, when have you ever posted anything worthwhile???

    > >
    > >
    > > Anybody - other than your new-found "hero," Folkert Rienstra, of course -
    > > has contributed more on-topic messages, than >you< have, Captain Canuck.
    > >
    > > Then, again, you're a top poster, as well as a troll. The Dour Dutchman®,
    > > himself, bothers to respond in-line, at least.
    > >
    > > Too lazy, are you?
    > >

    > Like all grammar nazis, you criticize style not content.
    > You can't answer my question so you go off on a tangent.
    >
    > So Turd boy, when have you ever posted on topic and useful???



    Hello, Eric:

    Well, I just got >you< to bottom-post, did I not?


    Cordially,
    John Turco

+ Reply to Thread