• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

slower HHD scores with RAID 0 than non RAID??!!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

kanuuker

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Location
Florence, Al
I recently did a clean install of Windows XP Pro on a WD1200JB and in benchmarking I got a HDD score of 1079 in PCMark2002. Just yesterday I received 2 more WD1200JB drives and decided to do another install but using 2 drives in a RAID 0 setup. I then ran PCMark2002 again to see how much quicker my HDD score would be. Turns out that not only is it not quicker, but it's a fair bit slower. My HDD score was 679! I ran the test again and got a similar score, so I booted back into the single hd installation and ran the test again. My score was 1067!

What gives? Why is my score significantly slower on a RAID 0 setup than on a single drive setup? All the drives are the same model. I am running the single drive on the 1st IDE channel and am running the RAIDed drives on separate channels on IDE 3 and 4. I am using a Gigabyte GA-7VAXP Ultra board (KT400) with the Promise MB Fastrack RAID controller.
 
OP
K

kanuuker

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Location
Florence, Al
Never mind, Dumb *** at work

God, I'm so stupid sometimes. All I had to do was install the RAID driver. Now my score is better, something like 1115 (I didn't write it down). However, how much of an increase should I expect to see from RAID 0? I thought it would be more.
 

K1ll1nT1m3

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Location
KC. Mo
I would think it will be almost twice what you got with a single drive . I was getting over 2000 in PCMark2002 with a SATA RAID0. I was getting around 1200 with my single Maxtor SATA. RAID0 is really best if you move alot of big files or install OSs alot.
 
Last edited:

Deathknight

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Location
Chicago
What stripe size did you specify when you created the array? Stripe size can have a significant impact on performance
 
OP
K

kanuuker

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Location
Florence, Al
I just used the auto setup in the BIOS/RAID setup. It gave me a couple of options: mirror, and stripe. Within stripe it gave me options of desktop, av editing, and server. I chose desktop. It didn't say what cluster size it used, I assumed 64k. The main reason I want the speed of raid is for games, but it's nice for overall system speed too so I figured that desktop would be my best option.
 
OP
K

kanuuker

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Location
Florence, Al
I went in and checked and it is 64k size clusters. I also ran pcmark again and my score 1057 - roughly the same scores as a single drive. I don't get it.

When I click on my drive properties it shows up as 240gb (120 x 2), so it's working. What about master/slave set up? Since I have them on separate channels I have them both set as single masters (in fact I had to do it that way, it wouldn't work when I had one set as master and the other set as slave).

Also, when I installed windows I did the quick format. What's the difference between the quick and the regular and could they affect my performance?
 

CrashOveride

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Location
Beijing, China
You might want to try other benchmarks, perhaps that one does a certain test combination that does not show the perks of RAID 0 well? (or maybe not, just a thought :p)
 
OP
K

kanuuker

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Location
Florence, Al
Okay, I ran ATTO w/ length at 32 and depth at 10. I ran it on both my single drive setup and my raid setup. I've never used ATTO before but the results seem curious to me. Here's a sample.

Single Drive
Sample Size Read Write
2 1654 1721
32 17867 16457
64 33058 27280
512 45140 43389
1024 47259 44640

RAID 0
2 15909 34829
32 43406 41028
64 42744 52663
512 43862 49104
1024 44640 49657

As you can see, there is a huge difference with the sample at 64mb and under, but over that there isn't much difference. I seem to hit a wall over 64mb.

I wasn't able to check the results on the link you sent me as none of the graphics or links worked (I'm using a fresh install of windows and haven't set anything up yet. Also I normally use Opera so I don't know the IE settings, if that's even the case).

Anyway, how do my results read to you? Are they normal?


edit>> ****, now that I've posted this reply it appears that my 'table' didn't line up. Just note that there are 3 columns, 1st is sample size, second is write, third is read.