Judas

there now i'm getting a stable solid burst and read.... i mean it changes a bit.. but.... only slightly..




though i'm not sure how you were able to (in the HDTACH thread) get a over 3000MB/s bursts...

__________________

PangingJr

i don't think you can depend a lot on the benchmarks results. you should also try another way to do some real world performance test.

this thread - http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=467848&page=8 over at ocforums.com have a lot of discussion about Intel Matrix RAID, and RAID's performance under the Intel onboard SATA RAID controller.

Judas

thanks for the link.. i'll read into it.

__________________

Judas

looks like they are getting roughly the same hdtach results on the long bench... i just ran a quick bench..and while my burst is the same, my read jumps from 200 to over 1000MB/S plus...

__________________

Dyre Straits

Scratch all I said before....post removed.

__________________

Tipstaff

Hey, Judas, a couple things for ya.

Since I've never used RAID 0 long term before I thought I'd ask your opinon on what would be the best stripe size to use. I recall reading that for gaming 16kb seems to be optimal. Any thoughts on it?

Lastly, disk imaging. I've used Ghost/disk imaging a lot with RAID 1, so I'm aware of the setup required to image a drive back beforehand, and I was wondering if you have had any first hand experience doing the same with RAID 0. Is it possible image to a RAID 0 setup? And if so, anything I should be aware of?

__________________

PangingJr

in Windows a RAID array is like one single basic disk drive....

to a disk/partition imaging software, a RAID volume (that has been created under a RAID array), and/or a disk partition (that has been created within a RAID volume), all are just like a disk partition (that is created within a basic disk drive).

the disk/partition imaging software that you use must support RAID-0, and if you want to use the software with Vista system, the software must fully supoort the Vista, otherwise you may be able to create a backup image and restore it, but you won't be able to boot into Vista without some other work that needs to be done by yourself, and even that a reactivation of the Vista may be required.

so, so long as the imaging software do support RAID-0 (and Vista if you want to use it to backup and restore Vista system) you can use the software to create a backup image of a RAID-0 volume, and/or a disk partition that is created within a RAID-0 volume.
this applys to both, a hot backup and restore of RAID volume within Windows (the RAID volume is managed by Windows drivers) and a backup and restore of RAID volume without Windows (run the imaging software from its rescue disk/disc. the RAID volume is managed by the RAID controller ROM BIOS).

the terms "RAID array" and "RAID volume" that i use above is meant to cover a RAID setup under Intel Matrix RAID, the definitions of the terms may be a bit different form the other RAID setups...

PangingJr

sorry Judas i just saw this post. hmm i don't know i've never had any problem doing that as far as i can remember... what is the error says?

run this line... drive letter:\Program Files\Intel\Intel Matrix Storage Manager\Shell_ENU.html

and read about the "Volume Write-Back Cache", it's actually for RAID 5 volume only, but since this option is also available under RAID0 volume, you can try and see if you like to use it on your RAID0 volume?

PangingJr

[QUOTE=Judas;1032425]

Tipstaff

It should be avaiable for RAID 1 as well, at least with ICH8. I've been setting up a RAID 1 setup on an Intel DQ965GF board the last couple days, and I remember seeing, and enabling that option. However, since I don't have RAID setup on my 975 board I can't say it will be the same on the ICH7.

In this case (thankfully), everything RAID wise will be with XP. I've been having way too many issues with RAID, any RAID with Vista, so I'm keeping away from it for the time being. It's not so much having a problem with Intels Matrix RAID, but rather with the Silicon Image RAID. It just doesn't want to work properly.

I know that with Intels Matrix RAID 1 setup I can image the drive using Ghost, and use that image just like any other, however there are a few steps I need to be careful of before I actually do dump it back. It also takes almost 2x longer than normal, but that figures as the Intel Matrix RAID is mirroring as I'm dumping the image back (mind you, I've never tried to dump a mixed array before). Dumping an image to a RAID 0 setup should be the same as long as the Intel Matrix dumps the stripes between the 2 drives.

'Course, the fact that the backup software would need to be able to image a RAID 0 setup didn't occur to me until you just mentioned it. Imaging a drive, in which the RAID driver was installed for that RAID controller within the OS, and then dumping it to a RAID array should be possible, even if it's split up into different volumes (like a mix RAID 0/1). But as you just mentioned, will the backup software be able to do the reverse, and dump a RAID 0 volume, or an array that might have split RAID 0/1 volumes to an image?

Well.. since I still have the 965 board at the shop I may as well try it on that before I screw around with my rig here.

Edit: that reminds me. From within the Intel Matrix Storage Console I should be able to setup a RAID 0 volume, right? If I do this, what will happen? Will it start parting out the existing data to the other drive, or is it that any new data that is put on the drive will be striped? (goes to show you how much experience I've had with RAID 0.. RAID 1 is a snap, but RAID 0... )

__________________

PangingJr

first, i don't use RAID level 1 at all, i however do use RAID 5, but i don't create image of any RAID 5 volume, since if i ever have problem with one of the drives member i would just replace it, however, i've not found a problem that a drive die on me yet.

secound, i don't do a whole RAID array backup ever, cause the backup and restore processes will take too much time.
i however create a backup image of the OS/system volume only. all of my Vista's volumes uses about 40 GB and Windows XP or XP x64 uses about 20 GB,

the True Image will take about 3-5 mins each when backing up Vista's and XP volumes and (there are about 10 GB of in use space in both OS's volume),
the True Image and/or Ghost under its rescue disk will take about the same time to image the RAID0 volumes.

and it'll take about only 10 mins or so when restoring the RAID0 volume of the XP, then after i boot into XP i can restore Vista's volume within Windows and this will only take 3-4 mins or so.

third, i don't config Matrix RAID that have two independent RAID volumes and RAID levels within a single array, i however like to config Matrix RAID that have two independent RAID volumes but using the same RAID levels.
so, instead of configuring the Matrix RAID on a single array that consists a RAID-0 + RAID-1 volumes, i prefer to config RAID-0 + RAID-0 volumes,
the first RAID-0 volume in the Matrix RAID is for OSes, the secound RAID-0 volume is for whatever/anything (i normally don't create image of this volume, just backup file to file on a more securer storage space like on to an eSATA drive.)
i also prefer to use more hard drives to create another RAID array, this is for having a different RAID level like a RAID-5 volume.


image files of a RAID0 volume, about 60 GB in size, 2 primary partitions, the split image files are for faster disk defrag.

Judas

Pangingjr, i got the drivers off the floppy, installed and working.. along with write back caching enabled..

tipstaff, imo, i've found that larger block/stripe lengths actually is better overall for games and specially video.

ATM, i'm running 128kb on my intel matrix, my ULi was 64kb, the difference in load times is substaitally faster, and video captureing or reading from is insanely better overall.


Why would it be better? everything is based on exceptionally larger files now, better distrubuted data in large packets (if you will) is more easily thrown together then a pile of smaller ones. The whole purpose from what i understood and have read up on is that a block/stripe length/size of this is for better even distribution of the data.


For example if a file is 1mb in size, and your in RAID 0 across 2 drives, the file will be split into several (using 128kb stripe) 128kb chunks, call these "parts".

Parts 1 is on drive 1, part 2 on drive 2, part 3 on drive 1 again and so forth till the file is completely loaded evenly across the drives. Now this may not be the best accurate discription but probably the easiest.

If i were to take that file and stripe it across 4 drives, there would be even less parts per drive making accessing the entire file in the least amount of set blocks faster. shrinking the stripe size smaller will (should) reduce the speed for large files, more blocks to handle.

The reason most people recommend smaller block sizes is usually because of the sheer number of smaller files (under the size of the block size, 14kb file taking up a full 128kb block, on a single drive, not being evenly distrubed across the drives, resulting in RAID 0 having ZERO performance increase on those smaller files)..

However today we live with large files, it's hard to find a crapload of every day used files that are under 128kb let alone 1mb. And games are usually massive files sizes now as well.

Smaller block sizes will definitely mostly show faster results in benchmarks, but if you can find a benchmark with exceptionally larger files (in the several 100mb range) the larger block sizes usually always show a massive improvement. (my experience)

I'm still getting used to the intel raid setup, but i know that ULi and Via's implementation of raid was kinda "so so"... I still prefer HighPoint Technologies raid setup the best, as it's not only the fastest, but has surpior options available. I mean my old IDE HPT374 controller would provide similare performance with 2x maxtor ata133 2mb cache 30gb hd's in raid 0 to that of my 2x SATA2 8mb Cache Maxtor in raid 0 on the ULi chipset. And it's limit was 2mb block size (4kb - 2mb in equal increments giving plenty of options) 2mb was slow for initial windows startup (XP), however large games and videos were beautifully loaded and performed damn fast.

__________________

Tipstaff

Well, got a chance to fool around with things today. Surprisingly it went very easily. Gave me the creeps actually. I dumped a RAID 1 volume to a single drive, then dumped it to a RAID 0 volume, then back to the single drive, then finally back to the RAID 1 volume (that was over the course of the day though).

I had originally setup the RAID 0 volume using 16kb stripes (Windows logo to complete load up in 5 seconds flat... scarey how fast it did that too), even tried 64kb which seems to be a decent setting, but tomorrow I'll give your suggestion of 128kb a try, Judas. At first I thought that 128kb would be a bit much, but after reading your post I can understand the benifits of using such a large stripe set.

Speaking of HighPoint, man, I haven't used one of their controllers in a long while. Actually, I think the last one I touched was the one you mentioned infact, the RocketRAID 404 if I remember correctly. Damn, that controller has to be 5 years old now. As far as I remember I set that thing up, and have never had to redo one thing RAID related on that system... haven't even had to replace the drives either.

__________________

Judas

yes.... love the highpoint tech controllers.. imo, faster, most efficient, hardware raid controllers ever.

You had the rocketraid 404, i had the onboard IC 374 (baised on the same chip correct? )..

I've never had to redo a raid setup on any highpoint tech controller yet either.


About the larger block sizes, while 16kb loads windows damn quick, the larger ones will most likely gradually slow it down (enless you had a highpoint controller )....

However it's when you start moving larger files around alot that you should see a fairly large improvement.

Now i'm still getting used to intel's matrix raid, and i'm not completely sure how well it handles block sizes, let alone in the same way that i've read up (some controllers do a slack ass job of doing raid).

For example i was reading that some software or poorly implemented raid solution don't do true data balancing accross raid 0 arrays. For example, the last block of data that doesn't evenly distribute across both drives will usually end up on the first drive. Having this happen SEVERAL times over and over, the data used on the first drive isn't the same as the others, the result is a slightly slower or even worse transfer rate or even access time.

If one drive fills up before the other, well that should be obvious (even if the drive doesn't actually fill up, but it could be right down to the partition sizes that dictate which go where.

I think Partitioning a raid 0 array with multiple partitions provides a much better solution to controlling these kind of drawbacks or issues. For each partition made, across all drives the start of the partition should be set to 0 again and performance figures from each seperate partition should work quite excellently.

Course that last bit is more on theory then any factual information, i keep reading here and there about stuff and trying to draw my own conclusions with what i've experienced.

__________________

PangingJr

more links about Intel Matrix Storage Manager's Known Issues and Solutions ( http://support.intel.com/support/chi.../CS-023311.htm )

Matrix RAID Volume Recovery - A degraded RAID 1 and failed RAID 0 volume on a single RAID array can occur when two RAID volumes (0 and 1) exist on a single RAID array (i.e. matrix RAID). A RAID 0 volume is reported as failed and a RAID 1 volume is reported as degraded when one of their members fails or is disconnected. - http://support.intel.com/support/chi.../CS-021015.htm

Failed RAID 0 Volume - http://support.intel.com/support/chi.../CS-020992.htm

Degraded or failed RAID 1 Volume - http://www.intel.com/support/chipset.../CS-021014.htm

System Won't Boot to Degraded RAID 1 Volume - http://support.intel.com/support/chi.../CS-021234.htm

Tipstaff

Yep. Same chip. I just found the controller today buried somewhere. I finally realized why I have it still: the RocketRAID 404 has 4 IDE connectors on it, and an IT employee for one my clients (that has brain the size of a peanut) broke one. So I took it back, and still charged them for the replacement. Still works too.... I think...

One thing this article doesn't mention, though, is that the last option, "Using the Intel Matrix Storage Manager option ROM", is only necessary if you have more than one drive in the system, are using a mixed array, or a mixed volume. If you only have 2, and they are identical sizes as before (with no other RAID volumes or arrays), then IMSM will automatically rebuild the RAID 1 volume without any interaction from the user. Doesn't matter which of the drives fails either. If the main one fails, the system "should" boot to the second one. Replace the failed drive, and it "should" rebuild automatically. When it's done, the next time you reboot it "should" boot from the main one again. That is unless the below happens....

This one.. shit.. this one has pissed me off a number of times. This is mostly due to idiot clients though. One big no-no I've found with the Intel Matrix RAID is that you should never switch SATA ports of the existing drives if another fails in a RAID 1 setup (hell.. this goes for any hardware solution really). It will create such a mess. Sure enough these idiots do just that, and all it takes is just one boot into Windows to screw it all up.

Mind you, I've also seen Windows be the root cause of this problem moreso than hardware though, mostly when someone has changed their drives from Basic to Dynamic. On it's own that's fine, but I've had guys either forget or don't understand that they have a hardware RAID option in their system. Why do they do it though? Software RAID. As you guys know Windows 2000/XP, or any Windows Server OS won't do software RAID unless the drives are converted to Dynamic disks, but then, this is hardware RAID we're talking about, so you don't need to, but they seem to insist on using software RAID non the less. And man do things ever screw up when it fails. Drives me nuts some times.

Mind you, I still make my money off of their lack of intelligence.. so in the end I'm happy.

__________________

PangingJr

btw, Judas, since you use large and 4 drives for configuring a single RAID array, you probably don't use the space (that much) to store files...
and i think you may want to try using Matrix RAID config, try set it up with RAID-0 as part of the array while another part is having RAID-5.
for 4 drives in RAID-5 you will only need to sacrifice 25% of the available storage space, in RAID-5 the write speed is not good, but read speed is still quite very good.
so this way... everything that you often use will be in RAID-0 volume, and the rest, likes a more critical files, backup files, would be in RAID-5 volume.

btw, Tip, i meant to ask you before but i didn't... what is the reason the you want to create an image of a two mirrored drives (RAID-1)?

and well i think they just want to make it in short in that document they probably did not forget anything, i'm sure there is a more technical detail to it somewhere in another Intel's documents.

Tipstaff

Actually, it was a RAID 0 setup I wanted to fool around with. The plan was to dump a drive to an image, setup the controller in RAID 0, then dump that image back, however, the real question was if I'd be able to do the reverse. Until I tried it on the system at the shop I didn't know if it'd work. It did both ways perfectly, thank God.

The reason for this is that my gaming rig is setup with the Intel Raid controller active, but due to timing I didn't get the drives at the same time. As such I installed the system before I got my second drive. Now I that I do I want to switch it to RAID 0. So, this weekend I plan on dumping the main drive to an image, and, well, you know the rest.

__________________

PangingJr

o okay. it probably me, i just don't read anything well these days, i mean sometimes i just read a statment or two and response to that messages. i can't stand reading things on monitor too long any more these days.

Judas

PangingJR, while i have considered Raid 5, i don't think it's nessary, ALL the critical files i have on this machine are backed up onto a single SATA 2 250gb Hardrive that i hot plug and then store in my vault. That way i'm very confident that i shouldn't lose anything critical and i can keep my raid 0 speeds maxed out.




Tipstaff, the HPT374 i had setup multiple 160gb 8mb cache IDE drives on it, and i loved that fact that you could technically hooked up to 8 HD's in full raid mode. I mean HPT seems to ALWAYS be way ahead of the game. I'm just thoroughly disappointed that no one, even Abit, hasn't used there ICs for ages, they were the best damn IDE/SATA controllers i've every used yet.

I've even emailed a few board manufacturers to ask them if they had reconsidered the HPT controllers, and emailed HPT themselves why they weren't making any more ICs.

I swear, if HPT would produce a damn good IC, say one that supports the SATA3 standard with all the NCQ bells and whistles and made Raid 0 through to 10 hardware mode supported not to mention up to 8 SATA ports with APCI support (plugging in optical drives). They would totally dominate the onboard controller market. I don't know about anyone else, but i'd be willing to pay a bit more for that board then i would for the current intel/via/ati/nvidia solutions

__________________

PangingJr

you sure that the system is running at it's best with your RAID0 setup and your RAID system is now maxed out in every way?

i meant if it's happened that a lot of (free) storage space will be left unused, then you could increase read/write speed of your RAID0 volume even more by having a much smaller volume instead of creating just one large RAID0 volume using the entire available space on the array. have you tried experimenting with this?

move the system paging file to another partition that is on the same RAID volume as Windows's partition, as well as adding another paging file on a different volume that is under the same array the Windows volume (or partition) is on... i like to suggest you check it before you change the system paging file setting from the default's, cause that may actually degrade paging file and overall system performance.

anyway, if someday you have a motherboard with P965+ICH8 RAID that has the Intel Matrix Storage Manager that supports 6 SATA drives that coming in your shop, then try 2 arrays with 3 drives each, or one array with 2 drives and another array with 4 drives. then put the Windows into a RAID0 volume of the array with 2 drives, and add another paging file in the other RAID0 volume on 4 disk drives array. and you may find that the disk performance across the board is better, the system also runs smoother...

Judas

I'll give the multiple seperate Raid 0 arrays a try probably after the 31st of march..... atm, i'm getting all the kinks and bugs worked out best i can for the 31st for the trade show....

__________________

PangingJr

since you use large hard drives for the RAID array, then you created only one and very large RAID volume, so you need to look at the partitioning on the RAID volume.

my personal experience with the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, disk partitioning does not help (in term of) disk's performance, it'll only help file (include the paging file space) fragment and disk defrag issues, and at the most, is to help you organise your data.

this is where Intel Matrix RAID comes to play, you have many option when you're already have 4 drives (6 drives on ICH8 RAID will be even more available options),
try other setups likes a two RAID volumes on the array instaed of just one... a much smaller RAID0 volume just for what you need then plus some for future use, the rest of the storage space goes in to another volume (may be using a different RAID level), and don't do thing like you used to do, try leaving the paging file at default location, untill you try two arrays.
and before i forget this. just for once and just for testing your new RAID system setup, try forgetting about organising your files with disk partitions, also, not to worry about having so much files in a volume since you are using NTFS, just leave all the files that you will not often use them at all in another RAID volume, then also create an auto schedule a disk defrags to run at a given time when the system is not busy. and see how this will even work out well for you at all?

PangingJr

i've just done a new RAID setup for my son's computer... starting from wipe clean all 6 hard drives which i need to do it since all of them used to be configured with either a boot loader, a Linux's filesystem or in other system's RAID array before and there were quite a bit left over data structures on them.
i don't have enough time and patience to wait for a zero-filling on each drive, so i just removed all the partition's on them, recreated a single primary partition on each drive and ran a quick format on them, removed all the partitions and then rewrote a standard MBR code on to every drives again, so there won't be an old MBR program code in there... then config RAID in BIOS...,partitioned all the RAID volumes, and then restored a Windows XP's image... all this was done outside Windows by using a few disk managing tools, ran programs from their rescue disks. took around 45 minutes or so from start to first boot into Windows.
as of now, run some applications experiment and the level of system smoothness are quite an impressive performance, however, transfer files around is still so so, i might want to try on a smaller strip size again later on this system, which i hate to do that.

some pictures my son took during i was working on this setup...




















XP for me... this OS partition will be hidden. i may need to use it sometime to maintenance the system and things will be done within Windows quite faster.


then i installed a Vista for my son...




Windows OS's volume (2 drives in RAID0)


a volume config with 4 drives in RAID0 for programs, another paging file and some other etc files