• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Evidently my RAID 6 write speed is slow...

R

ramicio

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
181
I don't want to come across as snide, but some think I have a problem, and I don't think I do. My write speeds are about that of a single drive, but I have 5 drives in a RAID 6 array. Specs:

  • MSI X58 Pro-E
  • i7-970
  • 12 GB RAM
  • GT 240
  • ARC-1222
  • 5x Hitachi 5k3000 2TB hard drives

Copying a 4.38 GB file to it in write-through takes 93 seconds...48 MB/s.
Copying the same file to it in write-back takes 25 seconds...180 MB/s.

I keep it on write-through because I don't have a battery backup module. If there's any more info needed from me, just let me know.
 
This is the first mention I have seen from you that you were in write-thru cache with the low speeds. With write-thru cache, you need to have your filesystem configured properly, otherwise it will turn a large sequential write into small sequential write, random access to metadata, small sequential write...etc.

What OS and what filesystem?
 
In the other thread I DID say I was in write-through. But that's besides the point. I'm on Win7 x64 and using NTFS.
 
ramicio said:
In the other thread I DID say I was in write-through. But that's besides the point. I'm on Win7 x64 and using NTFS.
Click to expand...

Nope, you wrote a lot of nonsense, and specifically you wrote that the 80MB/s was write backed:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037541488&postcount=18

I hit over 300 MB/s on reads and less than 80 MB/s on writes. That's with the cache set to write-back. It is even slower with the cache on write-through (I don't have a battery backup module.)
Click to expand...

Anyway, I cannot help you configure NTFS. My expertise in with linux. With XFS on linux, you can set the filesystem up so that it knows the chunk size and number of data and parity disks in your RAID. Then XFS will optimize the writes so that the metadata does not detract significantly from write speed. With such a configuration, I have achieved sustained sequential write speeds similar to sustained sequential read speeds on large Areca RAID 6 volumes, more than 10 drives.

Maybe you can figure out how to configure NTFS properly for your RAID. Or if it can be done with NTFS.
 
1. I don't speak nonsense.
2. It's not going to change. I'm not going to risk losing all my data by messing around with my file system. There are terabytes of data on there already. I'm not going to change my file system settings (if I even can) every time I add a new disk to the array.
 
ramicio said:
1. I don't speak nonsense.
2. It's not going to change. I'm not going to risk losing all my data by messing around with my file system. There are terabytes of data on there already. I'm not going to change my file system settings (if I even can) every time I add a new disk to the array.
Click to expand...

You may not speak it, but you write a lot of it.

As for not changing your configuration, that is obviously up to you. But clearly your system is not configured optimally, so your claim that your write speeds slower than a single disk were not due to poor configuration are nonsense. Just like your claims that adding more disks to a RAID slows the write speed. Nonsense.
 
I guess I will always be nonsensical because I have 5 disks with a 16K stripe size, and NTFS can't be set up in 80K clusters... The choices are 512, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, and 64k.
 
ramicio said:
I guess I will always be nonsensical because I have 5 disks with a 16K stripe size, and NTFS can't be set up in 80K clusters... The choices are 512, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, and 64k.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! You may have a poorly configured RAID system, but not a nonsensical RAID system. It is only most of the comments that you have written about the issue that are nonsense.
 
Well I don't see how one can match evens with odds... I don't speak or write nonsense.
 
You may not speak it, but you write a lot of it.
Click to expand...
QFT
I'm sorry ramicio, you have changed your story quite a bit since that other thread.
We need to know EXACTLY what you have running and what speeds you get.

Screenshots of benchmarks and general operation are your friend in this situation.
 
I've not changed my story one bit, only added more info. You need to give me more details as to what info you need. I can't see a way of doing an actual write benchmark without losing shit. Otherwise, it will just be a small file written to a certain area of the disks, and those details I've given.
 
Just because you don't understand me doesn't mean what I'm saying is nonsense. It means you hold a different point of view. Mine is far out there, but I speak and type English perfectly.
 
ramicio said:
Just because you don't understand me doesn't mean what I'm saying is nonsense. It means you hold a different point of view. Mine is far out there, but I speak and type English perfectly.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I understand what you have written. But most of it is still nonsense. Like your implication that nonsense is any less nonsensical if it is written with perfect grammar. Nonsense!
 
ramico, being emo isn't helping, it's making you sound pretentious.
Yeah, you have changed your story, john4200 even made the exact correlation above.
But I don't care, lets just move on, what's done is done.

It's not going to change. I'm not going to risk losing all my data by messing around with my file system. There are terabytes of data on there already. I'm not going to change my file system settings (if I even can) every time I add a new disk to the array.
Click to expand...
Well here in lies the problem, you aren't willing to change anything.

Unless you have a backup of your data, you are simply going to have to overwrite it in order to test it.
I don't want you to lose all of your work/data, but you need to be a bit more flexible for us to help you.

Is there no way you can backup your data to another HDD(s)?
Also, why are you backing up your data on a RAID array? RAID /= backup

Backup all of your data, then we can mess with the array and figure out what the issue is by troubleshooting and trying different settings and making adjustments.

If you are going to leave the data on the array, that limits us to about nothing.
 
I just found this from another thread:
ramicio said:
When did I claim I use my drive in a business environment? My needs are storage space, not IO or speed. If I only needed a few TB of space I would probably buy more expensive drives.
Click to expand...
Soooo.... you just need storage, not speed... was 180MB/s not good enough? What was the point of this thread? We originally thought 80MB/s, that was before you changed your story.
Now you are saying your RAID array IS your backup?!
Why would you not have a duplicate? Offsite is good, but there is such a thing as offline backups.
You don't need to be a 'baller' to have backups, that's just being smart about your data.

You are and have been wasting our time with your personal bullshit instead of trying to solve the issue at hand.

You have also changed your story enough to not make me want to care.

EDIT: I meant emo as in emotional. You're quite hateful, that's not cool. I'd edit that post if you don't want to get reported, just fyi.
 
Last edited:
No, I didn't say that. I'm saying it's the only copy of the data I have, and that's just how I do things. You all keep saying I changed my story, how so? Just because you don't interpret how it was meant to come across? If you feel I'm wasting your time then why offer to help in the first place? I'm not gonna edit my post. Not every time someone uses the word fag does it mean a gay person...that lesson can be learned from South Park. Don't mistake hate for me making fun of people or using words to describe people who are different than I am.
 
I was willing to help since I thought you had an issue and you seemed to want help.

Yeah, you did change your story. Your 'interpretation' of how you said it changed it.
Say what you mean!
Nobody here wants to 'interpret' your comments to solve the puzzle of what the fuck you meant.

Also, you consistently are trying to justify what you say with your personal problems. It gets a bit tiring to shift through it to get to the facts.


When that array of yours fails, and you lose everything, you're going to believe in a backup then. I guess some people have to learn the hard way.
 
If there was info out there I would have found it. I spent days searching for what size to set up the stripes. Even so, that can be changed without erasing the array. And you said you needed more info, but didn't tell me what that information is yet.
 
Not changing it. The only reason it should offend you is if you are Emo or gay, and the latter shouldn't because that wasn't the connotation. This gym teacher we had in school was holding a floor hockey ball in one hand and pointed, using his middle finger, and us little children giggled at that, and he said it wasn't offensive because it's all about interpretation. Intent is what matters.

Now are we gonna talk about RAID or be emotional?
 
No, I'm out of this thread before it becomes a massive flame fest.

Best of luck to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top