Re: Bit off topic : It should go faster than this...

rlro99_at_hotmail.com (Ralph) wrote in message news:<e2c49cae.0306120602.2e6a5c66_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<3ee731e2$0$8986$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > "Ralph" <rlro99_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:e2c49cae.0306110515.4ebe8c86_at_posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > When all this was set up I got the boys who configured it to copy a
> > > 2gb file from one array to the other. Now I think that 24 secs is
> > > pretty slow and would have thought 4-8 secs would be more like it. 24
> > > secs indicates an actual write speed of approx 80mb/s.
> >
> > What was the cluster size (on format) of the partitions
> > in question? You need 8K to really get things flying.
> > Also: I hate to rain on your 80Mb/s, but don't forget
> > you're processing 2Gb twice: once to read it, the other
> > to write. So, your aggregate rate is more like 160Mb/s.
> >
> > Which is not bad at all.
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> The cluster size used was 4k. As far as aggregate rate of 160mb/s that
> is true, though I have two of these cards each with a 26 disk raid 1+0
> array. I am copying the file from one array to the next, so one card
> and array only seems capable of writing at 80mb/s. Or about 6mb/s per
> spindle...thats the fastest disk I could buy....doesn't seem right to
> me on a sequential disk write of 2gb.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Ralph

Ralph,

check the firmware during boot (<CTRL-A> for Adaptec products). the channel might be stepped down, due to a setting, or due to a cable, drive or auto-negotiating issue.

This seems to be analogous to ethernet and auto not properly negotiating "Fast Ethernet, full duplex" whereby manually setting "Fast" and "Full Duplex" results in optimal throughput.

hth,

Paul Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 14:22:29 CDT