Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

ASUS E35M1-M -- Horrible Internal HDD speeds


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 xurious

xurious

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:15 AM

Posted 22 January 2012 - 08:38 AM

Alright peoples, I'm hoping someone can either point me to a better place to find my answer, another (more specific?) forum/website perhaps, or just have some general knowledge I'm missing.
Relevant data that has not changed from setup A to setup B
1x WD Green 2tb drive (sata2)
3x 2TB Hitachi (5400RPM models, 5k3000) in software raid 5 (sata3)
1x OCZ SSD 40g as boot (sata2)
Server 2008 R2 with file services role.

Setup A
Intel Atom 330 board
2GB DDR2
Rosewill 4 Port Sata2 to PCI card

Setup B
ASUS E35M1-M (Has e-350 CPU, 6x Sata 6.0Gb ports)
2x4GB AMD DDR3 Modules

The problem:

In setup A, I was easily able to saturate gigabit network (both read/write) with either the software raid or from the WD green drive. CPU usage for the software raid 5 was mediocore, maybe 10-20%. Internal data transfers from the drives was well over 100MB/s. (Writing to the raid 5 was closer to 90MB/s, but read was well over 100MB/s.)

In setup B, data transfer to and from the raid 5 is crap. 50MB/s or so, peaking around 65MB/s on really big files. Overall CPU usuage is 50% during raid5 access using Windows File transfer, and about 20% with Teracopy. Although, using teracopy transfers seem to be capped at 30MB/s either way.

Why is this array so slow on the AMD setup? With the SataIII ports, I expected a much faster raid array. I might have to go back and buy my old Intel board simply becuase of how much faster it was. Despite all the benchmarks, Server 2008r2 is much snappier on the atom. Menu's and whatnot don't hesitate. I've forced sata2 in bios, and that had no effect on speeds.

What am I missing? Is controller that crappy on the AMD board that it can not handle it?

Update: Pulling data off the raid5 and pushing onto the WD green results in 10MB transfer @ 50% cpu usage!!!

Also, please keep the information/questions relevant. I don't care if your opinion is software raid sucks. It worked fine on the atom, and I will go back if needed. It just seems there is some toggle I am missing or some tweak.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 LucheLibre

LucheLibre

  • Members
  • 608 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Local time:08:15 AM

Posted 22 January 2012 - 08:19 PM

Your MB uses the Hudson A50 chipset, which doesn't natively support RAID.

If it looks like I know what I'm doing, there's a pretty good chance the only reason for that is because
I once asked someone to run chkdsk /r and a BC Advisor smacked me in the back of the head.

~ LL ~


#3 xurious

xurious
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:15 AM

Posted 22 January 2012 - 08:23 PM

Your MB uses the Hudson A50 chipset, which doesn't natively support RAID.

Thanks for the reply. However, I'm fully aware of that. I'm using software raid. The controller doesn't know it's being used for raid. I didn't use hardware/fakeraid through my pci-to-sata adapter (Using the same software raid provided by Server 2008) on the atom board and am achieved over twice the read/write speeds.

#4 LucheLibre

LucheLibre

  • Members
  • 608 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Local time:08:15 AM

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:07 PM

One test is to use the PCI-SATA card in the new MB and check your speeds.

Also, your SATA3 ports would only benefit the SSD. Even then, your OCZ barely pushes up against the limits of a SATA2 port. Your HDDs have nowhere close to the throughput necessary to saturate even a SATA2 port. Seems they were barely saturating your PCI bus.

If it looks like I know what I'm doing, there's a pretty good chance the only reason for that is because
I once asked someone to run chkdsk /r and a BC Advisor smacked me in the back of the head.

~ LL ~


#5 xurious

xurious
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:15 AM

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:15 PM

One test is to use the PCI-SATA card in the new MB and check your speeds.

Also, your SATA3 ports would only benefit the SSD. Even then, your OCZ barely pushes up against the limits of a SATA2 port. Your HDDs have nowhere close to the throughput necessary to saturate even a SATA2 port. Seems they were barely saturating your PCI bus.


I wish I could try it, only problem is new board only has a PCIe slot. I was thinking the along the same lines of you, when I forced the controller into sata2. I'm swapping (and reinstalling OS) now back onto the atom board. I'd really like to use the e350 as it would be great for some other uses in server, but at this point I'm SOL.

#6 LucheLibre

LucheLibre

  • Members
  • 608 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Local time:08:15 AM

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:29 PM

Posted Image

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_CPU_on_Board/E35M1M/

Is that your board?

Edited by LucheLibre, 23 January 2012 - 11:36 PM.

If it looks like I know what I'm doing, there's a pretty good chance the only reason for that is because
I once asked someone to run chkdsk /r and a BC Advisor smacked me in the back of the head.

~ LL ~





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users