RAID5 Sucking? 4 x 500GB 7200RPM Drives


Recommended Posts

Ok so i got this Foxconn Board (Digital Life x38A) with the Intel ICH9R soutbridge for RAID. I got 4 Seagate drives at 500GB 7200RPM 32MB Cache and this thing is only pushing like 70MB/s. I did tests with HDTune and HD Tach and thta's all ti says.

I tried XP 32bit, Vista 32bit and Vista 64Bit and they all give me crappy speeds. Oddly enough tho, Vistax64 gives 5.9 scores but 32bit gives only 4.8.

The system includes.

800 Watt

2 x 8800GTX

Foxconn Board mentioned above

8GB 800Mhz DDR2

4 x 500GB 7200RPM 32MB Cache

2 x DVDRW Drives

I tried RAID10 and I removed the jumpers and yeah it jumped up to 207MB/s MAX in HDTUNE which was awesome then i updated drivers and but it sucked like crazy.

I'm gonna go test some other stuff to see what else could be the cause. What am i supposed to be getting anyways? I saw some tests and their burst speeds were like 3,300MB/s or something.

That plus the chart is all over the place... it goes up then down and all that. Not a steady stream or somehting like that.

RAID5 has a LOT of overhead on it... all the parity writes the multi drive spanning writes all that fun stuff... RAID5 don't expect performance, it's there for data integirty... thats why when you set up stuff like SQL Servers that have high performance requirements you set it up in RAID1+0 not RAID5 because RAID5 is slow, RAID6 is even slower yet (RAID6 IS RAID5 + ADG (basically dual parity))

Generally, I found RAID 5 to be sucky too. Not sure why, but might be due to the lower random write speeds affecting operations. If anyone find there's a definitive problem with the configuration (and a solution), I'd be interested.

Well, basically RAID5 isn't that fast, period, no matter how you build it. RAID5 requires parity information to be written for every write operation performed, and it just kills performance. The parity striping also increases in cost the more disks are in the array. You still get pretty good parallel read performance, but that's it.

RAID10 is much faster, because there is no parity information. Each stripe is simply written twice (in parallel), so you get basically (number of disks) / 2 worth of write performance, which typically blazes past RAID5. Read performance is similar.

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=769864#p769864

Well that guy seems to be getting some good speeds but that's with HDTach, i don't anything close to that tho.

Something about those graphs doesn't seem right... at work we have our file server on high end RAID controllers with 7 drives per array in RAID5 and we don't get speeds like that... (7 15K RPM HDD's at 146.8GB each connected to a dedicated RAID5 controller with 512MB Battery backed up Cache connected with dual 3Gbps fiber channels) and if we can't get those speeds no idea how they did... we get about 80MB/ps with 100MB/ps burst rates and about 12ms access times the small file IO (say 4KB blocks) we get horrible performance about 2MB/ps write and 8MB/ps read.....

Something about those graphs doesn't seem right... at work we have our file server on high end RAID controllers with 7 drives per array in RAID5 and we don't get speeds like that... (7 15K RPM HDD's at 146.8GB each connected to a dedicated RAID5 controller with 512MB Battery backed up Cache connected with dual 3Gbps fiber channels) and if we can't get those speeds no idea how they did... we get about 80MB/ps with 100MB/ps burst rates and about 12ms access times the small file IO (say 4KB blocks) we get horrible performance about 2MB/ps write and 8MB/ps read.....

If "2MB/ps" means 2 MB/s, then you must be doing something wrong...

KoDeXeRo, what stripe size did you use?

RAID5 is not that fast... I get about the same on my 4x250GB.

RAID 5 with three disks easily gets 100MB/s + so its not slow.

I get an average of 120MB/s & 131MB/s read with over 2000MB/s burst speed so there's no reason why someone with four disks & a newer Intel ICH controller to not get better results.

If "2MB/ps" means 2 MB/s, then you must be doing something wrong...

KoDeXeRo, what stripe size did you use?

Have you ever benchmarked a RAID5 drive on all different types of read/write levels? because that is exactly what it should be for that size... RAID5 pretty much sucks for small block sizes in read/write... say you have a 16KB stripe size with RAID5 over 7 disks... you get these speeds

SIZE

4KB (Random IO) - 2MB/s - 6MB/s

1MB (Sequential) - 30MB/s - 50MB/s

10MB - 45MB/s - 80MB/s

100MB - 50MB/s 88MB/s

that is Write speed / read speed

4KB blocks across a random read / write will always be slow, but its horribly slow in RIAD5... RAID5 drives need frequent defragmentation to keep them in good condition speed wise in a large file store environment like ours... the average file size in our file server is about 16-35KB and the largest stripe we can make is 64KB but we opted for RAID6 instead for increased security (you can lose 2 drives in RAID6 before data loss) and the largest stripe on RAID6 with a 400GB logical drive is 16KB on our controller... but there wasnt too much a difference we we benchmarked the RAID5 config... the speeds above were from RAID5...

RAID 5 with three disks easily gets 100MB/s + so its not slow.

I get an average of 120MB/s & 131MB/s read with over 2000MB/s burst speed so there's no reason why someone with four disks & a newer Intel ICH controller to not get better results.

yeah but how did you benchmark it? sequential IO, random IO, how large is you stripe size? how big are the allocation units on your drive when you formatted it? How large of a file did you benchmark against? small files perform horribly on RAID5 large files work relatively well

yeah but how did you benchmark it? sequential IO, random IO, how large is you stripe size? how big are the allocation units on your drive when you formatted it? How large of a file did you benchmark against? small files perform horribly on RAID5 large files work relatively well

HD Tach run on the 32mb zones test stripe size is 64KB format using 4096 bytes allocation units.

I have not tested small file performance but it will not be fast which I did know.

HD Tach run on the 32mb zones test stripe size is 64KB format using 4096 bytes allocation units.

I have not tested small file performance but it will not be fast which I did know.

That'd be why you see better speeds, you are using larger segments to benchmark... to get a true benchmark start with 4KB read/writes then work up to stripe size (what ever that is) then test larger ones... then average them out

If "2MB/ps" means 2 MB/s, then you must be doing something wrong...

KoDeXeRo, what stripe size did you use?

I was using 128K and then tried 64K stripes and it was about the same. I'm doing RAID10 now and just gonna keep that. I did the Enable Write-Back Cache thingy the guy mentioned above but right now i don't see much of a boost (yet)

I'm using the same now as PeterUK and it seems that's where i get 207MB max so far.

(Oh and this is under Vista 64bit since the machine is 8GB of Corsair CS4 RAM - didn't want to waste that on XP Pro - When i told him that XP 64bit sux and Vista is basically his only choice he was nervous but so far he says he's liking Vista)

Yeah, you shouldn't try to run your OS from RAID 5.

If RAID 10 is working for you, sweet.

But personally, given your info in the first post, I'd set up 2 volumes. one would consist of 3 disk RAID 5 for secure storage and the other would be 1 disk for you OS and programs.

Granted, you OS and programs wouldn't be securely stored, bit you'd gain 500GB of space over RAID10.

well hehe. he has like 3 External 500GB Mybooks so data gets dumped there once it's done so he'll just put them there. He's running his stuff there to test it out and see if it's good enough.

That'd be why you see better speeds, you are using larger segments to benchmark... to get a true benchmark start with 4KB read/writes then work up to stripe size (what ever that is) then test larger ones... then average them out

Ok would help to know what benchmark you used but here is a compare of RAID 5 vs WD5000AAKS using CrystalDiskMark.

download.php?file=post-214729-1207575208.png&name=RAID_5.PNG

crystaldiskmark21.png

Yes write speed is slow but for loading/reading it a bit faster and for home/gaming use thats whats needed, as for servers its not so good for lots of write access but your 4KB test is much better but that's over 7 disks.

Edited by PeterUK
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!