Newsgroup: it.comp.hardware.scsi
Titolo: Poor performance - Cheetah x15 + 2940 u2w - lots of info provided

I just bought a X15 Gen1 Cheetah for a nice price and have it hooked up to
an Adaptec 2940U2w card.  I'm using Windows 2000 SP2.
I'm running ultra 160 cables with an active LVD terminator and am only using
the Ultra 2 connector for the cheetah.  Nothing else is attached to the
card.
I have a full write up and pictures the demonstrate the problem at:
http://jabez.enetpages.com/8642.html
The I/O meter test is the same preset that is always used to gauge
workstation performance.
I choose to go heavy on ATTO cause its quick and all other benchmarks seems
to back up its findings so far.
Take a look and tell me what you think could be happening.
I should be seeing more performance in read and write than this based on
other ppls metrics.
Thanks
Jay

 wrote in message
news:mvQt9.16144$EX4....@news1.mts.net...


 Ben
ST318406LW, 10k on a 29160: seem to be a lot faster then my Ibm gxp120 
60GB under winxp. Trasfert rate is not much highter but in everyday use 
my pc is realy faster.
Ciao ... Dino

 wrote in message
news:MPG.18224f34f...@news.fastwebnet.it...


 wrote in message
news:3HXt9.16324$EX4....@news1.mts.net...


 wrote in message
news:3HXt9.16324$EX4....@news1.mts.net...


 wrote in message
news:ap9jn2$d4t$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...


 cable. Its 68pin adaptec, but I don't know thats it 160mb capable.
Maybe a cable prob. Hdtach give me over 50MB/s
Ciao ... Dino

Trasfer rate is not much higher 
not in percentage, no.


 wrote in message
news:mvQt9.16144$EX4....@news1.mts.net...


 wrote in message
news:uIvw9.1147$hf.7...@castor.casema.net...


 Ben
No, it's a drive limit. I get over 50MB/s (hdtach read) on a 32bit slot.
Seagate cheetah 36ES 18.1GB 10k
Ciao ... Dino

 No, it's a drive limit. 
Yup, we have been over that before, haven't we. 
Apparently some people have trouble learning.


 wrote in message
news:MPG.182e2cec2...@news.fastwebnet.it...


Very few drives saturate even UW's 40MB/s (and U2W is just overkill for 
  a single drive!) in real life, so I think your numbers are well in 
line. Actual numbers depend on test, OS and filesystem.
--Mika


 wrote in message
news:3DC5774C...@NOSPAM.iki.fi...


slot. I hoped for more!
Hmmmm.  With my Cheetah and LSILogic 21040, my Sandra results are:
Buffered read: 61 MB/s (hit 65 a coupla times)
Buffered write 35 MB/s (I think; this is all from memory)
Sustained read: 51 MB/s
Sustained write: 40 MB/s
Win2K SP2 and SP3, NTFS
Sandra rates gives this disk a higher overall score than its 2 disk
ATA100 RAID0 reference.  Whether on not Sandra is trustworthy remains 
to be seen, however:
It seems that Adaptec owners are suffering a bit.  Maybe you should consider
switching to LSILogic ;-)
[...]
-- 
  Tom Wilson          | Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to
  SAS Institute Inc.  | reinvent it, poorly.
 
sas...@unx.sas.com
  |                      -- Henry Spencer  
          Opinions are mine, not of SAS Institute Inc.

 getting, (about 28mb)!
Yes, the 39MB/s on the fastest zone that I quoted.
It is not uncommon for application benchmarks to arrive at 
lower numbers because of system overhead. Use HD Tach.
And it is obviously *not* the current Cheetah 15k.
Look it up. The latest is the X15 36LP.


 Maybe you should consider switching to LSILogic ;-)
Maybe they should read their drivespecs.


Maybe they should read their drivespecs.
that, too ;-)
