WinBench Results...
Let's start out with some base scores utilizing a single drive... this gives us something to compare RAID results against. The table below presents WinBench scores for a single DiamondMax 80 on the following controllers: the Abit SL6's on-board ATA controller, a Promise Ultra66, the SuperTrak-100, and the Escalade 6400:
|
|
| Benchmark |
Single-Drive Base Scores |
| Abit's SL6 on-board ATA | Promise Ultra66 | SuperTrak-100 | Escalade 6400 |
|
| Business Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
6484 |
5820 |
4872 |
4454 |
| High-End Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
16220 |
14460 |
13580 |
15200 |
| AVS/Express 3.4 (KB/sec) |
13600 |
13160 |
11560 |
15300 |
| FrontPage 98 (KB/sec) |
65860 |
50980 |
58400 |
62480 |
| MicroStation SE (KB/sec) |
21480 |
18320 |
17480 |
19580 |
| Photoshop 4.0 (KB/sec) |
8534 |
8668 |
7154 |
8502 |
| Premiere 4.2 (KB/sec) |
14760 |
12440 |
10676 |
13460 |
| Sound Forge 4.0 (KB/sec) |
18540 |
16040 |
19480 |
14820 |
| Visual C++ (KB/sec) |
17000 |
14200 |
14460 |
14520 |
|
| Disk/Read Transfer Rate | StorageReview.com |
|---|
| Beginning (KB/sec) |
29800 |
29733 |
20200 |
29800 |
| End (KB/sec) |
17500 |
17500 |
17500 |
17500 |
|
| Disk Access Time (ms) |
15.22 |
15.26 |
16.12 |
15.04 |
|
| Disk CPU Utilization (%) |
2.91 |
3.04 |
2.89 |
3.11 |
| |
With a single drive, both the SuperTrak and Escalade turn in a Business Disk Winmark score lower than that of the Ultra66. The SuperTrak's High-End score is also significantly lower. These scores seem reasonable for the SuperTrak since its sustained transfer rate is limited to about 20MB/sec when read cache is enabled. For the Escalade however, there's logical reason why its base Business score would be lower than that of the Ultra66 - its sustained transfer rate is the same, and WinBench claims its base seek time is lower.
Why is the SuperTrak limited to a sustained transfer rate of just 20MB/sec? Promise tells us it's due to both the cache and the ASICs themselves. Caches in general are bad for sustained transfer rate, Promise says, and the SuperTrak's ASICs were not optimized for STR. This limit will undoubtedly be a disappointment to anyone requiring high STR for optimal performance.
|
|
| Benchmark |
2 Drives, RAID 0 |
|
3 Drives, RAID 0 |
|
4 Drives, RAID 0 |
| SuperTrak-100 |
Escalade 6400 |
SuperTrak-100 |
Escalade 6400 |
SuperTrak-100 |
Escalade 6400 |
|
| Business Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
4948 |
3944 |
|
4956 |
3992 |
|
5020 |
4372 |
| High-End Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
14620 |
13540 |
15100 |
14820 |
14840 |
15080 |
| AVS/Express 3.4 (KB/sec) |
11480 |
15660 |
12920 |
17160 |
11420 |
16360 |
| FrontPage 98 (KB/sec) |
59180 |
31360 |
59720 |
30560 |
59260 |
33380 |
| MicroStation SE (KB/sec) |
16100 |
16500 |
14920 |
15820 |
15340 |
16040 |
| Photoshop 4.0 (KB/sec) |
8572 |
10532 |
8974 |
12460 |
9172 |
13740 |
| Premiere 4.2 (KB/sec) |
11880 |
12020 |
12000 |
14680 |
11920 |
13640 |
| Sound Forge 4.0 (KB/sec) |
21460 |
14300 |
21980 |
14920 |
21640 |
14780 |
| Visual C++ (KB/sec) |
15980 |
8910 |
16260 |
9744 |
16340 |
10328 |
|
| Disk/Read Transfer Rate | StorageReview.com |
|---|
| Beginning (KB/sec) |
20133 |
59600 |
|
20100 |
85833 |
|
20200 |
102667 |
| End (KB/sec) |
20200 |
35000 |
20133 |
52300 |
17500 |
69600 |
|
| Disk Access Time (ms) |
16.22 |
15.24 |
|
16.06 |
15.18 |
|
15.94 |
15.40 |
|
| Disk CPU Utilization (%) |
2.86 |
3.07 |
|
2.85 |
3.20 |
|
88.50 |
88.80 |
| |
RAID 0 scores from both controllers are rather unimpressive. Generally speaking, each card's Disk Winmark scores are no better than that of a single drive.
In the STR arena, the SuperTrak's 20MB/sec causes it to pale in comparison with what the Escalade achieves as more drives are added. As shown above, the Escalade manages an amazing 103MB/sec with a four drive RAID 0 array. Had we not seen it with our own eyes, we probably wouldn't believe such a score: We simply didn't think that the PCI bus's overhead would allow for anything over 90MB/sec or so.
It's also interesting to note that average access times for both cards seem to increase somewhat in RAID 0. This phenomenon is fairly consistent in RAID 0 configs, though we're not sure why. Indeed, RAID 0 should yield some positioning benefit in addition to increases in STR.
Finally, note the ridiculously high CPU utilization scores for both controllers was in a four drive RAID 0 array. We believe this to be a quirk in WinBench because, as we'll see, IOMeter shows no such CPU utilization increase.
|
|
| Benchmark |
2 Drives, RAID 1 |
| SuperTrak-100 |
Escalade 6400 |
|
| Business Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
4912 |
3608 |
| High-End Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
12960 |
11660 |
| AVS/Express 3.4 (KB/sec) |
11540 |
16180 |
| FrontPage 98 (KB/sec) |
58980 |
27300 |
| MicroStation SE (KB/sec) |
17800 |
17560 |
| Photoshop 4.0 (KB/sec) |
6686 |
8100 |
| Premiere 4.2 (KB/sec) |
9880 |
9530 |
| Sound Forge 4.0 (KB/sec) |
16820 |
11760 |
| Visual C++ (KB/sec) |
14300 |
7646 |
|
| Disk/Read Transfer Rate | StorageReview.com |
|---|
| Beginning (KB/sec) |
20100 |
47600 |
| End (KB/sec) |
17500 |
27467 |
|
| Disk Access Time (ms) |
14.30 |
13.10 |
|
| Disk CPU Utilization (%) |
2.87 |
3.10 |
| |
As was the case with RAID 0 scores, the above RAID 1 Disk Winmark scores don't seem to reflect reality. Despite the fact that each card's access time in RAID 1 is significantly lower than that recorded using single drive, and despite the fact that STR is either much better (Escalade) or equal (SuperTrak) to a single drive, RAID 1 Disk Winmark scores are significantly worse. We have a very, very difficult time believing that these scores represent actual performance.
As mentioned above, average access time decreases significantly under RAID 1 for both cards. This indicates that both cards perform some type of intelligent load balancing between the two drives. For example, when an I/O request is made to a RAID 1 array, there are always two drives available to service the request since each drive has the exact same data. Therefore, an intelligent RAID card can judge which drive's actuator is closer to the needed data and direct the request accordingly. This tends to result in lower average access times and better performance.
The Escalade's STR of 50MB/sec is about 2/3 higher than that of a single drive due to 3ware's TwinStor architecture. Needless to say, it's a significant improvement.
Note: Although there are fault tolerance-related differences between RAID 01 and RAID 10, there isn't a theoretical reason for performance differences between these two array levels. Therefore, we feel it's fair to compare the SuperTrak's RAID 01 performance to the Escalade's RAID 10 performance.
|
|
| Benchmark |
4 Drives, SuperTrack-100 in RAID 01, Escalade 6400 in RAID 10 |
| SuperTrak-100 |
Escalade 6400 |
|
| Business Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
4924 |
3892 |
| High-End Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
13500 |
13000 |
| AVS/Express 3.4 (KB/sec) |
11660 |
14980 |
| FrontPage 98 (KB/sec) |
58300 |
32200 |
| MicroStation SE (KB/sec) |
16380 |
16600 |
| Photoshop 4.0 (KB/sec) |
7388 |
10400 |
| Premiere 4.2 (KB/sec) |
10480 |
10584 |
| Sound Forge 4.0 (KB/sec) |
18160 |
13280 |
| Visual C++ (KB/sec) |
14580 |
8862 |
|
| Disk/Read Transfer Rate | StorageReview.com |
|---|
| Beginning (KB/sec) |
20067 |
59933 |
| End (KB/sec) |
20100 |
46633 |
|
| Disk Access Time (ms) |
14.36 |
13.46 |
|
| Disk CPU Utilization (%) |
2.85 |
3.04 |
| |
Again we face with seemingly illogical Disk Winmark scores. There's no reason why Disk Winmark scores should be so poor here, especially given the fact that both cards enjoy significantly decreased access times in RAID 01/10 (relative to a single drive). In addition, the Escalade's STR doubles in RAID 10; even so, Disk Winmark scores don't appear to reflect this.
|
|
| Benchmark |
3 Drives, RAID 5 |
|
4 Drives, RAID 5 |
| SuperTrak-100 |
Escalade 6400 |
SuperTrak-100 |
Escalade 6400 |
|
| Business Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
2542 |
2120 |
|
3998 |
2378 |
| High-End Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) |
1856 |
4792 |
9266 |
6488 |
| AVS/Express 3.4 (KB/sec) |
10018 |
13580 |
11420 |
14320 |
| FrontPage 98 (KB/sec) |
27880 |
12200 |
56760 |
12480 |
| MicroStation SE (KB/sec) |
10642 |
10644 |
13680 |
11880 |
| Photoshop 4.0 (KB/sec) |
675 |
1884 |
4148 |
1988 |
| Premiere 4.2 (KB/sec) |
1020 |
2304 |
6688 |
2522 |
| Sound Forge 4.0 (KB/sec) |
1560 |
3728 |
12520 |
4070 |
| Visual C++ (KB/sec) |
2290 |
3328 |
10060 |
3590 |
|
| Disk/Read Transfer Rate | StorageReview.com |
|---|
| Beginning (KB/sec) |
11767 |
58833 |
|
12533 |
81900 |
| End (KB/sec) |
9647 |
34933 |
10933 |
52233 |
|
| Disk Access Time (ms) |
16.48 |
15.20 |
|
16.46 |
15.30 |
|
| Disk CPU Utilization (%) |
2.85 |
3.11 |
|
2.85 |
3.10 |
| |
Much to our dismay, horrendous WinBench results continued under RAID 5. Note the Disk WinMark scores for both cards: they are not typos. With the SuperTrak, the benchmark would consistently "freeze" 39% through the High-End test for half an hour or more, only to then start up again, and eventually finish. It's certainly not typical behavior... and it's certainly something that can botch up a timed test. This behavior was repeatable on both the testbed and on another machine; we simply don't know if it's an issue with WinBench itself, or the SuperTrak. Regardless, the results are obviously not representative of performance.
With the Escalade, there was no "freeze" during the High-End test. However, the results are nonetheless obviously unrepresentative. Once again, the inaccurate results were repeatable on a separate system.
Aside from the problems with Disk Winmark scores, it's worth noting that the SuperTrak's RAID 5 access time is higher than that of a single drive configuration as well as any other supported RAID level. This is disappointing, as the SuperTrak is marketed as a RAID 5 controller.
The SuperTrak's sustained transfer rate graph is somewhat odd, but we're not sure why. The overall appearance of the graph is very consistent- the dips and peaks in STR always occur in about the same locations. The Escalade's graph is much more "normal", however.
SuperTrak vs Escalade Base IOMeter Performance...
