Jump to content

2 Sata II in a nvraid array


Recommended Posts

hi all .

I have Amd x64 3500 and A8n SLI deluxe from assus , 1.5 GB DDR 400 and X850xt PE and 2 hard SATA II 160GB . problem is i had 2 hards SATA 1 and then i replaced them with the 2 SATA II hards , both Hards were installed in an nvraid array stripe and when i checked the performance after the replacment nothing was changed , coz both benchmarks from sisoftsandra for filesystem benchmarks was giving 92 MB/S ...

is the NVRAID array effecting the SATA II ? maybe doesnt support SATA II ? ( my board support SATA II ) or maybe sata II works as sata II when not installed in an array ? even tho its Stripe ? and the cluster size was set to optimal ...

operating system XP SP2 .

here is a small brief of benchamrks :

SATA 80 + SATA 120 (NVRAID ARRAY stripe ,cluster size = optimal ) = 92mb/s sisoftsandra

SATA II 160 + SATA II 160 (NVRAID ARRAY stripe ,cluster size = optimal ) = 92mb/s sisoftsandra

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites


hi all .

I have Amd x64 3500 and A8n SLI deluxe from assus , 1.5 GB DDR 400 and X850xt PE and 2 hard SATA II 160GB . problem is i had 2 hards SATA 1 and then i replaced them with the 2 SATA II hards , both Hards were installed in an nvraid array stripe and when i checked the performance after the replacment nothing was changed , coz both benchmarks from sisoftsandra for filesystem benchmarks was giving 92 MB/S ...

is the NVRAID array effecting the SATA II ? maybe doesnt support SATA II ? ( my board support SATA II ) or maybe sata II works as sata II when not installed in an array ? even tho its Stripe ? and the cluster size was set to optimal ...

operating system XP SP2  .

here is a small brief of benchamrks :

SATA 80 + SATA 120 (NVRAID ARRAY stripe ,cluster size = optimal ) = 92mb/s sisoftsandra

SATA II 160 + SATA II 160  (NVRAID ARRAY stripe ,cluster size = optimal ) = 92mb/s sisoftsandra

Peace

S-ATA 2 wont show any performance benefit over S-ATA 1 yet. The only part of a hard drive that could possibly sustain that speed is the cache. As you can see by your first benchmark you arent even close to the 150 MB/s of S-ATA 1. The limitation isnt the interface, its the hard drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

omg r u telling me that they fooled me ? i bought sata2 coz i thought its faster and better than sata ... where is the difference between them then ? and how can i notice the difference ?

doh world tech is cheating us now ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...