Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: ICH10 vs. SB750 vs. nForce Linux performance comparison

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    160

    Default

    but really whats the point of AHCI motherboard raid in windows?

    raid 0 - windows breaks on its own does it really need help?
    raid 1 - window is slow, does it need to be made slower?

    I realise my comment is not helpful, but basically I would always advice against using AHCI mobo raid in linux. If you need to dual boot then decide wether windows really needs to be raided, or prepare for some weird problems

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordmozilla View Post
    but really whats the point of AHCI motherboard raid in windows?

    raid 0 - windows breaks on its own does it really need help?
    raid 1 - window is slow, does it need to be made slower?

    I realise my comment is not helpful, but basically I would always advice against using AHCI mobo raid in linux. If you need to dual boot then decide wether windows really needs to be raided, or prepare for some weird problems
    Well raid 0 is risky no matter what type. Raid 1 has extremely little to no performance hit utilizing AHCI raid. Having said all that, running dualboot with ahci raid for years and across many systems I have yet to see any "wonkyness", even rebuilding of a raid 5 after a drive failure with a dualboot system worked fine.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    43

    Default

    So, I want to answer your question partly.

    I have some MSI Mainboard w/ ATI SB600 SB ( predecessor of SB7xx).
    While AHCI Performance is somewhat OKish, USB _REALLY_ SUCKS!
    (not only performance wise, but also it's BROKEN: USB11 webcam won't work on USB20 hub, will sometimes lock up completely, etc.)

    I'd strongly advise to get Nvidia.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    43

    Default

    On my NB, Intel chipset, my USB disk does:

    note PLvsZOD # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb1

    /dev/sdb1:
    Timing cached reads: 788 MB in 2.00 seconds = 394.13 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 84 MB in 3.05 seconds = 27.57 MB/sec

    On my desktop box, AMD SB600:

    luzifer tom # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb

    /dev/sdb:
    Timing cached reads: 6804 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3402.68 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 84 MB in 3.02 seconds = 27.82 MB/sec

    Ok, the limiting factor is probably the usb enclosure

    This is the output for the harddisk of the desktop:
    luzifer tom # hdparm -tT /dev/sda

    /dev/sda:
    Timing cached reads: 7160 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3581.56 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 324 MB in 3.01 seconds = 107.75 MB/sec

    It's some seagate HDD btw.
    Last edited by satan0rx; 09-06-2009 at 10:20 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Hello,

    After a few tests I can't recommand AMD.

    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19042

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •