Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ICH10 vs. SB750 vs. nForce Linux performance comparison

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    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

    Comment


    • #12
      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.

      Comment


      • #13
        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.

        Comment


        • #14
          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, 10:20 AM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Hello,

            After a few tests I can't recommand AMD.

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

            Comment

            Working...
            X