November 21, 200916 yr My old setup: General Motherboard Specs: Intel P965 chipset Intel ICH8R w/ 6 SATA ports Intel 82566DC Gigabit Network Connection Onboard PCI x1, x8 (x4 electrically) and x16 slots 3 x PCI 32 bit 4 x dual-channel 533-, 667-, and 800-MHz DDR2 (max 4gb) BTX Form Factor NO PATA NO Onboard Video My setup has: Core 2 Duo E6300 3gb RAM 2 x 1.5TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 (1 is parity) 1 x 1.5TB WD Green 1 x Sans Digital MS2UT+B 2 bay RAID enclosure 2 x 320GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (acting as cache in RAID 1 in enclosure) 1gb Kingston DataTraveler 2.0 (flash) Oct 5 15:33:28 silo kernel: md: sync done. time=18609sec rate=78732K/sec General Motherboard Specs: Intel P965 chipset Intel ICH8R w/ 6 SATA ports Intel 82566DC Gigabit Network Connection Onboard PCI x1, x8 (x4 electrically) and x16 slots 3 x PCI 32 bit 4 x dual-channel 533-, 667-, and 800-MHz DDR2 (max 4gb) BTX Form Factor NO PATA NO Onboard Video My current setup has: Core 2 Duo E6300 3gb RAM 23 x 1.5TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 (1 is parity) 1 x 1.5TB WD Green 1 x Sans Digital MS2UT+B 2 bay RAID enclosure 2 x 320GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (acting as cache in RAID 1 in enclosure) 1gb Kingston DataTraveler 2.0 (flash) This is identical hw with the only change being the 1 WD Green drive migration to Seagate 7200. Nov 21 05:58:13 silo kernel: md: sync done. time=15754sec rate=93001K/sec Parity check 18% slower with 1 green drive. I really don't care much about my Parity check times since they're both in that 4-6 hour with only 3 unRaid disks. My motivation here was to improve write times to that disk of the array which I do believe are improved but do not have real data to demonstrate it. I'm migrating all of the disks to new HW today so I'll let you know what additional speeds are gained, if any, in my new setup [hopefully] today.
November 21, 200916 yr Your new parity check speed is 18% faster despite the new drive being 33% faster. I think the Green drives performed nicely. Minor nitpick, your math is off: 93001 is 18% faster than 78732, while 78732 is 16% slower than 93001. It's a matter of starting reference points (93001/78732) vs (78732/93001).
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.