Using the sample picture on my pci controller card with a 20gb Western Digital i found the write speed never went over 16/17.

here's the results

Write Read
64 - 15572 22636
128 - 15895 24732
256 - 16676 24807
512- 16659 24966
1024- 16556 25069

will this affect me if I have a scsi card installed or only if i use the scsi as my main storage mine is currently attached to a zip drive and a cf reader but I do have a lot of issues with the ide bus and never ending ide controller errors in the event log.

Gerbil #126:

The problem you are facing is not a issue with the board, but an inherent limitation within the IDE specification. Two drives on the same channel cannot use the channel at the same time. They must make alternate accesses. Copy your CD to the hard drive and then have the burner pull the image from the hard drive. That should resolve your problem.

Telfordd #127:

We've had several before and after updates on the Asus BIOS and have seen success from the beta in resolving this issue. I have to wonder if your problem may lay elsewhere. Bad cable, miss jumpered drive, defective card, BIOS bug, driver bug, etc. I'm not dismissing your claim, but the evidence is currently stacked against you.

You can see the successful results (before and after) of other Asus A7N users in post #120.

Runeve #128:

Congratulations. It seems the Asus beta BIOS has resolved your issues.

Hello Runeve or runev again, cant remember my password, but i think this is great news!

The lated beta bios from asus did somthing to my pc!
Very very good! or is it good?

Asus A7N266-C Bios 1003nc.003
Promise 100TX2, 2.20.0.24 Driver: 2.00.0.25
Windows 2000 SP2
4x40GB Maxtor D740X Harddisk drives

64k:Write: 40530 Read:97517
128:Write:43668 Read: 97779
256:Write:43905 Read:94659
512:Write:43733 Read: 96032
1024:Write:43835 Read: 96653

Picture with 003 bios
http://home.no.net/rvenes/raid/atto2.JPG

Originally Posted by telfordd
Asus A7N266-C
BIOS 1001.E / 1003.002 / 1003.003
XP 1800+
PNY 256MB DDR PC2100
ATI Radeon 7500
Maxtor / Promise ATA100 PCI Controller (Build 43)
Maxtor D740X 80GB, 7200, ATA133 on PCI Controller
Maxtor 20GB, 7200 on onboard IDE Controller
Windows 2000 Pro, SP2 (Clean Install)

I\'m not convinced that Asus has a handle on the PCI write problem with their Beta BIOS\'s.

Would like to post the ATTO results for an Asus A7N266-C, but I can\'t write a signature to the the D740X with any of the three BIOS\'s (and thus can\'t create a partition). Instead, I use Intel IOMeter to test directly to the drive. Only checked 64k writes, updating the display every 2 seconds. Tried to configure to stess the PCI bus, not the drive.

BIOS 1001.E
3.42 MB/sec

BIOS 1003.002 (beta)
19.7 MB/sec (starts at 3.4MB/s then goes to 19.7 after 15sec)

BIOS 1003.003 (beta)
19.4 MB/sec (starts at 3.4MB/s then goes to 19.4 after 15sec)

The betas seem to max out at slightly under 20MB/s. This is after some erratic increases starting at 3.4MB/s and ending at 19.4MB/s. However, from other posts, this is where MSI (and other motherboards) seem to START with their problem.

The betas seem to have other problems such as slow boot and PQDI and PQMagic won\'t run with them (but 1001.E works fine-except for the write performance). They\'re betas, but I hope they get a lot better! Currently, they\'re not even close to fixing the PCI write bottleneck.

Asus Tech Support is unaware of this issue.

Looking for a hopeful sign they will actually fix this problem, or I\'ll exchange the board for a VIA or AMD chipset.

Hi Guys,
I have an ABIT NV7-133R motherboard and going thru some problems.
Hope you can solve it.
My configuration is as follows:
AMD Athlon TBird 1400 C , 266FSB
ABTI NV7-133R
512MB PC-2100 DDR - Samsung
Maxtor 60GB 7200RPM HDD on Primary Master
Pioneer 16x DVD on Sec Master
LG 32-10-40 CDRW on Sec Slave
ATI All in Wonder 7500 64MB Video
Win 2000 with all updates
Easy CD Creator basic updated 5.3

The system works perfect except for one problem.
When you copy CD toCD , the buffer level goes down to 1% .
CD Writes OK but very slow.
I have changed three diff CDRW drives, changed diff configuration like putting drive on sec master instead of slave as well as tried cdrw on pri master. but to no avail.
MB Bios is updated.

Please help
Thanks in advance
Farooq

Looks like you have one of the Asus A7N266 boards. Apply the latest beta BIOS from Asus.

runeve...

i forgot!

win2k
promise fasttrack tx2
maxtor 7200 rpm 4x40gb raid 0 stripping

Hi

is this thread dead?

Runeve here!

http://home.no.net/rvenes/raid/atto1.JPG

Looks fucked up to me? Right?

<img src="http://home.no.net/rvenes/raid/atto1.JPG" alt="damn! loook!" />

MSI K7N420D Pro Bios 2.4
512 MB (2 DIMM, 1,3)
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus D740X (6L080L4) 80GB 7200 RPM
Windows XP Professional
Promise Ultra100 TX2 (1.43 Build 0603)

64K Write: 19972 Read: 38508
128 Write: 20020 Read: 35298
256 Write: 19972 Read: 38036
512 Write: 19972 Read: 37858
1024 Write: 20016 Read: 35675

I guess this is why PQDI takes so long to restore my system.

[quote]MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Adaptec 19160: 10,000-RPM Atlas 10kIII x 1
?
Max Writes: 17,953MB/s
Max Reads: 108,464MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Adaptec 19160: 10,000-RPM Atlas10k x 1
?
Max Writes: 17,435MB/s
Max Reads: 43,733MB/s [/quote]
Judging by the hardware mix, I'm sure these tests are AeroWB's and mine. We both use Windows 2000.

Thanks to everyone who has participated thus far. Here is a summary of results:

Abit NV7-133R, BIOS 84
Built-in HPT372, 7,200-RPM 60GXP x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 61,512MB/s
Max Reads: 112,161MB/s
Notes: System BIOS modified to include HPT372 BIOS 2.31

Abit NV7-133R, BIOS ?
Adaptec 29160: 10,000-RPM Atlas x 1
Windows 2000 SP2
Max Write: 34,779MB/s
Max Read: 96,909MB/s

Asus A7N266-C, BIOS 1003-02
Promise 100TX2, 7,200-RPM 120GXP x 1(?)
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 29,155MB/s
Max Reads: 95,650MB/s

Asus A7N266-C, BIOS 1003-01
Dawicontrol: 7,200-RPM 60GXP x 2
?
Max Writes: 51,307MB/s
Max Reads: 85,721MB/s

Asus A7N266-C, BIOS 1001.E
Promise 100TX2: 7,200-RPM 120GXP x 1(?)
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 3,300MB/s
Max Reads: 95,490MB/s

Asus A7N266-E, BIOS 1003-02
Adaptec 19160: 15,000-RPM Cheetah x 1
?
Max Write: 50,477MB/s
Max Read: 50,855MB/s

Asus A7N266-E, BIOS 1003-02
Iwill Side RAID, 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 52,428MB/s
Max Reads: 102,811MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver

Asus A7N266-E, BIOS 1003-02
Promise 133TX2: 7,200-RPM D740X x 1
Windows XP Home Edition
Max Writes: 31,304MB/s
Max Reads: 84,984MB/s

Asus A7N266-E, BIOS 1001.D
Promise 133TX2: 7,200-RPM D740X x 1
Windows XP Home Edition
Max Writes: 3,261MB/s
Max Reads: 84,822MB/s

Asus A7N266-E, BIOS 1001.B
Iwill Side RAID, 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 3,223MB/s
Max Reads: 102,515MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver

Leadtek K7N420DA, BIOS 4-19-2002
Iwill Side RAID 100: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 26,410MB/s
Max Reads: 31,968MB/s
Notes: RAID using stock XP driver

Leadtek K7N420DA, BIOS 4-19-2002
Iwill Side RAID 100: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 58,428MB/s
Max Reads: 101,743MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver

Leadtek K7N420DA, BIOS 5-30-2002
Iwill Side RAID 100: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 58,369MB/s
Max Reads: 101,483MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver

Leadtek K7N420DA, BIOS 5-30-2002
Iwill Side RAID 100: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows 2000
Max Writes: 57,608MB/s
Max Reads: 101,458MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Adaptec 2100 RAID: 15,000-RPM Cheetah x 2
Windows XP
Max Write: 17,801MB/s
Max Read: 116,624MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Adaptec 19160: 10,000-RPM Atlas III x 1
?
Max Writes: 17,953MB/s
Max Reads: 108,464MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Adaptec 19160: 10,000-RPM Atlas x 1
?
Max Writes: 17,435MB/s
Max Reads: 43,733MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Mylex AcceleRAID 170: 10,000-RPM Cheetah x 1
Windows XP
Max Write: 12,732MB/s
Max Read: 22,783

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Promise 133TX2: Quantum 30GB x 1
Windows 2000 SP2
Max Write: 19,997MB/s
Max Read: 64,267MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Promise 100TX2: Western Digital 60GB x 2
Windows XP
Max Write: 19,737
Max Read: 41,840

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Promise 100TX2: 7,200-RPM 120GXP x 2
Windows XP
Max Writes: 20,219MB/s
Max Reads: 111,254MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Promise 100TX2: 7,200-RPM 75GXP x 2
?
Max Writes: 20,095MB/s
Max Reads: 111,282MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Promise 100TX2: 7,200-RPM Barracuda IV x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Write: 19,886MB/s
Max Read: 63,123MB/s

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Iwill Side RAID: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 1,729MB/s
Max Reads: 100,964MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver: 266/266MHz FSB

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Iwill Side RAID: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows 2000
Max Writes: 1,638MB/s
Max Reads: 101,524MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver: 266/266MHz FSB

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Iwill Side RAID: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 17,476MB/s
Max Reads: 100,162MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver: 200/200MHz FSB

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.4
Iwill Side RAID: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows 2000
Max Writes: 16,748MB/s
Max Reads: 99,986MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver: 200/200MHz FSB

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.3
AMI MegaRAID 428: 10,000-RPM Atlas x 3
Windows 2000 SP2
Max Write: 4,042MB/s
Max Read: 8,398MB/s
Notes: Is this a typo?

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.3
Iwill Side RAID: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 1,565MB/s
Max Reads: 32,480MB/s
Notes: RAID using stock 2000 driver

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.3
Iwill Side RAID: 7,200-RPM D740X x 2
Windows XP Professional
Max Writes: 1,694MB/s
Max Reads: 101,021MB/s
Notes: 2.31 RAID driver

MSI K7N420 Pro, BIOS 2.3
SIIG U-66: 5,400-RPM U80020 80GB x 1
Windows ME
Max Writes: 20,164MB/s
Max Reads: 41,527MB/s

I have the oposite problem on the ASUS AZN266-VM (220D) system I built for my wife. On board IDE around 5 MB/s on channel 1, and 6 MB/s on channel 2. I put an old ATA66 card in and the Sandra marks went from 5000+ to 24000+ with a continuios read/write around 40 MB/s. Anyone have any ideas? Am I missing something?

Originally Posted by drruhe
Thank you Anonymous Gerbil #112. As I am not longer allowed to post here, just a quick note: I\'ll keep my old BIOS until a new official release, because I want to keep my more more balanced 69/93MB/s instead of your 61/112MB/s. But thank you for your effort...Julian

LeadTek K7N420 DA 5/30/2002 bios
PCB REV B
assy Rev A
256mb x 2 (512 total) Kingston value ram
system drive: c: D740X 40 GB J2 series
Iwill Side Raid 100 bios 2.31 pci slot 1 (beside agp)
Drivers 2.31.0.0
2x D740X 40GB J2 series Raid 0
Clean install of windows 2000
200MB page and file index off
default cluster size
apic enabled irq's to 22
133/267/66/33 fsb/mem/agp/pci verified with speedgear

C: drive onboard IDE
64 22896 31378
128 25435 31405
256 25381 31508
512 25336 31406
1024 25318 31384

D: Raid on pci
64 57147 91226
128 57527 90214
256 57360 101458
512 57171 100964
1024 57608 101268

I turned file indexing on/off and set the timing to 100/200/66/33 and there was about 1% difference so I won't waste space here with detailed results.

Originally Posted by cement
Abit NV7-133r, BIOS nv784
Highpoint 372, 2.0.1019.0
Win XP

C: ibm 45gxp 10G os partition
64 25 28
128 22 27
256 27 24
512 24 27
1024 26 27

D: ibm 20G ntfs
64 23 31
128-1024 27 32

single drives through raid controller:
E: maxtor
64 36 36
256+ 39 36

F: maxtor
64 31 32
128 31 30
256+ 31 33

I don\'t see anything to complain about here. Fast enough that I don\'t need a raid.

Make sure you aren't using Seagate Baracuda's, otherwise the problem you think you have, is not the problem you actually have.

And don't forget to RMA your IDE Seagate Baracuda's if you are using them in RAID-0 or make sure if you purchase them, that the retailer guarantees that they will work up to spec in IDE RAID config, otherwise you will wonder why your 7200rpm drives in RAID-0 are slower than a single 5400 rpm drive of a smaller capacity.

MSI K7N420D PRO ver 1.0 bios 2.4
256mb x 2 (512 total) Kingston value ram
system drive: c: D740X 40 GB J2 series
Iwill Side Raid 100 bios 2.31 pci slot 2
drivers 2.31.0.0
2x D740X 40GB J2 series Raid 0
Windows 2000 (5.00.2195) page file 200MB
clean install with drivers from MB disk with no updates
default cluster size
apic enabled irq's to 22
133/266 cpu/mem
xp 1800+

c: onboard ide
64 25427 30962
128 24793 31483
256 29112 31508
512 25336 31406
1024 29127 31530

D: raid on pci
64 1631 90177
128 1628 89429
256 1615 101196
512 1638 101483
1024 1617 101524

them are not typos

timing changed to 100/200 cpu/mem

c: onboard ide
64 23502 20403
128 26860 31483
256 28970 31431
512 26905 30738
1024 28793 31359

D: raid on pci
64 16746 91226
128 16664 90214
256 15924 99913
512 16748 99926
1024 16676 99986

MSI K7N420D PRO ver 1.0 bios 2.3
256mb x 2 (512 total) Kingston value ram
system drive: c: D740X 40 GB J2 series
(this drive has been a j2 series the whole time
I missread the label)
Iwill Side Raid 100 bios 2.31 pci slot 2
drivers default from M$
2x D740X 40GB J2 series Raid 0
windows XP pro with performance settings,system restore off, file indexing off, and page file off
clean install with drivers from MB disk with no updates
default cluster size
apic enabled irq's to 22
133/266 cpu/mem
xp 1800+

c: onboard ide
64 28621 31145
128 25826 60029
256 31021 31431
512 31330 31482
1024 31311 31384

D: raid on pci
64 1551 30626
128 1553 30626
256 1565 32480
512 1562 32437
1024 1554 31797

them are not typos they mean 1551 etc.

Raid drivers updated to 2.31.0.0

c: onboard ide
64 30702 36336
128 28855 39970
256 30916 31173
512 30320 32068
1024 28884 30029

D: raid on pci
64 1687 91521
128 1694 91847
256 1688 100694
512 1657 100983
1024 1676 101021

Bios Updated to 2.4
timing changed to 100/200 like always after flash

c: onboard ide
64 29328 29069
128 25435 58740
256 30690 31277
512 29994 31482
1024 29685 30654

D: raid on pci
64 17304 88906
128 17391 89429
256 17434 100162
512 17476 99950
1024 17438 99742

Bios 2.4
timing changed to 133/266/66 like always after flash

c: onboard ide
64 25695 29661
128 25826 84712
256 30765 31277
512 31180 31078
1024 30372 31384

D: raid on pci
64 1729 90737
128 1684 91067
256 1679 100964
512 1678 100725
1024 1681 100509

This is my Nforce Xperience the pci write transfer is like this always when the timing is 133/266 when it is 100/200 I get about 20MB/s Surely I am not alone.

I have w2k ready... more testing.

Gerbil #99 here again:

Re-ran the tests with 256k, 64k, and .5k Total Lengths. Write speed never exceeded 62XXX

MODDING the NV7-133R BIOS's HPT372 BIOS ENTRY:

Download CBROM V2.07 from Binary’s BIOS Mods:
http://www.biosmods.com/download.php

Download the latest NV7 BIOS from Abit:
http://www.abit.com.tw/abitweb/webjsp/english/download_content.jsp?...

Download the latest HighPoint 372 BIOS and drivers from HighPoint Technologies:
http://www.highpoint-tech.com/372drivers_down.htm
(the HighPoint driver package includes a folder named BIOS which contains the BIOS matching the driver release)

Copy the CBROM files, NV7 BIOS files, and HighPoint 372 BIOS file to the same folder.

To update the PCI driver:

cbrom <input/output file> /PCI <pci bios file>

Then use “cbrom /d” to verify that the new HPT bios is listed.

I learned how to do this from Binary's BIOS MODS and Paul's Unofficial KT7(A) FAQ

Draw your own conclusions from this thread. However, from what I've read I'd say that there was/is an issue with write performance on the PCI bus with the nForce, however this is likely a BIOS issue not an OS or hardware issue. I could be wrong, but I don't think this is a "686" type of problem.

[q]These things may be outside the scope of this article however, perhaps the Author can suggest another place to discuss them?[/q]

If you would like to show some burst results using a even smaller file size than 1MB here, you may. For most people 1MB will be fine (as most modern drives have a 2MB buffer.) Please remember to denote any variance from the control set by the news piece.

I also don't have a problem with you sharing the modified HPT372 BIOS with him.

If you aren't comfortable doing that here, the "Processors, Chipsets, & Motherboards" or "Storage" section of our forums would be a good place.

http://www.tech-report.com/forums/

Originally Posted by drruhe
Ryu:
Don\'t be afraid. This is my last posting here. You were going public with your personal opinion about me, although you have my email ddress - I do the same:

> I received your results, but you obtained them through two
>instances of ATTO on two different drives. I have to assume they
>both tested simultaneously, nonetheless I\'m leary of those results
>because of various factors that could influence two seperate
>threads trying to operate at the same time.

The only sideffect could be that the results are a little bit LOWER. Both ATTOs operate on different HD. Besides, these are not threads, these are processes, sharing nothing except the Highpoint controller and PCI bus.

> I\'m going to be blunt with you, because I\'m at that point. You
>have tried to hijack this thread from the first moment you posted
> and it\'s time for it to stop.

Instead of being lucky, that the couple of guys here are trying various methods to test their boards, you complain about me. Fine, buy all kinds of boards and test them for your own and don\'t open a public thread for this topic. Don\'t understand me wrong: I don\'t need to spend time for this issue because the PCI performance my board delivers is OK for. I don\'t need to spend time to write in a foreign language that makes more work than my native language. You need people like us, we don\'t need you...

>You\'ve complained about the method,
>the reasons for the method, and the results from square one.
> This has really begun to upset me, because you for one don\'t
>fully grasp the technical details and for two you apparently have
>not read the news post that preceeds these comments.

My only fault was, that I did not see that it is possible to set ATTOs dataset size to something lower than 4MB. I don\'t comment the stuff with the \"techical details\". I only say that I am a professional software developer (part time), my special field is assembly optimization and that I have ~10 years experience in assembling PCs, my friend. What are your skills?

>How am I supposed to take you seriously when I see you behave
> in this fashion? The result you e-mailed to me were not only
>configured wrong; insinuating you never looked at the picture. On
> top of tat you appear to insinuate that the benchmark is broke
>because it always has slower writes than reads. When in fact
>that behavior is determined by the drive, not the benchmark and I
>had already provided an example of a drive that could write faster
> than read.

Although it is a fact, that both of my HDs deliver equal read/write performance (as most modern drives), ATTO does not show equal read/write performance on both controllers, buildin and Highpoint. I had to express it more precisely: \"Under the condition, that nothing is cached, ATTO delivers lower write than read performance in any case, which is a bug\". Your mentioned graph shows only the effect of write caching. No IDE drive is able to write 90MB/s uncached. In your test description, nowhere is written to set the dataset size lower - your fault, because it is not obvious not to use the default setting. Your test description is unclear and faulty....

> Not only does it further confirm that you didn\'t fully read my news >post and did not look at my configured example. It also shows >that you do not understand that the kind of testing we needed >done was burst testing. That we needed to push the PCI bus to >the max. Something I tried to convey to you in post #88 when I >asked for single burst results.

Indeed I did not recognize that I could the dataset size smaller in ATTO. I was curious, how you wanted me to get bust results. Instead I decided to run to instances of ATTO, which should be enough to get at least 70MB/s, enough to show that on Abit NV7-133R is not limited at ~20MB/s

>I understand that you are anxious. I understand that you\'ve >invested in a board that you feel is fantastic and that I am >presenting a story and results that might put a dent in that >perfection. This thread is not the place for unrelenting dedication >to the nForce platform or a particular nForce implementation. >This thread is to find a bug and then for us to be able to fix that >bug for you and for everyone else. It is not meant to be pretty or >happy, it is simply the plain ugly truth.

I am not a child that is happy about his Computer and gets angry if somebody says something against is. I own a couple of PCs, equipped with various chipsets. What I usually do with them is programming. I don\'t care about a couple of percent more or less performance, all I need is stability an good performance.

>Contrary to popular belief, I know what I am doing.

Maybe, and I also. The difference is: I try to do it quickly while you are being slow and you are ignorant to some degree.

Bye

Julian

h

Anonymous Gerbil #98 and 99 here:

drruhe, I will re-run tests with what you've requested this evening. I've got to run errands this afternoon. I modified the BIOS myself using CBROM. I'll find and post a link later and also some NV7 & HPT particular instructions.

These things may be outside the scope of this article however, perhaps the Author can suggest another place to discuss them?

Be back around 7pm EST.

Anonymous Gerbil 99

I'll register for a real nick tonight as well.

drruhe:

I'm begining to think that there is some communication difficulties.

I received your results, but you obtained them through two instances of ATTO on two different drives. I have to assume they both tested simultaneously, nonetheless I'm leary of those results because of various factors that could influence two seperate threads trying to operate at the same time. To speak nothing of the fact that the test were configured incorrectly. Nonetheless, Gerbil #98 proved what you had been trying to show. He provided the results I needed. Albeit I still need more results.

I'm going to be blunt with you, because I'm at that point. You have tried to hijack this thread from the first moment you posted and it's time for it to stop. You've complained about the method, the reasons for the method, and the results from square one. This has really begun to upset me, because you for one don't fully grasp the technical details and for two you apparently have not read the news post that preceeds these comments.

For example:

[q]In any case it reports lower wrinting than reading performance on bot raid and buildin IDE ports.[/q]

It does, does it?

From the news post above:

[q][i]. Here is an example of a WDJB100B drive's results using the appropriate test settings (I was using the south bridge chip's controller here, so write performance is fine in the example).[/q][/i]

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2002q2/example.gif

You'll notice that I referenced a picture with the test results I wanted and even showed you a drive on the on-board controller that scores higher writes than reads.

How am I supposed to take you seriously when I see you behave in this fashion? The result you e-mailed to me were not only configured wrong; insinuating you never looked at the picture. On top of that you appear to insinuate that the benchmark is broke because it always has slower writes than reads. When in fact that behavior is determined by the drive, not the benchmark and I had already provided an example of a drive that could write faster than read.

But what really put the nail in the coffin was this:

[q]The previous poster, Anonymous Gerbil , reports 112MB/s reading performance. This is a clearly wrong results, because each IBM 60GXP=IC35L020AVER is only capably to read/write with 36MB/s at the beginning of the disk. So 72MB/s is the best result a raid array could achieve here. In this case, the writing performance seems to be OK for these disks - minus the ATTO penalty.[/q]

Not only does it further confirm that you didn't fully read my news post and did not look at my configured example. It also shows that you do not understand that the kind of testing we needed done was burst testing. That we needed to push the PCI bus to the max. Something I tried to convey to you in post #88 when I asked for single burst results.

I understand that you are anxious. I understand that you've invested in a board that you feel is fantastic and that I am presenting a story and results that might put a dent in that perfection. This thread is not the place for unrelenting dedication to the nForce platform or a particular nForce implementation. This thread is to find a bug and then for us to be able to fix that bug for you and for everyone else. It is not meant to be pretty or happy, it is simply the plain ugly truth.

Contrary to popular belief, I know what I am doing. You have provided your results and your opinion. I appreciate the results and respect your opinion. It is now time for you to be a silent observer and let the TR staff and me deal with the issue.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by drruhe
Damn, write caching works. Thank you Doc OC, that you reminded me that we were measuring bursts.
When I use the data set to 256/512KB I get indeed cached performance!!!! It is equal on both on my HDs
~68MB/s write, 93MB/s read
And the bad thing is, that I get not higher values when running two instances of ATTO, benching both Highpoint #1 and Highpoint #2 simultaneously - Danm.
This means, that my Abit NV7-133R can\'t exceed 68/93 MB/s, which is still not phenomenal. Questions for me are:
(1) Is this a PCI raid adapter issue only
(2) Is this WinXP related

But I must say, I can live with these values. I am going to iterate the test with PCI latancy of 64. Seems to be that ATTO is good enough to test burst performance - excuse me ATTO.

Anonymous Gerbil :
Where can I get the modified AV7-133R bios?
Please run your tests again with a dataset smaller than 1024KB. 1024KB does not give me full burst performance on writing. ATTO reports best burst-write performance with datasets <1024KB on my machine. Thank you

Julian

It would beg the question now that we have seemed to have Identifed some good Nforce PCI boards, what would the atto Write numbers look like on those same boards with W2K?

Since the low write numbers might be a symptom of the XP SCSI problem.

Is the Write cache an Atto problem or an XP Problem?

I think sustained writes at 60MB/s are good for two IDE drives, and don't know if the write not bursting over 60 is a problem or a measurement anomally.

Originally Posted by drruhe
Doc OC:

Sorry - did not see the 1MB, thought it was default 4MB.
But it seems that write caching does not work with ATTO, and this is what we testing, don\'t we?

Julian

Originally Posted by drruhe
>while I was writing my test :-)

...TEXT... of course

[quote]The previous poster, Anonymous Gerbil , reports 112MB/s reading performance. This is a clearly wrong results, because each IBM 60GXP=IC35L020AVER is only capably to read/write with 36MB/s at the beginning of the disk. [/quote]
You're overlooking the fact that the 1MB test pattern fits in the HDD's cache memory. It's the reason we chose 1MB and not a larger pattern. Remember that it's not harddrives we're testing, it's the PCI bus.

Originally Posted by drruhe
(1) I see, that Anonymous Gerbil has corrected his benchmark while I was writing my test :-)
(2) If someone is interested to see my screeshot: Please copy the whole email address because the forum has cut a part of my address
(3) Yes, Anonymous Gerbil, the Abit NV7-133R is not affected by the issue. Seems to become an MSI issue only...

Julian