• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

RAID transfer SLOOOW

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,520 (4.81/day)
Likes
5,600
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
#26
Code:
 - Disk: #0: WDC WD1600BEVS-00RST0 --

    Hard Disk Summary
   -------------------
    Hard Disk Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0
    Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel RAID #0/0 [11/0 (0)]
    Hard Disk Model ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : WDC WD1600BEVS-00RST0
    Firmware Revision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 04.01G04
    Hard Disk Serial Number  . . . . . . . . . . . . : WD-WXE107092151
    Total Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 152627 MB
    Power State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Active
    Logical Drive(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : C: []
    Current Temperature  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 26 °C
    Power On Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1650 days, 1 hours
    Estimated Remaining Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . : 9 days
    Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : #------------------- 9 % (Critical)
    Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : #################### 100 % (Excellent)

    There are 129 bad sectors on the disk surface. The contents of these sectors were moved to the spare area.
    Based on the number of remapping operations, the bad sectors may form continuous areas.
    Problems occurred between the communication of the disk and the host 450 times.
    In case of sudden system crash, reboot, blue-screen-of-death, inaccessible file(s)/folder(s), it is recommended to verify data and power cables, connections - and if possible try different cables to prevent further problems.
    More information: http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_case_communication_error.php
    It is recommended to examine the log of the disk regularly. All new problems found will be logged there.
      It is recommended to backup immediately to prevent data loss.
You say it drops down to ~40MB/s? Would it be a coincidence that the maximum transfer rate for your C: drive which might be in crisis is matching the speed you're seeing?
Code:
    Maximum Transfer Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 41475 KB/s
The winning question: Is your swap file on the C: drive? Poor swap performance can impact copy speeds.

Better question: Is your C: drive about to die?
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
383 (0.42/day)
Likes
249
#27
I have tried both PCIe slots, and yeah I realized the end slot is 100MHz. It's currently in the third slot (tried both).

Code:
 - Disk: #0: WDC WD1600BEVS-00RST0 --

    Hard Disk Summary
   -------------------
    Hard Disk Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0
    Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel RAID #0/0 [11/0 (0)]
    Hard Disk Model ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : WDC WD1600BEVS-00RST0
    Firmware Revision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 04.01G04
    Hard Disk Serial Number  . . . . . . . . . . . . : WD-WXE107092151
    Total Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 152627 MB
    Power State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Active
    Logical Drive(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : C: []
    Current Temperature  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 26 °C
    Power On Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1650 days, 1 hours
    Estimated Remaining Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . : 9 days
    Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : #------------------- 9 % (Critical)
    Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : #################### 100 % (Excellent)

    There are 129 bad sectors on the disk surface. The contents of these sectors were moved to the spare area.
    Based on the number of remapping operations, the bad sectors may form continuous areas.
    Problems occurred between the communication of the disk and the host 450 times.
    In case of sudden system crash, reboot, blue-screen-of-death, inaccessible file(s)/folder(s), it is recommended to verify data and power cables, connections - and if possible try different cables to prevent further problems.
    More information: http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_case_communication_error.php
    It is recommended to examine the log of the disk regularly. All new problems found will be logged there.
      It is recommended to backup immediately to prevent data loss.
You say it drops down to ~40MB/s? Would it be a coincidence that the maximum transfer rate for your C: drive which might be in crisis is matching the speed you're seeing?
Code:
    Maximum Transfer Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 41475 KB/s
The winning question: Is your swap file on the C: drive? Poor swap performance can impact copy speeds.

Better question: Is your C: drive about to die?
C: is a pair of drives in RAID1. Yes one of the drives is growing a bad patch. They are going to be replaced.

I may buy that, but why do some folders transfer at full speed? Isn't the /J switch supposed to bypass the OS buffer? And the C: drives are only SATA1, so if it's transferring to the swap first, I should never see any transfer between the two arrays greater than half that interface.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,520 (4.81/day)
Likes
5,600
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
#28
Try disabling your swap file or moving it to the fastest array you have.

It may be the case that just enough is getting cached to hit the swap file, more than what you have for available system memory on that machine. You can use the resource monitor to look for swap activity and see if it matches when it slows down.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
818 (0.17/day)
Likes
468
System Name $computer$
Processor Core i7 4790K @ 4.4Ghz
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 5
Cooling Alpenföhne Broken 120 + 2 huge coolermaster chassis fans
Memory 2x8GB DDR3 2133Mhz Crucial Ballistix
Video Card(s) Geforce GTX 1080
Storage 2x60gb Kingston SSDnow 320 / 1x120gb Crucial SSD C300 / 1 WD caviar black 1tb
Display(s) 40" Samsung UE40ES5500
Case Cooler Master HAF932
Audio Device(s) onboard realtek audio
Power Supply Corsair AX1200
Mouse Microsoft intellimouse optical
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/vmb641
#29
It would be extremely dissapointing to have that much RAM and be tied to the inferior performances of some disk swapping....the performance monitoring on earlier screenshots suggested that the system used 9-10Gb RAM max at any given time.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
383 (0.42/day)
Likes
249
#30
Disabled the swap file, no change.. (yes I rebooted)

System is only using about 4GB.. I even checked during an Explorer copy and it didn't chew it all up like it's buffering...


 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,520 (4.81/day)
Likes
5,600
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
#31
According to the report you uploaded it says:
Code:
  -- Partition Information --

Logical Drive                           Total Space         Free Space          Free Space               Used Space
C: (Disk: #0-1)                         148.7 GB            77.1 GB              52 %                    #########-----------
D: RAID-5 (Disk: #11-12-13-14)          5587.9 GB           29.4 GB               1 % (Low)              ###################-
G: RAID-6 (Disk: #3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10)     11174.9 GB          11148.6 GB          100 %                    --------------------
I: TeraDrive (Disk: #2)                 931.5 GB            8.0 GB                1 % (Low)              ###################-
If the RAID-5 disk is that filled up, is it possible that fragmented data is making it hard to get good read speeds? I'm just guessing at this point. I'm not really sure what's going on but, the RAID-5 array being practically full stood out to me.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
383 (0.42/day)
Likes
249
#32
I don't see how that could be, since stuff is written once and rarely deleted. It may have some fragmented parts but I cant imagine it being that bad.
 

OneMoar

There is Always Moar
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,420 (2.61/day)
Likes
4,022
Location
Rochester area
System Name Kreij Lives On
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz 1.32V
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87
Cooling Reeven Okeanos Single 140MM Fan +2 SP120 White's
Memory 16GB kingston hyper x @ 2133 @ 11 11 11 32
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 ACX Copper Single fan
Storage 240gb Cruical MX200SSD/WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S24D300/HP2071D
Case Custom Full Aluminum By ST.o.CH <3
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply HX 750i
Mouse Roccat KONE
Keyboard Rocatt ISKU with ISKUFX keycaps
Software Windows 10 +startisback
#33
did you turn off write-cache buffer flushing in the device manger for all the drives ?

you absolutely need todo that with RAID 5
 

OneMoar

There is Always Moar
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,420 (2.61/day)
Likes
4,022
Location
Rochester area
System Name Kreij Lives On
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz 1.32V
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87
Cooling Reeven Okeanos Single 140MM Fan +2 SP120 White's
Memory 16GB kingston hyper x @ 2133 @ 11 11 11 32
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 ACX Copper Single fan
Storage 240gb Cruical MX200SSD/WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S24D300/HP2071D
Case Custom Full Aluminum By ST.o.CH <3
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply HX 750i
Mouse Roccat KONE
Keyboard Rocatt ISKU with ISKUFX keycaps
Software Windows 10 +startisback
#35
What about RAID 6? The 5 array is only going to be reads.
write cache buffer flushing needs to be off with any RAID setup that has raid card
the card manages buffer control having it enabled in windows is known to murder speeds

the exception two this is a two or four drive raid 0

the reason it hurts is because it effectively makes the write buffer flush twice because the RAID card is acting as Drive-cache
on a multi-drive raid or a high level array it kills
 

OneMoar

There is Always Moar
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,420 (2.61/day)
Likes
4,022
Location
Rochester area
System Name Kreij Lives On
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz 1.32V
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87
Cooling Reeven Okeanos Single 140MM Fan +2 SP120 White's
Memory 16GB kingston hyper x @ 2133 @ 11 11 11 32
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 ACX Copper Single fan
Storage 240gb Cruical MX200SSD/WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S24D300/HP2071D
Case Custom Full Aluminum By ST.o.CH <3
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply HX 750i
Mouse Roccat KONE
Keyboard Rocatt ISKU with ISKUFX keycaps
Software Windows 10 +startisback
#37
try turning write caching all the way off
 

OneMoar

There is Always Moar
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,420 (2.61/day)
Likes
4,022
Location
Rochester area
System Name Kreij Lives On
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz 1.32V
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87
Cooling Reeven Okeanos Single 140MM Fan +2 SP120 White's
Memory 16GB kingston hyper x @ 2133 @ 11 11 11 32
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 ACX Copper Single fan
Storage 240gb Cruical MX200SSD/WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S24D300/HP2071D
Case Custom Full Aluminum By ST.o.CH <3
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply HX 750i
Mouse Roccat KONE
Keyboard Rocatt ISKU with ISKUFX keycaps
Software Windows 10 +startisback
#39
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
383 (0.42/day)
Likes
249
#40
Sigh.... I thought I had this issue beat. I didn't change anything else at this point, I rathered do yardwork lol.. Rebooted the machine and tried copying folders one at a time.. Got full speed. Over 200MB/S consistently. So I tried doing a mass move, about 15 folders. First four (about 40GB, including tiny .jpg files) blazed through - hitting over 300MB/S at the seond peak. Then it hit a wall and dropped like a rock. So seriously.. Please... Somebody must know what in the F*&K is going on here?




edit:

It seems to be all over the place at this point.. No consistency in the speed whatsoever..



Edit again...

It almost seems like it has to do with the files themselves. I don't mean the big vs small files because it is always during the media itself. I mean one movie file seems to transfer a lot faster than another.. They are all .mkv, but it shouldn't matter because bits are bits as far as copying, right? Because when it got to this file, look what happened...

 
Last edited:

OneMoar

There is Always Moar
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,420 (2.61/day)
Likes
4,022
Location
Rochester area
System Name Kreij Lives On
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz 1.32V
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87
Cooling Reeven Okeanos Single 140MM Fan +2 SP120 White's
Memory 16GB kingston hyper x @ 2133 @ 11 11 11 32
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 ACX Copper Single fan
Storage 240gb Cruical MX200SSD/WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S24D300/HP2071D
Case Custom Full Aluminum By ST.o.CH <3
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply HX 750i
Mouse Roccat KONE
Keyboard Rocatt ISKU with ISKUFX keycaps
Software Windows 10 +startisback
#41
fragmentation ? did you change any of the caching settings with megacli64 ?

you could also have a drive or a card not playing nice / going out

sadly at this stage I think you may be looking at a array rebuild (again)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
383 (0.42/day)
Likes
249
#42
fragmentation ? did you change any of the caching settings with megacli64 ?

you could also have a drive or a card not playing nice / going out

sadly at this stage I think you may be looking at a array rebuild (again)
I don't see what settings I could change with MegaCLI that would make any difference.. It's got a BBU and it is already set to Write Back. I did that through the option rom bios when I set up the array. It's not an SSD array so setting it to Write Through is only going to hurt performance. Already been to that movie with the old card before I had the BBU for it.

The two RAID cards are the only cards in the machine - and they are on two completely different buses. The old card is PCI-X and the new one is PCIe.

I have rebuilt that array about 36 times already with different settings/formatting. What good would doing it again do?

Seriously I'm not shitting on you because I appreciate the help but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
9,976 (2.24/day)
Likes
2,337
System Name MoFo 2
Processor AMD PhenomII 1100T @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair IV
Cooling Swiftec 655 pump, Apogee GT,, MCR360mm Rad, 1/2 loop.
Memory 8GB DDR3-2133 @ 1900 8.9.9.24 1T
Video Card(s) HD7970 1250/1750
Storage Agility 3 SSD 6TB RAID 0 on RAID Card
Display(s) 46" 1080P Toshiba LCD
Case Rosewill R6A34-BK modded (thanks to MKmods)
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Power Supply 750W PC Power & Cooling modded (thanks to MKmods)
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
#43
Last edited:

OneMoar

There is Always Moar
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,420 (2.61/day)
Likes
4,022
Location
Rochester area
System Name Kreij Lives On
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz 1.32V
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87
Cooling Reeven Okeanos Single 140MM Fan +2 SP120 White's
Memory 16GB kingston hyper x @ 2133 @ 11 11 11 32
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 ACX Copper Single fan
Storage 240gb Cruical MX200SSD/WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S24D300/HP2071D
Case Custom Full Aluminum By ST.o.CH <3
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply HX 750i
Mouse Roccat KONE
Keyboard Rocatt ISKU with ISKUFX keycaps
Software Windows 10 +startisback
#44
I don't see what settings I could change with MegaCLI that would make any difference.. It's got a BBU and it is already set to Write Back. I did that through the option rom bios when I set up the array. It's not an SSD array so setting it to Write Through is only going to hurt performance. Already been to that movie with the old card before I had the BBU for it.

The two RAID cards are the only cards in the machine - and they are on two completely different buses. The old card is PCI-X and the new one is PCIe.

I have rebuilt that array about 36 times already with different settings/formatting. What good would doing it again do?

Seriously I'm not shitting on you because I appreciate the help but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
did you try write-though mode write-back is slower then write through in some cases when using large amounts of cache

is the board peg-lane throttling the cards is the pci-e power management disabled ?

do you have enough pci-e lanes to keep the cards fed

that board is pretty old it might be done to not having enough pci-e bandwith or it could just be one of the drives performing below-par and holding things up
 
Last edited:

zwing688

New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
1 (0.01/day)
Likes
1
#45
I signed up after reading this thread because I am experiencing huge write speed drops with Adaptec 71605 controller under Windows10.

CPU: Intel i7-3930K ; 32GB RAM ; Adaptec 71605 (without BBU) Firmware 32106 and drivers v7.5.0.52013 ; 8 WD Black 2.5" 750GB WD7500BPKX hard disks with available space set as 750GB RAID-50 boot then 1800GB RAID-6 and 1638GB RAID-6 ; Windows 10 x64 1607 14393.1378

Under Windows7SP1 and Linux I saw no speed drops in writing operations.

With Windows10 there must be some bugs with RAID controllers then that the writing slows down.. OS write cache completely broken for RAID ? And reading here it seems that Windows Server versions are affected too then. All known Microsoft spyware/malware stuff has been disabled with DoNotSpy10

Reading files from RAID partitions it's always fast .. although no more than 160MB/s in Windows10 anyway, higher in Windows7.
Writing files on RAID partitions it starts fast in the 120MB/s range then it drops down to 10MByte/s or 20MByte/s. It always happens after 4GBytes (regardless of huge files like 10GB+ or a bunch of small files for more than 4GB in size overall).
Using ExtremCopy Free utility I managed to get sustained 70MB/s writing speed on RAID partitions. It doesn't use the Windows OS writing cache calls but its own.
The problem is with all programs using Windows writing cache and so slowing down a lot. The system is way slower than under Windows7 or Linux anyway.
None of the Windows10 monthly updates (manually installed from Microsoft Catalog) so far fixed the issues.

I sent a report to Adaptec support about this issues. I hope they will be able fix it with Microsoft and other RAID controllers manufacturers quickly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
818 (0.17/day)
Likes
468
System Name $computer$
Processor Core i7 4790K @ 4.4Ghz
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 5
Cooling Alpenföhne Broken 120 + 2 huge coolermaster chassis fans
Memory 2x8GB DDR3 2133Mhz Crucial Ballistix
Video Card(s) Geforce GTX 1080
Storage 2x60gb Kingston SSDnow 320 / 1x120gb Crucial SSD C300 / 1 WD caviar black 1tb
Display(s) 40" Samsung UE40ES5500
Case Cooler Master HAF932
Audio Device(s) onboard realtek audio
Power Supply Corsair AX1200
Mouse Microsoft intellimouse optical
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/vmb641
#46
Good point, zwing688.

After having my files server for years on Microsoft OSes ( Windows 7, then Windows 2012R2 and ultimately on Windows 10) i moved to Ubuntu Mate Zeisty mostly because i randomly experienced things i couldn't pinpoint, explain, or reproduce at will.

Don't get me wrong, it worked remarkably well most of time, but on some occasions i ran into inexplicable slow downs like the ones @taz420nj and @zwing688 688 describded.

So far i've had no complaints about transfer speed to/from my arrays.

It would be interesting to boot from a live linux media, and do a couples transfers from your old array to the new one. Any recent distros most likely have native support for the Perc H700 and the older LSI 9550 raid adapters.

You would probably not get the highest speed possible out of them, because both arrays have been formatted as NTFS/ReFS and the ntfs-3g implementation on linux is not as efficient as the native NTFS support on Microsoft OSes, but you should witness some stable, consistent speed transfers, which could indicate that there's something wrong with the OS itself.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
383 (0.42/day)
Likes
249
#47
I'm thinking it probably is fragmentation of the data like @OneMoar and @Aquinus said.. How that happens when you basically copy once and rarely delete, Im not sure but I started defrag and it said (even though it is set to defrag automatically - which it obviously isn't) that Drive D was 48% fragmented. It is now 63% done with pass 6.. It has been running for 6 solid days. I should've just let it copy at the shit speed, it would've been done by now lol - minus the god awful thrashing it's been putting on the drives.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
818 (0.17/day)
Likes
468
System Name $computer$
Processor Core i7 4790K @ 4.4Ghz
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 5
Cooling Alpenföhne Broken 120 + 2 huge coolermaster chassis fans
Memory 2x8GB DDR3 2133Mhz Crucial Ballistix
Video Card(s) Geforce GTX 1080
Storage 2x60gb Kingston SSDnow 320 / 1x120gb Crucial SSD C300 / 1 WD caviar black 1tb
Display(s) 40" Samsung UE40ES5500
Case Cooler Master HAF932
Audio Device(s) onboard realtek audio
Power Supply Corsair AX1200
Mouse Microsoft intellimouse optical
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/vmb641
#48
it would've been done by now lol - minus the god awful thrashing it's been putting on the drives.
i would have done the same thing, it's over only when everything has been tried at least once. But 6 day is overkill !
 
Last edited:

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,520 (4.81/day)
Likes
5,600
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
#49
I'm thinking it probably is fragmentation of the data like @OneMoar and @Aquinus said.. How that happens when you basically copy once and rarely delete, Im not sure but I started defrag and it said (even though it is set to defrag automatically - which it obviously isn't) that Drive D was 48% fragmented. It is now 63% done with pass 6.. It has been running for 6 solid days. I should've just let it copy at the shit speed, it would've been done by now lol - minus the god awful thrashing it's been putting on the drives.
It may not be fragmentation depending on what you're copying. I know that with sequential read/write, my RAID-5 is pretty fast but, small files will kill throughput. I wouldn't be surprised if the jumps in write speed are directly related to when larger files are being copied. For example, you would likely see higher write speeds copying one 4GB file versus 40 x 100Mb files and probably gets even worse if you go down to 400 x 10MB files because of the nature of random reads on rotation media drives which would mimic the kinds of things you would see when large files get fragmented. Technologies like NCQ try to mitigate these problems by efficently figuring out where the read/write head needs to be for a number of buffered operations but, the reality is that HDDs suck at these kinds of workload and RAID tends to harm performance for random reads and writes.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
383 (0.42/day)
Likes
249
#50
It may not be fragmentation depending on what you're copying. I know that with sequential read/write, my RAID-5 is pretty fast but, small files will kill throughput. I wouldn't be surprised if the jumps in write speed are directly related to when larger files are being copied. For example, you would likely see higher write speeds copying one 4GB file versus 40 x 100Mb files and probably gets even worse if you go down to 400 x 10MB files because of the nature of random reads on rotation media drives which would mimic the kinds of things you would see when large files get fragmented. Technologies like NCQ try to mitigate these problems by efficently figuring out where the read/write head needs to be for a number of buffered operations but, the reality is that HDDs suck at these kinds of workload and RAID tends to harm performance for random reads and writes.
It's not. As you can see above there were a few times when the speed jumped, but it does not in any way correlate to just "big" files. The first set of peaks were four folders - each with a single 8-10GB MKV,15-20 jpgs, and an XML - which transferrred between 200 and 300MB/s. Then it was 45-100MB/s shit for the next 10 folders (of the same makeup), then the last folder spiked to almost 350MB/s. The tiny files in each folder transfer pretty much instantly, then the MKV.