Author Topic: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX  (Read 9484 times)

Offline johnodon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • No Roger, no Rerun, no rent!
WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« on: September 04, 2012, 09:56:56 AM »
Hoping someone can help me with a small mystery...

I currently have 8 drives...parity + 6 data + cache.  My data drives are a mixed lot:

1x WDC_WD20EADS
2x WDC_WD20EARS
1x SAMSUNG_HD204UI
1x WDC_WD15EADS
1x WDC_WD20EARX

The way I understand it is that the EADS/EARS are 2nd generation SATA II drives and the EARX is a 3rd generation SATA III drives.  I decied to perform a little write speed test to each disk share to take the cache drive out of the equation and this is what I saw:

WDC_WD20EADS  ---  26MB/s
WDC_WD20EARS  ---  30MB/s
SAMSUNG_HD204UI -- 33MB/s
WDC_WD15EADS ----- 26MB/s
WDC_WD20EARX  ----  15MB/s

Can anyone tell me why the EARX is so slow compared to the rest?  Since these drives are a newer generation I assumed that they should be as fast or maybe even faster.  Is this a known issue?  Are the drive just manufactured that way (cost cutting)?  I just added the EARX drive a few weeks ago so it has ~1.6TB of available space.  I can't imagine that would be an issue but figured I would throw it out there.

TIA!

John
Version:  v6b10a (PXE booting in ESXi v5.5)
Case:  Norco RPC-4220
Motherboard:  SuperMicro X8DTH-iF
Processor:  2x Xeon E5530 @2.40GHz
Memory:  48GB PC10600R (1GB for unRAID)
Controllers:  2x AOC-SASLP-MV8
PSU:  SeaSonic X850
Parity/Data:  2TB/16TB

Offline Dephcon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2012, 02:40:38 PM »
And I was so excited that WDC replaced my RMA'd EARS with EARX :(
esx01[ FX-8320 @4.0GHz | 990FXA-UD7 | 32GB ECC | ESXi 5.0U2 ]
Vault13  [ unRAID 5.0.5 | 2vCPU | 2GB | 2xIBM M1015 | Parity: WD30EFRX | Cache: WD20EARS | Data: 6xWD30EFRX 1xWD20EARX 2xWD20EARS ]

Offline johnodon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • No Roger, no Rerun, no rent!
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2012, 07:35:07 AM »
And I was so excited that WDC replaced my RMA'd EARS with EARX :(

Do you still have any EARS?  Can you perform a few tests like I did above?

John
Version:  v6b10a (PXE booting in ESXi v5.5)
Case:  Norco RPC-4220
Motherboard:  SuperMicro X8DTH-iF
Processor:  2x Xeon E5530 @2.40GHz
Memory:  48GB PC10600R (1GB for unRAID)
Controllers:  2x AOC-SASLP-MV8
PSU:  SeaSonic X850
Parity/Data:  2TB/16TB

Offline WeeboTech

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7999
    • My GoogleCode unRAID Support Page
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2012, 10:42:45 AM »
I believe the EARX is an advance format drive, so it needs to be aligned when a partition table is created.
If i remember correctly., the EARS had a jumper to automatically re-align the drive. The EARX may not.
What I do remember reading is that you loose allot of performance (as demonstrated) if the drive is not aligned correctly.

Just some food for thought.
My Google Code Page

If you propose to speak, THINK and ask yourself... Is it True ?   Is it Helpful ?   Is it Inspiring ?   Is it Necessary ?   Is it Kind ?

Offline bubbaQ

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2012, 10:58:58 AM »
I have both, and the EARX are a bit faster than EARS.  If yours are not, I'd check the alignment, controller, and cables.

Offline johnodon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • No Roger, no Rerun, no rent!
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2012, 06:18:13 AM »
Thanks guys.

I did preclear the drive so I don't think the alignment is an issue.  This is the info from the disc settings.  Are there any commands I can run in a telnet session that will provide more info?


disk6 Settings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partition 1 size:  1953514552 KB (K=1024)
Partition format:  MBR: 4K-aligned
File sytem type:   reiserfs

At some point I will also try moving the drive to a different bay and see if that makes a difference.

John
Version:  v6b10a (PXE booting in ESXi v5.5)
Case:  Norco RPC-4220
Motherboard:  SuperMicro X8DTH-iF
Processor:  2x Xeon E5530 @2.40GHz
Memory:  48GB PC10600R (1GB for unRAID)
Controllers:  2x AOC-SASLP-MV8
PSU:  SeaSonic X850
Parity/Data:  2TB/16TB

Offline johnodon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • No Roger, no Rerun, no rent!
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2012, 06:49:18 AM »
OK...performed an internal write test to an EARS drive and the EARX drive...

WD20EARS
root@unRAID:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/disk2/test.dd count=8192000
8192000+0 records in
8192000+0 records out
4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 217.262 s, 19.3 MB/s

WD20EARX
root@unRAID:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/disk6/test.dd count=8192000
8192000+0 records in
8192000+0 records out
4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 229.623 s, 18.3 MB/s
Version:  v6b10a (PXE booting in ESXi v5.5)
Case:  Norco RPC-4220
Motherboard:  SuperMicro X8DTH-iF
Processor:  2x Xeon E5530 @2.40GHz
Memory:  48GB PC10600R (1GB for unRAID)
Controllers:  2x AOC-SASLP-MV8
PSU:  SeaSonic X850
Parity/Data:  2TB/16TB

Offline bubbaQ

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2012, 09:21:44 AM »
You have something VERY wrong with your system.  I get better than that with 10-year old IDE crap drives.  WDEARS and EARX should be 5 times faster than that.

Offline WeeboTech

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7999
    • My GoogleCode unRAID Support Page
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2012, 01:35:41 PM »
Are those benchmarks to the array drives or to the drives outside of the array?
The parity will slow them down allot, however the speed should be in the upper 20's to mid 30s on the array (at the very least).

My Google Code Page

If you propose to speak, THINK and ask yourself... Is it True ?   Is it Helpful ?   Is it Inspiring ?   Is it Necessary ?   Is it Kind ?

Offline johnodon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • No Roger, no Rerun, no rent!
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2012, 10:21:29 AM »
Are those benchmarks to the array drives or to the drives outside of the array?
The parity will slow them down allot, however the speed should be in the upper 20's to mid 30s on the array (at the very least).

The array was online so the data was being written to both parity and the data drive.  How do I perform the same test without parity being enabled?  Do I stop teh array, set parity = none and then start the array again?

Besides the parity issue, do I have some type of driver or architecture issue?  I am using a server class MB although it is a bit old.  The specs of the MB can be seen here:  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

As far as controllers...2x AOC-SASLP-MV8.

I have also attached my syslog from a fresh boot if any of you kind souls would like to look at it for me.  :)

TIA!!!

John


Version:  v6b10a (PXE booting in ESXi v5.5)
Case:  Norco RPC-4220
Motherboard:  SuperMicro X8DTH-iF
Processor:  2x Xeon E5530 @2.40GHz
Memory:  48GB PC10600R (1GB for unRAID)
Controllers:  2x AOC-SASLP-MV8
PSU:  SeaSonic X850
Parity/Data:  2TB/16TB

Offline WeeboTech

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7999
    • My GoogleCode unRAID Support Page
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2012, 11:50:13 AM »
Are those benchmarks to the array drives or to the drives outside of the array?
The parity will slow them down allot, however the speed should be in the upper 20's to mid 30s on the array (at the very least).

The array was online so the data was being written to both parity and the data drive.  How do I perform the same test without parity being enabled?  Do I stop the array, set parity = none and then start the array again?

Besides the parity issue, do I have some type of driver or architecture issue?  I am using a server class MB although it is a bit old.  The specs of the MB can be seen here:  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

As far as controllers...2x AOC-SASLP-MV8.

I have also attached my syslog from a fresh boot if any of you kind souls would like to look at it for me.  :)

TIA!!!

John

Is the parity drive on the motherboard ports?
If so, Is it shared with other data drives?

My Google Code Page

If you propose to speak, THINK and ask yourself... Is it True ?   Is it Helpful ?   Is it Inspiring ?   Is it Necessary ?   Is it Kind ?

Offline WeeboTech

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7999
    • My GoogleCode unRAID Support Page
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2012, 12:00:47 PM »
After looking at the block diagram for that board, I might try putting the parity drive on the controller that is connected to the PCIe x8 slot.
That will give it full bandwidth. I know my ICH9R has a max bandwidth of 384MB/s which is faster then x1. I don't know what the bandwidth of the ICH7R is, but it can't be more then x4 since there is also a PCIe x4 hanging off the same chipset, along two network interfaces each consuming an x1 slot.

http://www.tyan.com/support_download_manuals.aspx?model=S.S5160
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 12:29:15 PM by WeeboTech »
My Google Code Page

If you propose to speak, THINK and ask yourself... Is it True ?   Is it Helpful ?   Is it Inspiring ?   Is it Necessary ?   Is it Kind ?

Offline johnodon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • No Roger, no Rerun, no rent!
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2012, 06:33:14 AM »
Thanks for the info weebo!  I'll move the parity drive to the card in the x8 slot when I get home and run another set of tests!

Thanks again for the help!

John
Version:  v6b10a (PXE booting in ESXi v5.5)
Case:  Norco RPC-4220
Motherboard:  SuperMicro X8DTH-iF
Processor:  2x Xeon E5530 @2.40GHz
Memory:  48GB PC10600R (1GB for unRAID)
Controllers:  2x AOC-SASLP-MV8
PSU:  SeaSonic X850
Parity/Data:  2TB/16TB

Online Joe L.

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18824
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2012, 11:42:23 AM »
OK...performed an internal write test to an EARS drive and the EARX drive...

WD20EARS
root@unRAID:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/disk2/test.dd count=8192000
8192000+0 records in
8192000+0 records out
4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 217.262 s, 19.3 MB/s

WD20EARX
root@unRAID:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/disk6/test.dd count=8192000
8192000+0 records in
8192000+0 records out
4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 229.623 s, 18.3 MB/s
Try something like this:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/disk6/test.dd count=8192000 bs=65536

You were writing with a block size of 512 bytes.  (fairly inefficient)

You should see a huge improvement in throughput when you set the block size larger.

Offline UhClem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: WD EADS/EARS vs. EARX
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2012, 09:42:06 PM »
Try something like this:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/disk6/test.dd count=8192000 bs=65536
Why spend an hour+  test-writing 500+ GB ? :)

Try ....  bs=64k count=8k oflag=direct