Windows 7 - interesting sata2/3 benchmarks

Asked By Todd on 27-Jul-12 02:47 PM
Hi All,

In the processes of troubleshooting some other problem, I
make some interesting hard drive bench marks with both HD-Parm
and HD-Tune.

SATA 2 controller and SATA 2 hard drive: 202 MB/Sec (read)

SATA 3 controller and SATA 3 hard drive: 204 MB/sec (read)

The SATA 3 controller was an add on PCIe adapter.  I removed
the adapter and went with the internal SATA 2 controller:
199 MB/sec

Interesting.  I am thinking that the drives can only deliver
data so fast regardless on the interface.  What think you?

-T


J. P. Gilliver (John) replied to Todd on 27-Jul-12 02:57 PM
In message <juunnc$61n$1@dont-email.me>, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid>
writes:
I think you right. Same RPM etc.?

You will compare the interfaces more if you do your tests with files
well below the size of the cache memory on the drives. (Repeat the tests
several times so that they are in the caches.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Listen, three-eyes, do not you try to out-wierd me, I get stranger things than
you free with my breakfast cereal. (Zaphod Beeblebrox in the link episode)
Todd replied to J. P. Gilliver (John) on 27-Jul-12 04:09 PM
7200 RPM.  (Had to think for a moment.  I was stuck on
Redhat Package Manager.)


I was tickled that I no longer needed to buy an extra
add on card for SATA 3, as there was no benchmark difference
on the same drive running the native SATA 2 controller
and the add-on SATA 3 controller.  Less complicated
is always better.

I thought the machine actually ran better on the SATA 2
controller.  Could be the difference in the quality of
the drivers.  Or it just could have been that I was
tickled (psychological).

Now SSD drives is a whole 'nother story!

-T
Bob Willard replied to Todd on 27-Jul-12 04:18 PM
I suggest running HDtach and/or HDtune.  Those speed tests run below the
level of the filesystem to show the capabilities of the raw drive.
Both HDtach and HDtune measure burst speed as well as the speed across
the surface, and show the variance between outer and inner bands.

I predict that both of those apps will show what you have already
discovered, namely that SATA2 is not a bottleneck for current HDs, even
state-of-the-art HDs.
--
Cheers, Bob
JJ replied to Todd on 27-Jul-12 04:21 PM
FSB/RAM bottleneck?
Todd replied to Bob Willard on 27-Jul-12 05:25 PM
Ooops.  I ran both HDtune and HDtach. And that is what I get for
trusting my memory as to their names.


I was somewhat blown away when I had the actual test results in
my hands.
VanguardLH replied to Todd on 27-Jul-12 07:48 PM
And the make and model of hard disks are ...?
And they are jumpered how?
Todd replied to VanguardLH on 27-Jul-12 07:58 PM
From the HD-Tach report

SATA 3 machine:
Seagate ST500DM0 02-1BD142 KC44
ICH10R SATA 2 internal controller
SIIG SC-SA0L11-S1  PCIe SATA 3 controller

SATA 2 machine:
Seagate ST350051 4NS SN12
PCH controller


Factory settings
Paul replied to Todd on 28-Jul-12 01:44 AM
You do realize, there are about three different performance levels
for SATA III controllers.

1) SATA III native on the Southbridge. This is likely to reach
the full speed of your new SATA III SSD. The reason full speed
is possible, is the hub bus from the Southbridge to the rest
of the system, runs at 1GB/sec or 2GB/sec. Plenty of bandwidth,
as long as there are not too many competing subsystems blasting
away at the same moment in time. When people "benchmark", normally
the other subsystems are quiet. With such a "native" port,
you might get to see your >500MB/sec SSD perform properly.

Some of the newer Intel motherboards, have two native SATA III
ports on the Southbridge. And AMD Southbridges, I think some of
those have six SATA III ports. Those are examples of "native" designs.

2) SATA III chip on PCI Express x1 Rev.2 lane. SATA III is 600MB/sec
as a cable rate. PCI Express x1 Rev.2 is 500MB/sec on the diff wires
leading to the slot. It means the SATA III chip on the add-in card
will be robbed of its peak rate.

Note that certain early SATA III chips, are not even capable of full
SATA III under the best of conditions. Some can only manage 345MB/sec
downhill, with a wind blowing at their back. An enemy of high performance,
is non-pipelined protocols. "Full" rates only come, if the hardware
can be convinced not to wait for Acknowledgements. One of the reasons
the older USB standards cannot reach "full" rates, is the kind of
protocol used (polling). it is not clear why the 345MB/sec chip
cannot go faster, but some design issue is likely responsible.
I am not expecting "a new driver" to fix that.

3) SATA III chip on PCI Express x1 Rev.1 lane. In this case, the single
PCI Express lane runs at 250MB/sec, and now we are no longer in SATA III
territory. Now, the new add-in chip has been compromised by the
PCI Express bottleneck, to a significant extent.

Based on your test results, you are seeing case (3). You've placed
a SATA III chip on add-in card, in a PCI Express x1 Rev.1 slot.
(I think your benchmark is measuring "burst" transfer rate,
rather than sustained transfer rate. Bursting to the cache chip
on the hard drive, can run faster, until the cache chip is full
and the platters become the limitation.)

*If* your motherboard has multiple video card slots, and you configure
things right, you may be able to move the SATA III card to a Rev.2 slot,
like an x4 or x16 Rev.2 slot. PCI Express auto-negotiates, and the hardware
can tell how many lanes have wires running to them. That will change
your case (3) to a case (2), and you will see an improvement while
using your new SATA III card. At least, on burst transfers. If
you are benching with a *good* SSD, then your sustained transfer would
be faster, when you use a video card slot for the x1 SATA III card.

it is pretty hard to find an add-in card chip, which is not compromised.
I am still looking. Highpoint brand, seems to be experimenting in this
area, and if any company can break the "crap gap", that is where
I'd look. Many others are content to ship the cheapest Marvell chip
they can find, knowing the users are not smart enough to figure out
what they got.

The same kind of careful analysis applies, when adding USB3 cards to computers.
You could have a Rev.1 or Rev.2 slot, and your USB3 will not run full rate,
if stuffed in a Rev.1 slot. Fortunately, the USB3 enclosures have not
been doing that well either, so the 200MB/sec a USB3 enclosure might
offer, will not uncover the difference in the PCI Express slot revision.
it is only when you use a Blackmagic USB3 video capture, and their
software tests your transfer rate, it will notice your lacking Rev.1
slot and refuse to do captures. That's the only case I know of
right now, where it matters.

HTH,
Paul
Todd replied to Paul on 28-Jul-12 04:38 PM
Hi Paul,

Wow.  No I did not know.  Thank you for such an
in dept analysis.  This must have taken you an hour
to write.  Thank you so much for the technical education
and thank you for donating you previous time to me.
I stand on the shoulders of giants!

-T
Todd replied to Todd on 28-Jul-12 05:22 PM
Precious not previous
Yousuf Khan replied to Todd on 31-Jul-12 01:24 PM
You are correct, no current HDD's are capable of exceeding the speed of
SATA interface. They will not even exceed the speed of the original SATA1,
let alone SATA2 or SATA3. However, SSD's are the way of the future from
now on (at least in terms of speed). SSD's are fully capable of
saturating all of the current SATA versions, and I suspect that we
should be getting a SATA4 spec in the not too distant future to try to
keep up with the speed of the SSD's, rather than the other way around.

Some enterprise SSD's exist that plug directly into the PCI-e slots,
costing 10's of thousands of dollars. They plug them directly into the
PCI-e slots because those are the only things fast enough to take their
data.

Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan replied to Todd on 31-Jul-12 01:28 PM
Well, Paul has helped out so many people with his indepth posts that

Yousuf Khan