Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Yamunsa

Members
  • Posts

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Yamunsa

  1. yup, i'd be comfortable saying that i don't think an lsi 8 port controller is going to beat the areca. at best the 9265-8i can achieve 700mbs GU and 1300mbs VS. i've got some more testing to do with an expander but i have a sneaky suspicion the card won't push past these numbers in pc05.
  2. cheers fellas. these are still test runs without optimisation it is worth noting that the G1 is not an efficient board and the bios i'm running currently does not have direct pcie control. vs was low on this run but unlike moose i'm running an LSI that doesn't have 4GB onboard cache lol. i'm also playing with an expander that is currently saturating a single port rather than bridging / switching / spreading the load across all ports. (new cables in the post so hopefully better results after the next round of experiments). 10 ssds listed as the bot doesn't have a larger number to chose from
  3. easy - upgrading sme's running wsus, kes exchange, kav and rest that are having their iops ruined from poor setup. many 'solutions' put together in r1 to cut costs coming back and biteing is just 1 example. large db usage by multiple users on a ram shy setup is another. cachecade was a great idea but many enterprise operators have an unwarranted fear of ssds due to their failure rate, (stupid as a caching drive failure will not lose mission critical). the 81** is simply an onboard cachecade solution with a big price hike. a great idea from lsi to comfort tech serve agents wanting to improve iop delivery, (that can be bettered by buying a lesser card, expander & ssds).
  4. it's not been ruled on yet but my take on it as an LSI owner: buying a fastpath key, hardware or software activated, will initialise the cards native hardware feature but because it's a hw level feature i'd guess it'd be aok. cachecade is a firmware level feature so just like rst and xpert i'd expect it to be seen as aok to use again. either way, to make things easier to aducate their use by both yourself and moderators: in a pure ssd setup you will get better results using write back with BBU which effectively disables fastpath so it's not worth buying or using. cachecade delivers very marginal benefits with an ssd array. an extra 2 ssds would cost less and deliver a better result. if you have 8 ssds plugged in, the best result i have managed with cachecade was 5 x r0 to bench and 3 x r0 dedicated to cachecade which gave me an extra 100mbs in virus scan over a clean 8 x r0. again it's not really worth buying over more ssds and playing with your settings
  5. well it was worth a shot - RST added to the too hard basket :celebration:
  6. just to be clear regarding RST - yes it has been available to install and use since 2003 known formally as Intel Matrix RAID, MSM and from 2010 RST. as today, like it's previous versions it's intended purpose is firmware level raid featuring the option to select different areas (e.g. partitions or logical volumes) on the same disk and assign them to different raid devices (e.g. ICH device). in 2011, intel brought out ver.10.5 of RST with a new component called SRT. quoting the wiki: link link effectively pc05 submissions made before may 2011 are completely free of scrutiny. noting sentiment that RST (SRT) should be allowed so that competitors who do not own a 3rd party controller can compete with those that do would make pc05 the only benchmark with this degree of leniency. rules are already in place that don't allow mip to be used on a 560ti so it can compete evenly with a 680. I would go as far as saying that apart from this discussion hardware owns on hardware bot. with SRT still being in it's infancy lord knows how it will develop and whether hwbot will need to revisit this same issue in the future, (let alone the development of ms readyboost). understanding a press release will be put together in the next few days i look forward to clarification on the official read on how hwbot see tricking benchmarks into giving a score that’s not real fits with software caching in pcm moving forward.
  7. and again 1732 vs scored with only 2 ssds with rst and 32k stripe taking wr 4 core.
  8. this is a shame as Turrican was by far the most active in the support ticket section recently.
  9. when used to cache on ramdrives not ssds but i agree that sw caching can be pushed to the extreme. it's a route i'd much rather see halted before it becomes abused. here is a perfect example of a score that could fly under the radar if the user didn't list what he'd done - link. i know i have posted hard today but imo the sw caching discussion should be had. being used to seeing things open or shut the door very much looks ajar.
  10. i know i've had a lend of you before but over here i have the utmost respect for you, (even more so when concerning pcm). in responce; the most widely used rules page for pc05 is dated May 15, 2008 well before the notion of this sort of software was about, (noting ramdisk was banned outright). link. using rst & xpert raid to trick the benchmark into giving a score that's not real, changing the perceived speed of the benchmark, is exactly what is happening. as linked above the theoretical and advertised limit of drives are being exceeded in the subtests. even these speeds do not take into account the translation of synthetic performance into pc05. 2 x retail sata lll ssd in r0 cannot physically hit 1200mbs let alone the convertion of speeds in to pc05's virus scan. the president of permitting / accepting even condoning the use of tools that previously has been shown to effect the benchmark into giving a score that's not real is no reason to retain the acceptance of them. F2D is an excellent example. we are still in the process of moving on from that era.
  11. very true. rst and xpert raid has been around, (used in conjunction with pc05), for less than 2 years. specific note to fancycache and perhaps supercache in regards to using system ram not other ssds? i disagree. i think handling rst / xpert raid or indeed moderating old subs for rst could be quite easy. four different methods: (1) ask the community to report submissions and over time the problem will solve itself rather quickly as demonstrated recently with TE & TW. (2) if hwbot has a working relationship with futuremark ask them for access or a list of results in their pc05 db with scores exceeding a hdd general usage level of 300mbs and compare the md5 hash with hwbot submissions of known users of sw caching. with db level access at hwbot this would take less than an hour. (3) do it the hard way and scrutinise individual scores. this sounds worse than i think it would actually be - there are not many hwbot members benching pcm. even fewer who are actually competitive. realistically you are looking at the top 30 global subs for 1, 2 & 4 cores to identify those who use rst / xpert and those who have an array. moving forward the individuals best results would need to be looked at to confirm the use of sw caching and a circular pm could be sent to the member requesting self moderation. i believe this technique could be divided amongst a handful of admins and could be sorted over a weekend. (4) draw a line under the current subs and move forward with a final ruling. this bridge has been crossed before dating back to AM3 and the consideration of existing scores. i agree, however the recent purge of scores highlights both the communities and individuals' backlash to the use of tools excessively altering the realistic score of the benchmark. the momentum to finally clean up pc05 is there. it is up to the community as a whole to finish the job. i sincerely hope this is an indication to enforce the rules in a fair, blanket and firm fashion. to comment overall i think the following is worth pondering: link
  12. taking this example - link : StrategosSan comments that he only used 2 x Crucial M4 SSDs and his virus scan result exceeds the phisical limit of the drives let alone the translation into pc05. software cacheing looking to be deemed AOK.. this is a real surprise and a dissapointing ruling.
  13. i think the stumbling point of the discussion is about how to enforce the rule and deal with previous submissions, that have already been made using these programs, than whether the software should be permitted. knowing it would be much easier to allow these programs, then their use does not need to be policed, still doesn't make them right... if the use of software caching is permitted then using tools from dataplex, fancycache/supercache (pointing to ssds not system ram), velobit, enhanceIO or even using mklink to soft link directories on your SSD to directories in program files as a cache medium would have to be permitted because it would be impossible to draw a firm line in such a grey area. from my own research i've seen it to be quite easy to spot especially when the majority of submissions with HD GU over 300mbs and VS over 600mbs more often than not have listed their storage and or have posted a pic of their setup. ease of spotting is for me is further emphasised using my own or steve ro's submissions to see what large acard, iram or ssd arrays can do. permission of rst also limits the advantages to participants running Z68, Z77, H77 & Q77 as, as far as i'm aware it only works on those platforms. so if folks want to have a bash at older HW records they will have to have a large array only to watch it get smashed by inferior setups if they indeed move it to current gen platforms. looking at what pro has posted previously i think the writing is on the wall for raid expert & rst and any 3rd party caching program for use with pc05. it's just too large a can of worms to be allowed and the impact on other PCM benchmarks is obvious. highlighting notable points from the first page: i' pretty sure steve ro has not made a submission with either raid expert or rst.
  14. i read it in a glaswegian accent and it makes me smile.
  15. haha i know what it scored, ty again btw, but what i mean is i'm sure this anomaly happens frequently. when someone hits a solid score but because they've used a random piece the boints shown in this snippet look 'meh'. guessing that the point of showing recent members subs on the team page is to bump folks hard work i was suggesting unlinking it to hw points alone and maybe link the snip to the highest score on the submit, (be it hw, global or tpp). this then gives a better reflection of the submission in the snapshot.
  16. shown in the pic below is my latest sub. it looks like a pretty ordinary run earning 2 hw points. the sub actually pulled 16 globals and was in the top 20 dual pc05 results. would it be possible to change the boint display on team page have the highest result rather than just the uhp? result link
  17. thanks guys. looking forward to improving the score over the next couple of weeks. still not used any irams for this run and i'm hoping the UP7 will bring something special to the party :celebration:
  18. you sir are a gentleman :celebration:
  19. thanks Turrican but i've tried recalcing as well as deleting and re-submitting with no joy. it's still listing it's rank in the 4 core cpu category (click on global points UGP and it goes to 4 core rank) link normally it wouldn't be much of an issue but this one is top 20 global dual core
×
×
  • Create New...