Crew Sweet Posted November 25, 2012 Author Crew Share Posted November 25, 2012 The rules was already were published Link: http://hwbot.org/newsflash/1859_statement_regarding_pcmark05_culmanitive_cleanup_and_rules_update Cheers and good benching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Thanks! It's not stated in the rules, so I am going to ask: Is LSI's CacheCade and Fastpath software allowed? I guess it is, because it's not very different to Intel RST and AMD RAIDXpert, but I just wanted to be sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamunsa Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thanks! It's not stated in the rules, so I am going to ask: Is LSI's CacheCade and Fastpath software allowed? I guess it is, because it's not very different to Intel RST and AMD RAIDXpert, but I just wanted to be sure! 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mat_ Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Interesting. I was asking because I am currently testing a LSI MegaRAID 9271 with 8 ssds and I have the worst performance. Like 200 mb/s General Usage. So I thought that this has to be a reason for people using the software. Could not gain much with different controller or vd settings. Any hints on this? Very much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Thats why i prefer areca much over LSI 4GB cache and more Ports, smashing down LSI in gen usage Have you run the storage Tests 2 Times, to fill your Cache? Edit, has someone enough money to test this shit please http://www.lsi.com/products/storagecomponents/Pages/NytroMegaRAIDNMR8110-4i.aspx Sounds like an new pcm Monster, lol Edited November 27, 2012 by Moose83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Sounds like an new pcm Monster, lol Why would you need 200GB of cache lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamunsa Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Why would you need 200GB of cache lol. 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 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). It was meant at Moose I should rephrase, how are you going to use 200GB of cache in PCM05? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Yeah its not so good for pcm05... better 1882ix with 4GB Cache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamunsa Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yeah its not so good for pcm05... better 1882ix with 4GB Cache 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) 1882ix doesn't need 4GB cache. In fact, we went thru many different sticks, and the 1882 failed to detect any as more than 2gb. It supports 4gb, but if you check in bios, it only reports 4gb sticks as 2gb. Areca also was no help, couldn't give any detail on confirmed compatible sticks. Edited November 30, 2012 by I.M.O.G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 We will see:) I have pcb vers 3 with pcie3 And ordered some 4GB sticks;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 1882ix doesn't need 4GB cache. In fact, we went thru many different sticks, and the 1882 failed to detect any as more than 2gb. It supports 4gb, but if you check in bios, it only reports 4gb sticks as 2gb. Areca also was no help, couldn't give any detail on confirmed compatible sticks. Well Mr. IMOG, you are wrong there I have now Areca 1882 IX-12, and 4GB Kingston ECC 1333 Ram. All works fine, Areca Bios shows 4GB Cache, but only running at 1200 MHz I dont unterstand why only 1200 MHz? But in fact, i have PCB Vers. 3, with PCIe3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 No Moose, you relentless twat.... That doesn't make me wrong. In fact, my point was that 4GB cache may not be needed vs 2GB cache, and your comment does nothing to address this. Also, my point was that if 4GB cache is not reported correctly in Areca BIOS, Areca support was NO help in advising on what sticks are compatible. Perhaps this problem has been addressed, or perhaps you got lucky on your 4GB stick being compatible - your testing does nothing to indicate one way or another, except that your 4GB stick and your 1882IX happens to work fine. Good for you. Additionally, you failed to grasp the point I was communicating. Your post also doesn't mean that 4GB cache yields any advantage over 2GB, as in my past experience, my Gen Usage was competing directly with other top Gen Usage scores given the SSD's I was using... A few of the people I was competing against were also on the 1882IX, and may have been on 2GB or 4GB, I don't know. I was unable to test 4GB vs 2GB 1882IX cache, because out of all the 4GB sticks tested, all were detected as 2GB. So, if you test various other 4GB sticks and they work too, that would be relevant. And if you find 4GB does present an advantage in PCM05 verses 2GB, that would be relevant. If you find 4GB cache is better than 2GB cache in PCM05, then you can accurately say that I was wrong. Finally, I'm sick of seeing you around the forums pestering everyone over PCM05. I don't even run this shit anymore, partially because everyone who trashed it, and partially because people like you going on like PCM05 belongs to them and they are some sort of gift to the benchmark. You are annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 No Moose, you relentless twat.... That doesn't make me wrong. In fact, my point was that 4GB cache may not be needed vs 2GB cache, and your comment does nothing to address this. Also, my point was that if 4GB cache is not reported correctly in Areca BIOS, Areca support was NO help in advising on what sticks are compatible. Perhaps this problem has been addressed, or perhaps you got lucky on your 4GB stick being compatible - your testing does nothing to indicate one way or another, except that your 4GB stick and your 1882IX happens to work fine. Good for you. Additionally, you failed to grasp the point I was communicating. Your post also doesn't mean that 4GB cache yields any advantage over 2GB, as in my past experience, my Gen Usage was competing directly with other top Gen Usage scores given the SSD's I was using... A few of the people I was competing against were also on the 1882IX, and may have been on 2GB or 4GB, I don't know. I was unable to test 4GB vs 2GB 1882IX cache, because out of all the 4GB sticks tested, all were detected as 2GB. So, if you test various other 4GB sticks and they work too, that would be relevant. And if you find 4GB does present an advantage in PCM05 verses 2GB, that would be relevant. If you find 4GB cache is better than 2GB cache in PCM05, then you can accurately say that I was wrong. Finally, I'm sick of seeing you around the forums pestering everyone over PCM05. I don't even run this shit anymore, partially because everyone who trashed it, and partially because people like you going on like PCM05 belongs to them and they are some sort of gift to the benchmark. You are annoying. While I don't disagree with you, this is not your usual levelheaded post. Take a deep breath bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Well i dont want or have attack you;) Why should i? I only say something about 4GB Cache;) And all 4 sticks i tested works. 4GB Cache gives an advantage when you run complete storage on it. I spend much time with that Controller, and yes 800 gen usage or 800 VS + can be done with only sempron, its totally easy. And sorry for my english and sorry for not unterstand all in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Gappo Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Please keep it friendly, people. I don't want to start handing out bananas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENiEBEN Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Please keep it friendly, people. I don't want to start handing out bananas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Lol Genie:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew pro Posted January 7, 2013 Crew Share Posted January 7, 2013 as i have had a few questions about requirements for submissions, i thought i would clarify in public, these are all listed under the pcmark05 offical rules page http://www.hwbot.org/news/881_application_9_rules/ when submitting a pcmark05 results you must have: 1. validation link for top 20 global only (not hardware top 20, global top 20 only) 2. a picture of storage 3. results.txt in screenshot as of January 1st 2013 for every submission 4. plus your normal requirements of benchmark score, benchmark settings, hdd startup shown, cpuz cpu, cpuz memory, gpuz, etc You can find the results.txt in the benchmark folder (normally C:\Program Files\Futuremark\PCMark05 or C:\Program Files (x86)\Futuremark\PCMark05) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobnova Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 As of jan 1st? What about the "As of October something or other" top20 HW or Global need it, in the other thread? Everybody was being held to that thread as law, up till ney. We've all always been held to threads as law. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 As of jan 1st? What about the "As of October something or other" top20 HW or Global need it, in the other thread?Everybody was being held to that thread as law, up till ney. We've all always been held to threads as law. WTF? True. Must be fringe benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose83 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 All new submits keep the rules with result.txt and verification since then! C.Ney posted one outside the rules, then Sweet and now rules are changed so this submits counts??? Have moderators an special position to make there on rules to keep there results? I dont unterstand rules on hwbot anymore, maybee no more rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 if the .txt requirement wasn't written in the rules at the time the result was posted we can't block the score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts