Xeon Owners Club

[phill]

Mostly 1080p rips, 4K Blu-rays are expensive and I've only bought two so far, whereas I've amassed quite the collection of regular Blu-rays. I also backup my GOG games onto it and just use it as a general storage device.

Progress on the transfer after 16 hours...

Is the slower speed because of the array? I would always get transfer rates of 85MB/s when it had a single drive, but now it bounces between 0 and 65, averaging at 30MB/s.

That looks like it's stuck at USB 2 speeds? I would say that's slow because of something else. Have you checked on the PC that's sending the data at all? I think something is a little slow there for definite.. Is the PC doing anything else other than sending the data?

 

[sam_86314]

That looks like it's stuck at USB 2 speeds? I would say that's slow because of something else. Have you checked on the PC that's sending the data at all? I think something is a little slow there for definite.. Is the PC doing anything else other than sending the data?

Both systems are idle besides the file transfer. Task manager showed 100% disk activity on the server. They're connected through a gigabit switch.

I know that the array has to calculate parity for everything, but considering what speed CrystalDiskMark got, I'd think speeds would be better than they are.

 

[Grog6]

...
I know that the array has to calculate parity for everything, but considering what speed CrystalDiskMark got, I'd think speeds would be better than they are.

Software Raid is the deal.
If the raid card doesn't have a backup battery, it's software raid, so it writes in the most safe fashion possible.

If you dig on the drive settings, you might be able to enable write caching, but it means a total rebuild if the power drops.
You might even lose what was being written, depending.

I use some Silicon Image Raid 5 port multipliers, and that's about right, speedwise.

I have a perc 5 sas card, with battery, and it's a completely different beast, even tho it's not amazing bandwidth.
I got the card for free, out of a dell; had to paint one contact on the pcie with insulating paint, but it wasn't hard to do.

Some sas cards will use sata drives; this one will not, but sas drives are not too bad.

 

[phill]

Both systems are idle besides the file transfer. Task manager showed 100% disk activity on the server. They're connected through a gigabit switch.

I know that the array has to calculate parity for everything, but considering what speed CrystalDiskMark got, I'd think speeds would be better than they are.

I definitely agree, something isn't happy with them.. The PC sending the data, what sort of spec is it? It might be that the CPU in the server or the PC it's sending it from, it somewhat limited.. I have noticed in the past a difference in hard drives performance with different CPUs...

Software Raid is the deal.
If the raid card doesn't have a backup battery, it's software raid, so it writes in the most safe fashion possible.

If you dig on the drive settings, you might be able to enable write caching, but it means a total rebuild if the power drops.
You might even lose what was being written, depending.

I use some Silicon Image Raid 5 port multipliers, and that's about right, speedwise.

I have a perc 5 sas card, with battery, and it's a completely different beast, even tho it's not amazing bandwidth.
I got the card for free, out of a dell; had to paint one contact on the pcie with insulating paint, but it wasn't hard to do.

Some sas cards will use sata drives; this one will not, but sas drives are not too bad.

I have a few of the Perc cards with the Dell servers I have and they are massively impressive with the cache (kinda falsifying the results but it looks good lol big numbers and all... lol) I am rather happy with them but again no point having 5Gb/sec bandwidth when your network can only sustain 112Mb/sec or so... When I do finally get to have 10Gb ethernet at home, I will make sure that the drives I use, will easily cope with that level of read/write speed

 

[sam_86314]

I definitely agree, something isn't happy with them.. The PC sending the data, what sort of spec is it? It might be that the CPU in the server or the PC it's sending it from, it somewhat limited.. I have noticed in the past a difference in hard drives performance with different CPUs...


I have a few of the Perc cards with the Dell servers I have and they are massively impressive with the cache (kinda falsifying the results but it looks good lol big numbers and all... lol) I am rather happy with them but again no point having 5Gb/sec bandwidth when your network can only sustain 112Mb/sec or so... When I do finally get to have 10Gb ethernet at home, I will make sure that the drives I use, will easily cope with that level of read/write speed

PC sending the data is my main rig, which has an R5 2600X and 16GB of memory. I put the 8TB drive in my main system and copied all the data from it to my server.

And despite the fact that my server only has 4GB of memory, I haven't had any memory related issues.

 

[phill]

PC sending the data is my main rig, which has an R5 2600X and 16GB of memory. I put the 8TB drive in my main system and copied all the data from it to my server.

And despite the fact that my server only has 4GB of memory, I haven't had any memory related issues.

Something is strange going on there, are the files quite small or something? Whilst I was copying across a few things, I was maxing out the connection, so I was capped and pegged at 112Mb/sec with the raw rips I was transferring.. So strange... The Synology system I had they only come with 4Gb basic, I can't say I've even got close to the 16Gb I've got in there but it's there I suppose

I'd try and see if you could do a bandwidth check on the two systems, see what happens

 

[Grog6]

For future Reference, a Xeon 5080 will NOT work with a 955 chipset mobo, Nor will a Core 2 Duo.

I was trying to do the 771 to 775 mod, to use this really cool Xeon, but it will not initialize at all.
Neither chip will, on this Asus P5wd2 Premium.

It runs fine on the OG Pentium D820, so I'll look for an upgrade in that path.

I'm going to start work on the other mobo I have, the Asus P5B.
It supports the C2D, so I'm going to try the Xeon in it this evening, just for giggles.

 

[sam_86314]

Something is strange going on there, are the files quite small or something? Whilst I was copying across a few things, I was maxing out the connection, so I was capped and pegged at 112Mb/sec with the raw rips I was transferring.. So strange... The Synology system I had they only come with 4Gb basic, I can't say I've even got close to the 16Gb I've got in there but it's there I suppose

I'd try and see if you could do a bandwidth check on the two systems, see what happens

Did a bandwidth test using CrystalDiskMark. I ran it on my main PC and pointed it at the mapped network drive I have for accessing my server.

I guess these numbers are fine. All the files are on the array now, so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Edit: Found out that the sequential read speed happens with real world usage. That alone makes this upgrade worth it.

 

[phill]

Did a bandwidth test using CrystalDiskMark. I ran it on my main PC and pointed it at the mapped network drive I have for accessing my server.

I guess these numbers are fine. All the files are on the array now, so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Edit: Found out that the sequential read speed happens with real world usage. That alone makes this upgrade worth it.

@sam_86314 - Did you try these drives in a PC before you added them to the server? I was just wondering if the raid setup could be slightly holding it back or something to that effect... I just wondered

The results look good but I'd have thought that the drive write speed would have been capped again at 100Mb/sec+ or something?

 

[Edwired]

I suppose the cap or bottleneck is pointing toward the sata port, ethernet, or chipset. Try changing drivers for those devices or adjust the behavior for the ethernet properties as windows 10 intended to autochange the speed and deplex depending on router or power line adapter

 

[sam_86314]

I suppose the cap or bottleneck is pointing toward the sata port, ethernet, or chipset. Try changing drivers for those devices or adjust the behavior for the ethernet properties as windows 10 intended to autochange the speed and deplex depending on router or power line adapter

I'm just going to assume that the results are normal. I know that RAID 5 improves read speeds while harming write speeds (exactly what I'm experiencing). IMO, the improvement I'm getting in read speeds (110-116MB/s now vs 85MB/s with the single 8TB drive) makes up for the lackluster writing speed.

 

[Edwired]

I see seems good maybe the regular hard drive might be struggling to match the sata port speed is my guess

 

[phill]

This was a quick test via the Synology software that my NAS runs on.. I've the 4Tb WD Reds in mine in Raid 1, I'd have thought you'd have more maxed your connection out (sadly the test doesn't show write speeds) but I'll grab one out at some point when I upgrade them and give them a test. I think they should be around 150Mb/sec for read and write maybe.. Maybe 125Mb/sec for the write but either ways

 

[Zyll Goliat]

 

[sepheronx]

Got the Dell T3500 back up with the W3680 and the GTX970.

Curious though, Civ6 runs rather very poorly on the system. RE2 Remake runs great. But Civ6 doesnt.

 

[Edwired]

Maybe poor opitization on the game I say

 

[Grog6]

For future Reference, a Xeon 5080 will NOT work with a 955 chipset mobo, Nor will a Core 2 Duo.

I was trying to do the 771 to 775 mod, to use this really cool Xeon, but it will not initialize at all.
Neither chip will, on this Asus P5wd2 Premium.

It runs fine on the OG Pentium D820, so I'll look for an upgrade in that path.

I'm going to start work on the other mobo I have, the Asus P5B.
It supports the C2D, so I'm going to try the Xeon in it this evening, just for giggles.

OK, So I pulled out a P5B Deluxe mobo I had problems with before, and had to recap last year, and the Xeon 5080 works.

This chip rocks, I ganked 2 of them from a dead Dell server that I raped for parts.

It's a 3.73 GHz dual core processor With Hyperthreading, so shows as 4 cores.

I have it working under XP currently, but I have the dreaded "Processor Unknown, Press F1 to continue" problem.

There are Xeon enabled copies of my bios available on the 771 to 775 mod pages, but the 5000 series chips are not included, for some reason.

Anyone have a copy of that bios with that microcode, or a clue as to how to add it?

This processor has some neat features, and is apparently the only HT enabled processor family that will work with this mobo.

I've searched the web pretty well; the microcode is in the linux microcode updates, but I can't find windows updates with them.

Suggestions and recommendations are welcome.

 

[Edwired]

Follow the microcode based on your Xeon as the ones on delidded covers the small amount but there no mentioned of the Xeon 5080 in that forum try looking on cpu-world for the cpuid

 

[Grog6]

The CPU is SL968; it's a Dempsey based core, just before Core 2.

It seems to be running OK, but I'm not seeing some of the features, and the F1 thing is annoying.

http://www.cpu-world.com/sspec/SL/SL968.html

Where can I get the microcode to update?
I have a hex editor, lol.

 

[Edwired]

Can you check with cpuid to see what the microcode is needed as on e5450 it 1067a

Cpuid for Xeon 5080 is 0F64h

found this but it said something about microcode. Im sure someone can open this for microcode extraction?

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. -Support- CPU Support - DSBV-D

CPU Support, DSBV-D, Server, Socket771

www.asus.com

 

[Grog6]

This is up and working very well; it shows as a 4 core processor, is running at 3.73GHz, and is running about 60C running medium loads.

I'm still loading drivers, and WinXPx64, and working on the microcode.

I have to hit F1 to boot into the operating system, and it says it's not optimized for the processor.

I'll do some benchmarking tomorrow and post it up.

It's a 15yo processor in a 15yo mobo, but WTF; it's the hard part that drives us, not the easy stuff.

This shows in the newest CPU-Z as a Xeon MP 5080, with all the proper amounts of cache and all, so it seems to be initialized most of the way.
I'll post screenshots .
Anyone with suggestions on the proper microcode, I'd love to hear from you.
I'm working with the code above, but it does not seem easy to parse for the proper bits.

 

[Edwired]

From what I read it said that pentium based Xeon isn't supported according to delidded.com since there isn't enough report of it working else where unless you still have the motherboard that the CPU came out you might have a chance of getting the microcode out of that dell I think you mentioned

 

[Grog6]

That was a 2950 server that the SAS backplane caught on fire; It's long dead and recycled.

The Fans are in various things, the SAS drives are in another x58 system with the perc card; it lives on as a organ donor, pretty much.

Hitting f1 when I boot isn't that much of a problem; the maximum upgrade for this mobo listed is a qx9650, which is a quad core with a lower clock speed.
Core 2 architecture might be slightly faster, but IDK.

I'm going to run benchmarks on it in a bit; I'm still downloading patches for the OS.
This one on WinXPx64.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Curious though, Civ6 runs rather very poorly on the system.

That is the infamous memory limitation of the GTX970 at work there. Civ6 uses a lot of VRAM and when the game hits the last 512MB of it on that card, which only has 32bit access, things choke. It's a known problem.

 

[sepheronx]

That is the infamous memory limitation of the GTX970 at work there. Civ6 uses a ot of VRAM and when game hit the last 512MB of it on that card, which only has 32bit access, things choke. It's a known problem.

Guess I'll replace it with the RX 5500 in due time.