Windows 2003 Server & SCSI Hard drive tips

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-05-2003, 11:38 PM

"There are 5000 developers on the Windows team generating over 50 million lines of code for Windows Server 2003. It's an enormous task, the biggest software engineering task ever attempted. There are no other software projects like this."

NT Timeline
October 31, 1988: David Cutler arrives at Microsoft
November 1988: Work begins on NT project
July 27, 1993: Windows NT 3.1 ships
September 21, 1994: Windows NT 3.5 ships
May 30, 1995: Windows NT 3.51 ships
July 31, 1996: Windows NT 4.0 ships
February 17, 2000: Windows 2000 ships
October 25, 2001: Windows XP ships
April 24, 2003: Windows Server 2003 ships

I think the 2003 is going to set a new level with the Windows Server OS. Microsoft is shelling out the big bucks to make this one of the most stable and impressive OS yet.

Personally, they outdid them selves with Windows 2000. As scary as everyone was about installing the server to their Live servers, I jump at the chance. As soon as, W2K Pro was out, I have a legit copy in my hands testing FoxPro databases performances while reindexing thousands of records. It was obviously a faster and stable OS. I think with XML being called out as one of the most extensible languages for the web, 2003 should once again impress the IT industry. As much as people like to knock down M$, we are all pretty much are their products. Sure, they have their issue, but so does everyone else.

I purely support this new OS for servers, like hell, don't you like performance and stability?

Anyway, just wanted to chat about this whole Windows 2003 operating system.

:dir:

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-06-2003, 05:07 PM

"An even bigger endorsement comes from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ), which will begin shipping a 64-bit Windows server operating system for Opteron ahead of the chip's launch. And in a break from the company's traditional hand-in-hand relationship with Intel, Microsoft execs are talking up Opteron. They say the AMD chip helps companies that want to move at their own speed. "With 64 bits, some customers are going to want to ease into it," says Bob O'Brien, group product manager for Windows Server 2003.

Still, with the April release just two months away, AMD is waiting for customers to sign on. Equipment makers such as Dell Computer Corp. (DELL ) and Fujitsu Ltd. (FJTSY ) have yet to commit to building systems based on the chip. Dell President Kevin B. Rollins says customers are asking about Opteron. But the company will wait to see if there's a groundswell of demand. The same goes for IBM's hardware group. "They've become the `show me' company for all concerned," says Banc of America Securities LLC analyst Douglas Lee."

Source Story

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-06-2003, 05:12 PM

Beginning April 24, 2003, you can experience Windows Server 2003 and Visual Studio® .NET 2003 first hand at one of the free educational events being held across the United States. See demos of new product features, play with hands-on exhibits, and leave with your own Evaluation Kit CDs. To sign up US only, click the link. Windows Server 2003 Launch Pag

As expected, the licensing and pricing for Windows Server 2003 is identical to that of Windows 2000, Microsoft revealed Monday. According to the company, four editions of the new server product will ship April 24, including Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition, and Datacenter Edition. Each of these editions will be priced identically to equivalent Windows 2000 editions; Web Edition will cost just $400. More at source Wininformant.com

Server 2003 Launch Page

**Tuffie** · 03-06-2003, 05:16 PM

It should be very interesting to see just how far the technology can go.It seems just when you feel you've seen it all,it's only just begun.I guess looking back,it's always been that way.It's just more noticeable now,with the Web giving all the details instantly.

**KaraK** · 03-06-2003, 06:13 PM

I've just installed Standard Edition on my spare rig and one thing I have to comment on here is that its not got any network card drivers for my NIC.... dammit. Will XP drivers work?

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-06-2003, 08:25 PM

I would try the XP drivers for sure.

**Tex** · 03-06-2003, 09:18 PM

I have been thrilled with .Net Server 2003

It fixes the scsi probs that XP has had and restores the full performance. I have it as my domain controller and I have it installed on two dual amd machines here as we speak. I think its just sweet.

Cheers

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-06-2003, 09:23 PM

Tell me more about this problem that XP has with the SCSI. I currently have a seagate 36 GB 15,000 RPM SCSI

**Tex** · 03-06-2003, 10:01 PM

Go bench it with atto. Unless you converted it into a dynamic drive the writes are horrid... especially on the small transfer sizes... A very few controllers get around it by not properly supporting whats called the "write_thru_flag".

You can read huge threads about it at storagereview.com

Basicaly MS fixed a "bug" in their scsi subsytem code that had not been enforcing this flag. Only a few programs use it which is the good news. It was meant to be used when you could not have data loss and forces the controller and scsi disk to bypass even the onboard disk cache. Which in real life is hardly ever a problem and was never seen before as they had a bug in their own code for the scsi disk subsytem... But the dumb butts at MS implemented it in doing file copies in explorer. Which I think was stupid. It would basicaly save you if the computer crashed or lost power while data was left in the disks onboard cache that had not been flushed to the disk yet. For god sakes ... whats the odds of this on a file copy anyway? It should of never been implemented in a file copy in explorer. Anyway sp3 on win2k "fixes" the same bug in win2k so if you apply sp3 to win2k you get the same problems. Everyone screamed it was a bug in XP but that wasn't actually the case. Further the MS nitwits didn't fix it in their "dynamic disks" so you were able to get around their "bug fix" in XP by converting the scsi disk to a dynamic drive. (good grief) Further if this was so important realize that 95 percent of the XP boxs in the world today are not running scsi but IDE and IDE does not support the frigging write-thru-flag as a command in any form so the danger of the corrupted file copies between ide devices still exists of course... stupid stupid stupid.

There is still no fix for XP from MS although a guy a storagereview wrote a filter that blocks it sort of.... but I think I was the first guy on the web anywhere to report that it is fixed in .Net server 2003 or at least they offer a easy work around. In server 2003 go to the actual disk device in the device manager and they have a new flag available below write caching now! See it ? Its called advanced performance and allows the copies to bypass the stupid write_thru_flag completely. Thank god... It was a stupid thing to implement anyway on copies.

If your on .netserver 2003 then run atto with and without the advanced performance tab and you can see the effect.

Cheers. Let me know if you need more info.

Tex

**Tex** · 03-06-2003, 10:04 PM

btw... I love scsi. I have multiple scsi drives on each of my dual amd boxs on my home network !

Good Luck !

tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-06-2003, 11:22 PM

Where can I get this Atto?

Also, thanks for the info.

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 08:04 AM

Its made by a scsi controller maker. Try either searching for ATTO download or something or email me and I would be glad to email it to you.

Tex

m-k-withers@attbi.com

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 09:17 AM

Ok I sent it your way chief. Let me know if you have any problems!

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 10:27 AM

Here are the XP benchmarks

Seagate 36 GB
15,000 RPM 320 SCSI

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 10:29 AM

change JUST the total length to 32mb and rerun it

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 10:32 AM

Here you go.

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 10:36 AM

Here to compare.. These are teh little 40 dollar hitachi's I been buying off ebay.

Now look at the first few lines in the test on the writes and compare to mine.

Tex

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 10:38 AM

This is from a later model 10k hitachi. These suckers are just dead quiet too. Can't here them run at all. I paid 80 bucks for this one.

Tex

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 10:40 AM

Your writes started in the low hundreds. Mine were closer to 10,000 on the FIRST line. You wre 2/3 the way thru teh test before your writes equaled mine. THATS the scsi XP bug I talked about.

Now you want me to fix it for ya? (grin)

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 10:41 AM

Holy SHIT!!!!

Does that mean my SCSI is CRAP!!!??

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 10:42 AM

Nope. It means you have now seen the XP scsi problems I referred to.

I can show you how to fix it in XP or .Net server 2003

Just you have to do it differant for each one is all.

Tex

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 10:47 AM

Just for fun this a an Atlas 10k III. Its writes are not as strong as the hitachis untill further in the test but blow yours away too. These 18gb ones runb 40 to 45 bucks too.

Tex

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 10:48 AM

This one will blow your mind... (grin)

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 11:14 AM

HOLY CRAP~!!!!!
show me the fix in XP so I can compare the results.

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 11:18 AM

You got two choices in XP. You can try the special device filter that cas wrote. He is a device driver writer guy over at storage review. Or you can convert the drive to a dynamic drive.

Tex

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 11:22 AM

You may want to try his filter first as it can be uninstalled but you can not change a dynamic drive back to a regular one.

Let me know and I can email his filter to ya.

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 11:40 AM

I will see if I can find that in the storagereview.com

Thanks for you help, I will post the results.

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 11:43 AM

Would be glad to email it to ya dude...

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 11:59 AM

Here is with the XP Filter on.

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 12:01 PM

A slight difference, but not that much. I have a Seagate ST336732LW SCSI 15,000 RPM 36G (From Dell)

The entire C:\ drive is the SCSI drive.

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 12:05 PM

Its ten times better! Your now in the thousands and not hundreds !! It was only correcting the writes!

Now you want to fine tune it and see if we can squeeze a little more out of that sucker? (grin)

I write a guide on adjusting the pci latency of devices and showed what it did to my scsi atto's,

I just put up a pretty bare website but you may want to read the guide I wrote. Its not long or anything.

www.tex-support.net

Scroll down to the pci latency guide.

Cheers

tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 12:06 PM

Here are the results together.

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 12:07 PM

HAHA

Damn, I am smoking drugs!! I didn't notice the numbers!!!
I will read your guide. then post the results!!

You da man!!!

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 12:10 PM

Tex, is this only for VIA chipsets? I have an INTEL chipset.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/produc..._precn_350.htm

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 12:12 PM

works on anything. I run it on my dual amd boxs. Thats what I was using when I did the guide btw..

Depending on the chipset and what your latency was for starters will depend on how much you gain.

Good Luck ! Always glad to help.

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 12:31 PM

Some improvements, broke the 50000 barrier.

Latency was default at 72, I jack it up to 128 latency.

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 01:48 PM

72 was a good latency to of started with. Often its only like 32 or something.

The good news is look how much you learned today ! (grin) Bad news is we totaly destroyed your server 2003 thread and thats a shame as I LOVE server 2003 !

Cheers Buddy

Tex

**M.i.S. Nemesis** · 03-07-2003, 03:02 PM

True, a MOD changed the name though. Let me see if I can find some info on the 2003 server and the SCSI.

**Tex** · 03-07-2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by M.i.S. Nemesis
. Let me see if I can find some info on the 2003 server and the SCSI.

Like what? I described above how its fixed in 2003. They have added a new tab in the disk device entry in the device manager right below where it says "write caching" in the properties section I think it is..

Oh crap... Here let me just show ya a screenshot OK?

See the advanced performance tab I think its called? Thats the new way to get around teh problem in 2003. And like I mentioned... (grin) This had been written up as a problem in several of the PC mags and crap and I was the first one I have seen anywhere report the fix. (lmao) Gotta love scoop[ing the big boys !

Tex