4000 versus 4100

Phoenix32 · 11-27-2006, 04:03 PM

Okay, I got a bone to pick with someone around here. (Take it easy Admins, I am not really going to start a fight, at least I hope not).

Okay, so who was it that said the 4100 was faster than the 4000? All this time, since I did not have a 4100 to test with, I took this as a given and correct information since several 4100 owners said so. I have even passed that information along in several of my posts on different subjects. Well, guess what? I have a 4100 to test with now and I am here to challenge that bogus information.

Just a little while ago, I got my hands on a 4100 and decided to do some testing. I had always been told the 4100 was faster than the 4000 and this was why it was worth having a 4100 over the 4000, even though it was limited to the non LBA48bit 137 GB limit. Well, I have always been suspect of this information because they both use the same 100baseT LAN, same Pentium 233Mhz CPU, and same memory. There was some speculation about it having 4 IDE channels, one for each drive, over the 2 channel 4000 (Cable Select or Master/Slave), but even this made no sense to me because the IDE channels and Hard Disks are way faster than a Pentium 233Mhz was going to push RAID 5 and most certain faster than 100baseT. I took this information as fact, with suspicions, but no more, because it is flat out dead wrong!

I just formatted a 4100 with 4 x 30 GB Quantum Hard Disks, same as I did with a 4000. It took the same amount of time to format and it took the same amount of time to build a RAID 5 array as it did on the 4000. After the RAID 5 was built, I wrote a large amount of data, of various file sizes, to the unit. Write speed is what should be measured because this is where the RAID 5 has to calculate the XOR data. In transfering this data to the SNAP 4100, over a Gigabit LAN using good quality lines and switch, I got an average of 24.5Mb/sec as measured with AnalogX NetStat Live. Guess what I got with the 4000? Yup, you guessed it, 24.5Mb/sec. And yes, I get much faster speeds over this LAN with Gigabit machines.

The bottom line here is, the 4100 is no faster than the 4000. It's not slower either. It is pretty much the same speed (I am sure there is some variance with different drives and memory sticks etc, but it won't be much). The real difference between the two units is the 4100 is 1U, the 4000 is 2U. The 4100 is much louder (due to smaller higher speed fans for cooling). The 4000 Hard Disks run a tiny tiny bit hotter, but not enough to even concern yourself over, due to being stacked, instead of side by side as in the 4100. The 4100 case is deeper. The 4100 appears to use a standard 1U ATX power supply (I would have to check the wiring to be 100% sure). And the 4100 does not support LBA48bit where the 4000 does.

So, the next time someone tells you the 4100 is faster than the 4000, send them right straight to this message thread. And if you don't agree, put forth your evidence here.

Why did I post this? Because we need good information, not speculations. I hate it when wrong information is put out there. If I am wrong, then I will be more than glad to correct the information I posted, but prove it with testing, not just some wild guess or what you heard. Someone just might be making their decisions on what to buy and not to buy based on the information they find here on this forum.

Hallis · 11-29-2006, 11:32 AM

And it is good information indeed. I'm glad to see that one if my favorite units has a little something to say for itself in the face of the vastly more popular 4100. I guess the only saving grace of the 4100 is that when it dies (as they seem to do often) you'll only lose no more than 480gb or so of data. lol.

Shane

jontz · 11-29-2006, 03:11 PM

Well, Mr. Bone picker, thanks for the info. This so called rumor started when various 4000 users stated their read/write speeds, which were MUCH slower than my 4100. I don't know all the details of their setups, and couldn't even point you to specific posts (maybe they were emails), but they were talking read speeds in the 4 MB/sec range, vs my 10.5 MB/sec range. That's partly where it got started, but I have a feeling that I wasn't the origin of the debate, I just added to it.

Phoenix32 · 11-29-2006, 04:14 PM

LOL, np Jontz. I am going to do some more testing and get firms numbers as soon as I get the chance...

jontz · 11-29-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

LOL, np Jontz. I am going to do some more testing and get firms numbers as soon as I get the chance...

*phew* I thought I had unwittingly started another Phoenix flame session...and I didn't even say anything!!!

That being said, you are my kind of guy Phoenix

I LOVE techie rants!!!

Phoenix32 · 11-29-2006, 10:57 PM

LOL, well it was a pretty weak rant, but I thought it to be a good way to get people's attention. Maybe also a way to get people motivated around here beyond just the simple "hey I need OS such and such". In fact, I have noticed several good investigative message threads this week, towards the effort of improving our SNAP experience.

11-27-2006, 04:03 PM	#1
Phoenix32 Thermophile Join Date: May 2006 Location: Yakima, WA Posts: 1,282	4000 versus 4100 Okay, I got a bone to pick with someone around here. (Take it easy Admins, I am not really going to start a fight, at least I hope not). Okay, so who was it that said the 4100 was faster than the 4000? All this time, since I did not have a 4100 to test with, I took this as a given and correct information since several 4100 owners said so. I have even passed that information along in several of my posts on different subjects. Well, guess what? I have a 4100 to test with now and I am here to challenge that bogus information. Just a little while ago, I got my hands on a 4100 and decided to do some testing. I had always been told the 4100 was faster than the 4000 and this was why it was worth having a 4100 over the 4000, even though it was limited to the non LBA48bit 137 GB limit. Well, I have always been suspect of this information because they both use the same 100baseT LAN, same Pentium 233Mhz CPU, and same memory. There was some speculation about it having 4 IDE channels, one for each drive, over the 2 channel 4000 (Cable Select or Master/Slave), but even this made no sense to me because the IDE channels and Hard Disks are way faster than a Pentium 233Mhz was going to push RAID 5 and most certain faster than 100baseT. I took this information as fact, with suspicions, but no more, because it is flat out dead wrong! I just formatted a 4100 with 4 x 30 GB Quantum Hard Disks, same as I did with a 4000. It took the same amount of time to format and it took the same amount of time to build a RAID 5 array as it did on the 4000. After the RAID 5 was built, I wrote a large amount of data, of various file sizes, to the unit. Write speed is what should be measured because this is where the RAID 5 has to calculate the XOR data. In transfering this data to the SNAP 4100, over a Gigabit LAN using good quality lines and switch, I got an average of 24.5Mb/sec as measured with AnalogX NetStat Live. Guess what I got with the 4000? Yup, you guessed it, 24.5Mb/sec. And yes, I get much faster speeds over this LAN with Gigabit machines. The bottom line here is, the 4100 is no faster than the 4000. It's not slower either. It is pretty much the same speed (I am sure there is some variance with different drives and memory sticks etc, but it won't be much). The real difference between the two units is the 4100 is 1U, the 4000 is 2U. The 4100 is much louder (due to smaller higher speed fans for cooling). The 4000 Hard Disks run a tiny tiny bit hotter, but not enough to even concern yourself over, due to being stacked, instead of side by side as in the 4100. The 4100 case is deeper. The 4100 appears to use a standard 1U ATX power supply (I would have to check the wiring to be 100% sure). And the 4100 does not support LBA48bit where the 4000 does. So, the next time someone tells you the 4100 is faster than the 4000, send them right straight to this message thread. And if you don't agree, put forth your evidence here. Why did I post this? Because we need good information, not speculations. I hate it when wrong information is put out there. If I am wrong, then I will be more than glad to correct the information I posted, but prove it with testing, not just some wild guess or what you heard. Someone just might be making their decisions on what to buy and not to buy based on the information they find here on this forum.

11-29-2006, 11:32 AM	#2
Hallis Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 469	Re: 4000 versus 4100 And it is good information indeed. I'm glad to see that one if my favorite units has a little something to say for itself in the face of the vastly more popular 4100. I guess the only saving grace of the 4100 is that when it dies (as they seem to do often) you'll only lose no more than 480gb or so of data. lol. Shane __________________ Snap Servers: 1100 - 1x300gb Seagate Baracuda (SnapOS Version 3.4.807) 2200 - 2x80gb Maxtor (one dead) (SnapOS 4.0.860)

11-29-2006, 03:11 PM	#3
jontz Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 385	Re: 4000 versus 4100 Well, Mr. Bone picker, thanks for the info. This so called rumor started when various 4000 users stated their read/write speeds, which were MUCH slower than my 4100. I don't know all the details of their setups, and couldn't even point you to specific posts (maybe they were emails), but they were talking read speeds in the 4 MB/sec range, vs my 10.5 MB/sec range. That's partly where it got started, but I have a feeling that I wasn't the origin of the debate, I just added to it. __________________ Snap Server 4100, 4x120GB Seagate Drives, RAID 5, version 3.4.803

11-29-2006, 04:14 PM	#4
Phoenix32 Thermophile Join Date: May 2006 Location: Yakima, WA Posts: 1,282	Re: 4000 versus 4100 LOL, np Jontz. I am going to do some more testing and get firms numbers as soon as I get the chance...

11-29-2006, 10:57 PM	#6
Phoenix32 Thermophile Join Date: May 2006 Location: Yakima, WA Posts: 1,282	Re: 4000 versus 4100 LOL, well it was a pretty weak rant, but I thought it to be a good way to get people's attention. Maybe also a way to get people motivated around here beyond just the simple "hey I need OS such and such". In fact, I have noticed several good investigative message threads this week, towards the effort of improving our SNAP experience.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)