CyberStorm MKII SCSI performance ...

mabus · 10 August 2007, 20:28

Hello all,

In my project of installing the Amiga 4000, I have installed the CyberStorm SCSI module, but I think the performance (in terms of CPU usage) is not much different from IDE... I use a WDE9180 disk (9.18GB) for testing, CPU usage - when copying files to RAM - is around 97% -- much worse than on A3000 internal SCSI where CPU usage was always almost none ! Are there any special things that need doing on the A4000? It's been a while since I used the Amigas. And I've never used the CyberStorm SCSI before.

All help appreciated,

keropi · 10 August 2007, 21:57

wth? it should have 3-8% cpu usage at worst case!
I bet u need to adjust scsi settings, although I have no idea about the MK2 scsi...

mabus · 10 August 2007, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by keropi

wth? it should have 3-8% cpu usage at worst case!
I bet u need to adjust scsi settings, although I have no idea about the MK2 scsi...

I have the tools, so will experiment with it until I get decent performance... Close to 100% CPU usage isn't my idea of a good time

Flashlab · 10 August 2007, 23:21

I don't know about cpu speed (never tested it) but I do know that using a program like myunitcontrol increased my scsi speeds dramatically. Myunitcontrol must be used in the s-s. You could do some tests with that?

jimbo100 · 11 August 2007, 03:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by mabus

I have the tools, so will experiment with it until I get decent performance... Close to 100% CPU usage isn't my idea of a good time

Please follow up when you get this right. I just invested in a CyberSCSI for my MKII after discovering the A4091 and Cyberstorm do not work together at all!

adolescent · 11 August 2007, 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo100

Please follow up when you get this right. I just invested in a CyberSCSI for my MKII after discovering the A4091 and Cyberstorm do not work together at all!

Hmm, (C=) A4091 and CSMK2 work together in my A3000.

jimbo100 · 11 August 2007, 06:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by adolescent

Hmm, (C=) A4091 and CSMK2 work together in my A3000.

First question, why would you have a A4091 in a A3000?

Anyway, the card is found, but the scsi.device is not loaded and therefor no drives are seen.

adolescent · 11 August 2007, 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo100

First question, why would you have a A4091 in a A3000?

Anyway, the card is found, but the scsi.device is not loaded and therefor no drives are seen.

Speed. The A4091 is just faster than the onboard SCSI. It was originally in my A4000 but when I got the CSMK3 both the MK2 and the A4091 were moved to the A3000.

You are looking at 2nd.scsi.device right?

adolescent · 11 August 2007, 07:25

@mabus

What is your mask value?

jimbo100 · 11 August 2007, 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by adolescent

Speed. The A4091 is just faster than the onboard SCSI. It was originally in my A4000 but when I got the CSMK3 both the MK2 and the A4091 were moved to the A3000.

You are looking at 2nd.scsi.device right?

Yes looking for 2nd.scsi.device.

It is reported that the device is not found. I found my Kickflash OS4 didn't like the Cyberstorm and now my A4091 Card. Maybe it'a a A4000 thing!

adolescent · 11 August 2007, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo100

Yes looking for 2nd.scsi.device.

It is reported that the device is not found. I found my Kickflash OS4 didn't like the Cyberstorm and now my A4091 Card. Maybe it'a a A4000 thing!

I'll agree. The Kickflash (at least the software) is flaky. I have one in my A4000 and it routinely doesn't work. I can tell right away because I have a no-click module. About 1 out of 10 cold boots my drive is clicking.

BTW, you have a Buster 11 right? Not sure what the behavior is without, but it's required. Have you tried running Scout?

patrik · 11 August 2007, 19:52

Sounds like the mask value for your partitions is set to 0xfffffe, forcing the controller to move the data via chipram using the cpu. Needless to say, this is dead slow and consumes a lot of cpu time. HDToolBox sets the masks to this default safe value if it isnt familiar with the controller.

Set the mask to 0xffffffff (8 number of f) for all partitions and see what happens.

Btw, the maxtransferrate should be 0xffffff (6 number of f).

jimbo100 · 12 August 2007, 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by adolescent

I'll agree. The Kickflash (at least the software) is flaky. I have one in my A4000 and it routinely doesn't work. I can tell right away because I have a no-click module. About 1 out of 10 cold boots my drive is clicking.

BTW, you have a Buster 11 right? Not sure what the behavior is without, but it's required. Have you tried running Scout?

It's a A4000-CR mainboard so yes to Buster 11. Kickflash worked fine until I installed the Cyberstorm. Then it refused to boot when the kickflash was write protected. I had the OS3.9 Ron update on the kickflash.

The A4091 worked with a A3640 but not with the Cyberstorm. I also have a Picasso IV installed.

Jope · 12 August 2007, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrik

Btw, the maxtransferrate should be 0xffffff (6 number of f).

Max transfer size.. ;-)

But yeah, usually SCSI drives can handle any size blocks you throw at them. I don't think it will really affect performance in anyway be it 0xffffff or 0x1fe00.

10 August 2007, 20:28	#1
mabus Zone Friend Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London, UK Posts: 121	CyberStorm MKII SCSI performance ... Hello all, In my project of installing the Amiga 4000, I have installed the CyberStorm SCSI module, but I think the performance (in terms of CPU usage) is not much different from IDE... I use a WDE9180 disk (9.18GB) for testing, CPU usage - when copying files to RAM - is around 97% -- much worse than on A3000 internal SCSI where CPU usage was always almost none ! Are there any special things that need doing on the A4000? It's been a while since I used the Amigas. And I've never used the CyberStorm SCSI before. All help appreciated,

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cyberstorm MKII With SCSI Module For Sale	dannyp1	MarketPlace	3	11 May 2012 12:36
CyberStorm MKII Overclock	solaris104	support.Hardware	2	19 December 2009 11:58
Replacing Cyberstorm PPC With MKII	THX1138	support.Hardware	9	06 July 2009 17:50
FS: Cyberstorm MKII 060/50 with SCSI	mabus	MarketPlace	3	27 March 2009 06:46
Cyberstorm MKII 060 ??	blade002	support.Hardware	22	12 May 2006 20:07

10 August 2007, 21:57	#2
keropi . Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ioannina/Greece Posts: 5,040	wth? it should have 3-8% cpu usage at worst case! I bet u need to adjust scsi settings, although I have no idea about the MK2 scsi...

10 August 2007, 23:21	#4
Flashlab Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Netherlands Posts: 158	I don't know about cpu speed (never tested it) but I do know that using a program like myunitcontrol increased my scsi speeds dramatically. Myunitcontrol must be used in the s-s. You could do some tests with that?

11 August 2007, 07:25	#9
adolescent Powered by Motorola Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Redondo Beach, CA Age: 52 Posts: 1,065	@mabus What is your mask value?

11 August 2007, 19:52	#12
patrik Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Umeå Age: 43 Posts: 922	Sounds like the mask value for your partitions is set to 0xfffffe, forcing the controller to move the data via chipram using the cpu. Needless to say, this is dead slow and consumes a lot of cpu time. HDToolBox sets the masks to this default safe value if it isnt familiar with the controller. Set the mask to 0xffffffff (8 number of f) for all partitions and see what happens. Btw, the maxtransferrate should be 0xffffff (6 number of f).

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