Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This involves:

  • RAID 10

  • Windows Server 2008 R2

  • Two logical drive partitions

The server in question has four drives in a RAID 10 configuration, as well as two in RAID 0. The RAID 0 is used for the OS and is behaving itself. The RAID 10 is divided into two logical drives, D and L. The L drive performs as expected, but we're seeing very poor performance on D, despite it being part of the same RAID.

How do I go about diagnosing the problem, and hopefully fixing it?

EDIT: As it turns out, I was misinformed. The L drive is partitioned off the wrong array. This solves the peculiarity of the problem, leaving a separate array slowness issue that can be diagnosed through conventional means.

share|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Use perfmon to take a look at the counters for the underlying physical disk. Most interesting values are idle time, length of write queue, length of read queue and the service time (avg seconds / transfer). This Technet blog article is giving some rough orientation on how to interpret the perfmon disk counter values and find bottlenecks.

share|improve this answer
Used a different tool to get it, but this is actually the data that sent me here. sec/transfer averages .09 vs .001 on the D and L drives, respectively. – Merennulli Jun 7 '11 at 23:37
The "logical disk" values are mostly meaningless as they are just an artificial separation of the physical disk parameters. Could you post a performance graph or at least values for the given four params for your physical disk? – the-wabbit Jun 9 '11 at 9:29
Getting the data together to reply to this showed I was misinformed about the drive configuration. Thanks for helping me get to this point. – Merennulli Jun 9 '11 at 16:38

You might also check to ensure the "D" volume is healthy. Checking in on its fragmentation may not hurt as well..

share|improve this answer
I checked this earlier, and it has 4% fragmentation and comes up clean with every test I know including checkdisk. – Merennulli Jun 7 '11 at 22:41
Any significant difference in use or data being stored between D & L? – user48838 Jun 7 '11 at 22:51
Yes, D has about 4x the reads and 2x the writes as L. The relevant metric, though, is that the average for reads is over 90x slower on D. This is a recent change as these two used to be nearly identical. – Merennulli Jun 7 '11 at 23:41
The read/write differences are also compounded with the RAID "hits" as well. Any way to "quieting" down D for a "sanity" check? – user48838 Jun 8 '11 at 0:05
Took a while to schedule the downtime for it, but I'll be testing this tonight. – Merennulli Jun 9 '11 at 16:26

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.