Are my Seagate 7200.10s slow?

Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2005
Posts
1,013
Location
Newcastle
I'm running 2 250GB Seagate Barracudas 7200.10 in RAID-0. However, on the windows loadup screen, the bar goes across nearly 9 times! Its actually more than my old one did iirc. Could I have missed something out in the installation? Or is this normal?

Is there a benchmark I can run to check they're running OK?
 
hdbench.gif


Hows that?
 
The second graph is fine, in fact it's very nice speed!

Not sure why the first one is so whacky, possibly because something else was accessing the disk at the same time as the HDTach.

I wouldn't worry about the bar going 9 times, it's loading all sorts of drivers and junk at that point. If you want to get deeper into it then go grab a copy of bootvis, that'll tell you all sorts of guff about the boot process but it's far from the most simple tool to use.
 
It will depend on the stripe size you chose when you made the array. Smaller stripes are faster for windows.

Usually 32K is the best stripe size for a compromise between windows and games.

Explanation: When using a RAID0, and file smaller than the stripe size will NOT be put on both disks - it will instead be only placed on one disk and accessed. This obviously negates the benefit of RAID0. Most windows files are tiny - e.g. .ini's, .sys, .dll and others. Most RAID controllers default to a 128K or 64K stripe size which means a lot of windows files are left out - hence windows runs faster on smaller stripe RAID arrays.

Why not use 16K or 8K? Because these are so small, the larger files on the disk are broken down into so many pieces that it uses more CPU power to reconstruct the data as the calculations will normally be offloaded to the CPU.

Most game files are very large - i.e. 500MB - 1GB in size (e.g. Steam .gcf files). Now these get broken into thousands, if not millions of pieces so the CPU usage goes much higher with this. Normally I saw about 8-10% CPU utilisation on my 16K array and only 5-6% on 32K.

Generally people use 32K for the balance. 32K will have half the number of pieces of 16K so there is obvious benefit.
 
Lonz said:
Anyone got an idea if this normal or not? If so, is my Windows taking too long or am I just being paranoid? :p

maybe its nothing to do with your raid

see what process are starting up with your pc

maybe all you is to tweak your windows install abit
 
BillytheImpaler said:
Is the CPU usage effected like this when you have a separate RAID controller with dedicated memory and processor? Does the CPU offload its work wholly to the RAID controller?
Depending on the controller, yes. Highpoints only accelerate the calculations, but manufacturers who implement XOR (they use RISC processors) processors offload totally. RAID0 and RAID1 aren't very demanding at all on a CPU in fairness, it's RAID5 and others which can use about 25% if there is no dedicated processor.
 
Back
Top Bottom