Nice result = 163 mbps

Atom · 10 Jul 2007 at 17:54

I have just set up raid0 using 2 WD Raptors 74gb 16mb cache and seem to be getting rather good scores from hdtach.

Are these speeds about right or is something likely to be wrong seeing as there so high. I have done the test 3 times and it is more or less the same each time and after a reboot..

6.8 seek speed, exactly why I am Raptored up!!!

E6300 @2.8/DS3

gurusan · 10 Jul 2007 at 17:55

well raid0 raptors should be fast....loading times must be almost nonexistant

very nice

basmic · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:03

Post some screenshots after running HD Tune please.

jbloggs · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:20

I would have expected 2 x 74GB Raptors (16MB cache) in RAID0 to give an Average read in HDTach of around 150MB/s, but not more than 155MB/s.

snowdog · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:26

Burst speed of 1600, seek of 6.8 ms? Are you sure its 2 raptors and not like 5 15k rpm scsi drives?

Also since when are 2x 74gb raptors in raid 0, 50gb?

matja · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:30

That is a nice result

what RAID controller are you using?

snowdog · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:31

Am I the only one thinking its fake? Since when can sata reach bursts of over 1k and how come the array isn't 148gb, but 50 gb?

anso never seen raptors with such a low seek time, my guess is it are scsi drives.

matja · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:32

snowdog said:
Also since when are 2x 74gb raptors in raid 0, 50gb?

It's probably partitioned, or Intel Matrix RAID (or equivalent), or a hardware RAID card with logical volume support. It would be interesting to see what the result is over the entire disk

snowdog · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:34

matja said:
It's probably partitioned, or Intel Matrix RAID (or equivalent), or a hardware RAID card with logical volume support. It would be interesting to see what the result is over the entire disk

That would explain the average read and seek times, due to prolly having partitioned only the outside fast rings of the platters, but, since when can burst be so high?

rpstewart · 10 Jul 2007 at 18:46

It's pretty normal for an Intel RAID controller to report bursts that high on HDTach

Atom · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:36

Why would I want to post a fake graph? I posted up as it seems high to me aswell.

I am using DS3 rev3.3 onboard raid ports, partitioned to 50gb, 64k stripe.

Still good seek.

Which to believe? HDTach or HDTune.

basmic · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:47

Atom said:
Why would I want to post a fake graph? I posted up as it seems high to me aswell.

I am using DS3 rev3.3 onboard raid ports, partitioned to 50gb, 64k stripe.

Still good seek.

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j54/Chang_photos/HDTune_Benchmark_GRAID.png

Which to believe? HDTach or HDTune.

Is that with the benchmark test speed/accuracy at Fast or Accurate?

jbloggs · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:58

The HDTach and the HDTune benches, being as they are testing the first 50GB at the outside of the HDD, look to be just about right, having compared them to my own benches of 2 x 74GB (8MB cache) Raptors (in RAID0).

matja · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:59

27.3% cpu usage? :eek:

that seems pretty high even for software raid

snowdog · 11 Jul 2007 at 13:51

Probably running something in background, like some kind of peerguardian (or any app) or somethign wich tekees up some cpu usage.

Yeah sorry to think it's a fake, I've never heard of httach reporting high bursts though and never heard of makingf a virtual 50 gb drive out of a 150 gb true drive ( and since hdtach doesnt scan partitions but full hdd's only...) .

Atom · 11 Jul 2007 at 18:17

basmic said:
Is that with the benchmark test speed/accuracy at Fast or Accurate?

Didn't change any settings in hdtune. Think it is 1 up from accurate.

Humate · 11 Jul 2007 at 23:26

what sort of result would you expect for a raid 6 array thats got 6 seagate barracuda 7200.10 500GB drives in it ? I will give it a test.