Post your hard drive benchmarks!

smids said:
Any file smaller than the stripe is NOT RAID0'ed so to speak. i.e. it will be placed on one or the other disks.

I would highly recommend smaller stripes unless you are doing video editing. The O/S is the main stay, and for this I would recommend 32KB. 16KB requires too much defragging all the time. 32KB is a happy medium between a good OS speed increase and good gaming performance. I would not suggest running 128KB as the OS just wouldn't benefit. Most files for an OS are tiny - .dll's etc and would highly likely be below 128KB. Most are around 20KB or so. This is why I suggest 32KB. Games will still load quicker, but the large cache files may not benefit as much as if it was a large stripe. The question is, how much of playing a game is actually the map loading, and how much is the reading of DirectX files etc and other files to bring everything into motion?

Just my 2p anyway.
Click to expand...


I opted for 128KB for my 1 TB Raid 0 setup.

This will be filled with mini DV files that are huge and will help with video editing.

I have also installed my games on this array.

But just keep windows on a single 150 GIG raptor with two partitions.

One for XP and the other for vista (if I ever decide to use it!)
 
smids said:
Any file smaller than the stripe is NOT RAID0'ed so to speak. i.e. it will be placed on one or the other disks.

I would highly recommend smaller stripes unless you are doing video editing. The O/S is the main stay, and for this I would recommend 32KB. 16KB requires too much defragging all the time. 32KB is a happy medium between a good OS speed increase and good gaming performance. I would not suggest running 128KB as the OS just wouldn't benefit. Most files for an OS are tiny - .dll's etc and would highly likely be below 128KB. Most are around 20KB or so. This is why I suggest 32KB. Games will still load quicker, but the large cache files may not benefit as much as if it was a large stripe. The question is, how much of playing a game is actually the map loading, and how much is the reading of DirectX files etc and other files to bring everything into motion?

Just my 2p anyway.
Click to expand...

Perhaps 64KB would be a nice happy medium then?
 
Here's mine. Not too shabby for a silent setup...

HDTune.jpg
 
^^ Very nice, is that using that hybrid option?

Again here me trying to test a software raid, this time with the small test Nero has.

First three drives are partitions all on a samsung 160gb and F:\ is a 3x40gb 7200.7 dynamic drive

4u1pa8m.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeggstry said:
Pretty good for a single drive :)
Click to expand...
<Fluff> Not arrf! </Fluff>
I've seen that drive produce slightly quicker benchmarks for other folk (maybe 5% only) but that's still comfortably quicker than any other single drive in this thread I think. I can't justify replacing my current stack of 250s with these but I can definitely see some 7200.11s coming my way.
 
rpstewart said:
<Fluff> Not arrf! </Fluff>
I've seen that drive produce slightly quicker benchmarks for other folk (maybe 5% only) but that's still comfortably quicker than any other single drive in this thread I think. I can't justify replacing my current stack of 250s with these but I can definitely see some 7200.11s coming my way.
Click to expand...

Quite impressed with the latest 250GB HD's

When are the 7200.11 coming out?

I dont think there will be anything smaller than 500GB coming out for the 7200.11 series.
 
Last edited:
Scoobie Dave said:
Quite impressed with the latest 250GB HD's

When are the 7200.11 coming out?

I dont think there will be anything smaller than 500GB coming out for the 7200.11 series.
Click to expand...

No idea when they'll be out. There *might* be a 320Gb version but certainly nothing less, the new 250Gb 7200.10 is in effect a .11.
 
The model number which is quoted on the OCUK site is the single platter model so you'd be entitled to expect to receive that model.
 
rpstewart said:
<Fluff> Not arrf! </Fluff>
I've seen that drive produce slightly quicker benchmarks for other folk (maybe 5% only) but that's still comfortably quicker than any other single drive in this thread I think. I can't justify replacing my current stack of 250s with these but I can definitely see some 7200.11s coming my way.
Click to expand...


I think the slower benchmark will be because of the fact that I'm using the drive on the ATA150 not 300 and that the rest of my machine is at least 3 years old. Even so it still doesn't make that much of a difference so if you're looking for a larger replacement drive (which I was instead of my 34Gb raptor for my OS) you can't really go wrong.

When I do finally plan on getting a new computer I'll get another one of these and raid 0 them, then look into the 7200.11s for some larger storage :)

Oh, and thanks rpstewart for pointing me in the direction of this :) Following your recommendation I got the drive (using the OCUK of course ;) ) and I've now got the long job of installing/updating XP and installing everything back on :)
 
hdtach.jpg


Two WD5000AAKS striped.

Thats using the standard Vista/Nvidia driver.

Im not sure if it is worth installing the latest Nvidia driver.
 
That's a slightly oddly shaped curve but the numbers look pretty good. I'd be tempted to leave things as they are unless you have any specific problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom