Post your hard drive benchmarks!

Slinwagh · 19 Sep 2007 at 17:53

rpstewart said:
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.

That is with NCQ turned off.

helmutcheese · 19 Sep 2007 at 18:03

Look like a lot of services running in background, the big dip is one anyhow.

I get no diff with NCQ ON or OFF, no penalty (Stiker E + Raptor X's not raided for moment in Vista).

There is a couple of tips to get your SATA HDD faster in Vista as it will prob run slower than in XP.

1) Turn of low disk Space warning:

* Open Registry Editor- Start Menu > Run > type regedit
* Go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\
CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer
* Right click on the right pane and select New Dword (32 bit) Value
* Enter NoLowDiskSpaceChecks and hit Enter
* Right click on the new Dword and click Modify
* Change the data to 1
* Click Ok

2) Do this and accept warning:

Would not advise doing this on a Laptop esp on battery power.

rpstewart · 19 Sep 2007 at 18:08

NCQ's a funny one it seems to affect some controllers more than others. Intel ones seem to give the same results with and without NCQ whereas NVidia controllers seem to bench about 10-15% higher without NCQ. My RocketRAID improved by almost 25% turning NCQ off on all the disks!

Single disk operation doesn't show any difference from what I've seen.

helmutcheese · 19 Sep 2007 at 18:10

That is a Nvidia Controler its as 680i Chipset.

, I aint posted benches as not got my Raid on yet as of Mod needed to get 8800 card in with HDD Cage in a TT case.

I will try NCQ ON and OFF again when I am on Raid once more.

I did post the very fast ESATA run on the WD My Book ES Pro though. (67MB/Sec) gets 68MB/Sec sometimes.

Scoobie Dave · 21 Sep 2007 at 09:37

agw_01 · 21 Sep 2007 at 21:02

Maxtor 160gb IDE - 2mb cache 7200rpm

Western Digital 120gb IDE - 8mb cache 7200rpm

HHM · 22 Sep 2007 at 13:04

Like rpstewart, I had a good eye for these babyes, but the performance under
150 mb/s in raid0 is disapointing I think, I think I will just use single disks for my
new video-pc, then I will spare my self for the troubles configuring Intels Matrix
Raid as well. Also the amount that raid is contributing to faster render-time and
general work-flow seems hard to figure out, might as well stick with just a pair
of these ST3250410AS and then just be happy about the 110 MB/S as is, well
maybe wait for the .11 series and enjoy the bigger cashe, on 32 MB versus 16,
in case that it REALLY matters in the real-world use ? (video edit / audio DAW)

Scoobie Dave said:
2x Seagate 250GB Barracuda's (ST3250410AS)
Raid0 32k Stripe
Does this look ok?

Scoobie Dave · 22 Sep 2007 at 14:17

HHM said:
Like rpstewart, I had a good eye for these babyes, but the performance under
150 mb/s in raid0 is disapointing I think, I think I will just use single disks for my
new video-pc, then I will spare my self for the troubles configuring Intels Matrix
Raid as well. Also the amount that raid is contributing to faster render-time and
general work-flow seems hard to figure out, might as well stick with just a pair
of these ST3250410AS and then just be happy about the 110 MB/S as is, well
maybe wait for the .11 series and enjoy the bigger cashe, on 32 MB versus 16,
in case that it REALLY matters in the real-world use ? (video edit / audio DAW)

2x Seagate 250GB Barracuda's (ST3250410AS)

Raid0 32k Stripe

Better?

easyrider · 22 Sep 2007 at 14:30

2 x WD 500GB 5000AAKS 128 KB Stripe I seem to have a faster access time and not that much difference in reads considering the larger stripe

I'm also having issues with IATOR.SYS BSOD its random.

Last night my PC would not boot and blue screened this morning I switch on my PC and all is well again.

RAID 0 is just not worth the hassle IMO.

I'm going back to having 2 500 gig drives for my editing.

One for capture and the other for rendering onto with my single 150 GIG raptor as boot.

It feels no faster and can only be felt when looking at numbers in benchmarks imo

Raid 0 is over rated IMO

HHM · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:48

Scoobie Dave said:
2x Seagate 250GB Barracuda's (ST3250410AS)
Raid0 32k Stripe
Better?

Still the same I guess, and access time is not "good" like easyrider points out
I am sad it is not better, but at least I can avoid going the same route now

HHM · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:59

easyrider said:
2 x WD 500GB 5000AAKS 128 KB Stripe I seem to have a faster access time and not that much difference in reads considering the larger stripe

Yes you are deffinately right, so maybe the more proven WD is a better choice

easyrider said:
Last night my PC would not boot and blue screened this morning I switch on my PC and all is well again. RAID 0 is just not worth the hassle IMO.

I seccond you, asking again and again I never had a real answer as to how big
a part HD´s transfer-time has in the total render-picture, it is a combination of
cpu-power and HD-performance, sure, but I noticed from reading the vegas-
forum that most seems to have ended up using a un-cluttered 2 x HD setup

easyrider said:
I'm going back to having 2 500 gig drives for my
editing. One for capture and the other for rendering onto with my single 150
GIG raptor as boot. It feels no faster and can only be felt when looking at
numbers in benchmarks imo Raid 0 is over rated IMO

This is my conclusion also for now, I even think that one of the two disk can
be the same as you OS is installed on, (so in you case the raptor is not any
absolute need), I will now consider if having two 7200.10 250G or wait for
two 7200.11 500G with 32 MB Cashe, or just using the two samsung 200G
model "2004" with 8 MB cashe that I already have,...

Scoobie Dave · 22 Sep 2007 at 16:07

HHM said:
Still the same I guess, and access time is not "good" like easyrider points out
I am sad it is not better, but at least I can avoid going the same route now

I dont think access time means jack **** tbh.

I have used single a single raptor with quick access time and my Seagates in raid0 blows it away. Apps load much quicker, OS is more snappy, BF2 maps load really quick, infact anything loads quicker! Overall I see no disadvantage, only advantage with raid0 so far. Im loving my Seagates raid setup atm.

HHM · 22 Sep 2007 at 16:58

Scoobie Dave said:
only advantage with raid0 so far. Im loving my Seagates raid setup atm.

Thats cool

I didn´t come here to spread bad wibez

just for me personaly
I would say with a 110 MB/S drive then ending up with 140-150 is not enough
bennefit being woth it,.. it was not only the seek-time I was after,... but the
hole picture, to pay for two, (in my case 4), to use time getting familiar with
the unboard controller and raid-options, possible problems with this, all the
time considered that people who actually need performance, (vegas users),
in many cases seem to end up with the simple uncluttered setup, anyway I
will not high jack this topic, just try to understand the diffrent factors
involved in noticeable performance increase when editing and rendering

I am fully aware that raid-increase is not fully scaleable, but with these 2
hard-discs I would have expected 160-170 and not below 150

helmutcheese · 22 Sep 2007 at 17:07

No shame in a Raid0 set up beating a Single drive, try 2 Raptors (16MB's) in Raid0 then come back and say the same.

Scoobie Dave · 22 Sep 2007 at 17:07

HHM said:
Thats cool I didn´t come here to spread bad wibez just for me personaly
I would say with a 110 MB/S drive then ending up with 140-150 is not enough
bennefit being woth it,.. it was not only the seek-time I was after,... but the
hole picture, to pay for two, (in my case 4), to use time getting familiar with
the unboard controller and raid-options, possible problems with this, all the
time considered that people who actually need performance, (vegas users),
in many cases seem to end up with the simple uncluttered setup, anyway I
will not high jack this topic, just try to understand the diffrent factors
involved in noticeable performance increase when editing and rendering

I am fully aware that raid-increase is not fully scaleable, but with these 2
hard-discs I would have expected 160-170 and not below 150

The Seagates from what I know dont get as high as 110mb/s, so I dont know where your getting your info from m8.

More like 85-90mb/s tops.

HHM · 22 Sep 2007 at 17:17

Scoobie Dave said:
The Seagates from what I know dont get as high as 110mb/s, so I dont know where your getting your info from m8.
More like 85-90mb/s tops.

Hi again

I gave links to the documentation already some days ago i another
thread, and rpstewart has touched the subject also several time, 110 mb/s is
true if you read down the pdf carefully in the right colonne, the reason for this
great figures in the smallest .10 disk is that it is in fact a .11 platter used

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10107394#post10107394

but then again, maybe your measurings shows that series .11 is not what
seagate whant us to believe they are, so lowering the expectations maybe
is a good idea, the bleeding edge consensus seem to be that seagate did
beat hitachi and samsung with this one, (as far as I can tell),....

Scoobie Dave · 22 Sep 2007 at 17:27

HHM said:
Hi again I gave links to the documentation already some days ago i another
thread, and rpstewart has touched the subject also several time, 110 mb/s is
true if you read down the pdf carefully in the right colonne, the reason for this
great figures in the smallest .10 disk is that it is in fact a .11 platter used

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10107394#post10107394

but then again, maybe your measurings shows that series .11 is not what
seagate whant us to believe they are, so lowering the expectations maybe
is a good idea, the bleeding edge consensus seem to be that seagate did
beat hitachi and samsung with this one, (as far as I can tell),....

I very much doubt you will get that speed in reality. Check out Yeggstry's post on page 12 of the forum. I think thats more realistic.

Personally I would not believe everything you read on paper . . .

HHM · 22 Sep 2007 at 17:58

Scoobie Dave said:
I very much doubt you will get that speed in reality. Check out Yeggstry's post on page 12 of the forum. I think thats more realistic. Personally I would not believe everything you read on paper . . .

Yes, I am to naive it seems, but then again seagate seem to be 20 mb/s to
much optimistic

and that I think is more than "normal", for now I conclude
that seagate is not as honnest about performance as others, and I have to
take that in consideration from now on, and don´t expect their figures to be
even a guideline, these are good discs, no doubt, but comparable to the rest,
I had expected something more edgy, now that it is all cleared out we should
not wet our pants for the .11 series either

silly me

Based on Yeggstry's 90 MB/S measure I guess near 150 MB/S is somehow OK

robbobloke · 23 Sep 2007 at 09:46

Here are my disks.

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB ST3320620AS SATA-II 16MB (4 months old)

Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB 5000AAKS SATA-II 16MB (Few weeks old)

Are these about normal?

allllec · 23 Sep 2007 at 10:35