Post your hard drive benchmarks!

uvarvu · 9 Dec 2007 at 18:23

cavemanoc said:
Access time seems a little large there - what is the rated speed on a single 10k?

Average times are rated at 4.5ms.

helmutcheese · 9 Dec 2007 at 18:34

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17696862&page=16

Post 471, Seeks aint as fast as Advertised for some reason, still a far smoother curve than 99% of results I see here. (little slower in Vista64 than XP).

Nothing wrong with 75MB/Sec on a 7200rpm HDD, there aint much they can do to speed them up, but Perpendicular Recording helps as it reads more data with less of a pass of Head(s), without that I dont see them getting any faster.

Now imagine that Tech on a 10k rpm HDD.

cavemanoc · 9 Dec 2007 at 19:02

Seagate have been using perpendicular tech for the last 2 generations of scsi (SAS and Parallel - and 15k

) - and yes - they are blisteringly quick with access times to die for - if they weren't such a pain to manage I'd upgrade in a flash

# Second-generation perpendicular recording delivers up to 450-GB storage
# Unprecedented performance with a sustained data rate up to 164 MB/sec

Oh how I wish I had the cash...

uvarvu · 9 Dec 2007 at 19:34

Aren't they going to release the 15K.6 drives with a U320 interface?

cavemanoc · 10 Dec 2007 at 20:29

Doesn't look like it

I think it will be SAS or Fiber only - I guess the time has come to move along...

leoncc · 11 Dec 2007 at 06:09

2 raptors 8mb cache in raid 0 16k stripe/cluster

LeoPheonix · 12 Dec 2007 at 11:09

I was thinking of implementing 2 x 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 for my c drive for speed. However from these tests it looks like 2 x Barracudas are faster. I though Raptors were much faster than the other drives. What am I missing?

LeoPheonix · 12 Dec 2007 at 11:49

okay after some research it seems that these tests to not take into account latency. So the raptors will spin up a send information more quickly.

The question is which works best as a system drive for normal use and for gaming use?

uvarvu · 12 Dec 2007 at 12:39

cavemanoc said:
Doesn't look like it I think it will be SAS or Fiber only - I guess the time has come to move along...

That will be very expensive. Two of these drives in RAID 0 could bottleneck a single channel SAS card in theory no? So you'd have to get a dual channel card such as adaptec 3805 which costs a bomb! Then you have to get two sets of cables and that's another fifty quid gone!

Massive Attack · 12 Dec 2007 at 13:19

2 x Seagate 320gb 7200.10 on Intel ICH9R 64KB stripe

ShiWarrior · 12 Dec 2007 at 22:32

Hi
whats "Intel ICH9R 64KB stripe" ?

DIABLO · 12 Dec 2007 at 22:50

the Raid contoller (Intel ICH9R) and the stripe size (64KB)

naro · 18 Dec 2007 at 01:05

2 x 15k.4 Cheetah in Raid 0, using an Adaptec 39320 SCSI adapter

Fothsn · 18 Dec 2007 at 16:21

WDC WD5000AAKS

WDC WD800AAJS

Good or bad? They are in separate machines & are brand new.

rpstewart · 18 Dec 2007 at 16:26

fothsn said:
Good or bad? They are in separate machines & are brand new.

Pretty much what you'd expect from those drives.

Fothsn · 18 Dec 2007 at 16:35

rpstewart said:
Pretty much what you'd expect from those drives.

Good good

Cant believe how quite they are totally silent.

ChrisD. · 18 Dec 2007 at 17:14

3 X Raptor 36GB on P35 board using ICH9R controller 128k stripe size. One of the drives is the 16MB cache version, the other two are the 8MB versions:

WD 250 GB Caviar SATA drive (the old style, not SATA II):

Seagate Barracuda 500GB:

Imy · 18 Dec 2007 at 23:18

2 x Cheetah 15K.5 SAS 73GB in RAID 0 on Areca ARC-1680
32KB Stripe, Write Back Enabled, TCQ Disabled

naro · 19 Dec 2007 at 01:45

Imy said:
2 x Cheetah 15K.5 SAS 73GB in RAID 0 on Areca ARC-1680

Thats a nice Areca 1680 you have there. Really fast SAS drives you have too!!!

Imy · 19 Dec 2007 at 08:58

You running yours with NCQ/TCQ on or off naro?