Post your hard drive benchmarks!

rpstewart · 27 Mar 2008 at 14:24

It's generally thought that large stripes are better for large files and small stripes are better for benchmarking and small files. I have, however, seen an alternative argument which suggests that small stripes are good for big files.

The bottom line is that you really need to make your own comparisons.

JayMax · 27 Mar 2008 at 14:28

jbloggs said:
What HDDs are you using in this setup?

Samsung HD040GJ - 40Gb, Sata II, 8Mb cache. Decent bang for the buck at ~£15 a pop off the bay. I had 4 of them on my old ICH8R setup. Once I get Acronis working I'll have a mess around with Raid 0+1 or whatever

I think the latest Acronis has issues with ICH9R but not sure.

Sniper123 · 27 Mar 2008 at 20:14

Fujitsu 160GB Raid 0 128 stripe.

Nice speed for a laptop ^^

Edit

Sorry for rubbish picture...

Average read = 78.4MB/sec
Random Access = 16.4ms

jbloggs · 27 Mar 2008 at 22:50

JayMax said:
Samsung HD040GJ - 40Gb, Sata II, 8Mb cache. Decent bang for the buck at ~£15 a pop off the bay. I had 4 of them on my old ICH8R setup. Once I get Acronis working I'll have a mess around with Raid 0+1 or whatever
I think the latest Acronis has issues with ICH9R but not sure.

A 286.9MB/s Average read is certainly more than decent...great value for £90....

Regarding Acronis True Image Home 11, I am using this with the Intel ICH9R controller, setup is 2 x 36GB Raptors (16MB cache) in RAID0, with Vista Business 64 bit.....have had no problems, either making a backup image, or restoring one in DOS via Acronis boot CD.....I have read of a couple of people having problems with it (Bledd being one of them)...I think he tried used the BartPE plugin....there is a thread about it somewhere....Here it is

Wizardskills · 27 Mar 2008 at 22:58

Simmy · 28 Mar 2008 at 18:15

2 x 250GB RAID 0 on ICH9R controller

kablooey · 30 Mar 2008 at 20:33

2 x 150GB Raptors

jbloggs · 30 Mar 2008 at 21:15

kablooey said:
2 x 150GB Raptors

That looks a bit on the low side for 2 x 150GB Raptors in RAID0, I have 2 x 36GB (16MB cache) Raptors in RAID0, and HDTune gives an Average read of 146MB/sec...

Tiger33 · 1 Apr 2008 at 17:44

Here is my benchmark

ChrisD. · 1 Apr 2008 at 17:53

Which drives?

Tiger33 · 1 Apr 2008 at 18:16

MilanoChris said:
Which drives?

its 2 500gb WD in RAID 0

is the benchmark good?

im thinking bout moving to vista actually (vista 32bit ultimate)
so ill most likely have to re do my setup - make a smaller partition for the os and the rest for data i think

Final8y · 1 Apr 2008 at 20:01

4XWD Caviar SE16 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache WD5000AAKS Raid-0 Stripe/64 Vista Ultimate-64
D.F.I LanParty UT 790FX-M2R

kablooey · 1 Apr 2008 at 20:34

jbloggs said:
That looks a bit on the low side for 2 x 150GB Raptors in RAID0, I have 2 x 36GB (16MB cache) Raptors in RAID0, and HDTune gives an Average read of 146MB/sec...

I dunno, looking at other peoples results with 2 x 150GB raptors in this thread it looks about right.

jbloggs · 1 Apr 2008 at 22:30

kablooey said:
I dunno, looking at other peoples results with 2 x 150GB raptors in this thread it looks about right.

On having a bit of a look I found a couple of other 150GB Raptor RAID0 benches, Here and Here....which both are quite near yours.....didn't think there was so much of a difference in speed when comapred to 2 x 36GB (16MB cache) Raptors..which in HDTune is 146MB/sec......

rpstewart · 2 Apr 2008 at 18:40

Whoa tiger!!!

6 x 640Gb AAKS in RAID5 (HDTune seems to get the size of the volume wrong if it's too big).

2 x 640Gb AAKS in RAID0

Currently doing an online migration to an 8 disk RAID5 array which should be done sometime tomorrow morning :eek:

so more to follow.

Space Monkey · 2 Apr 2008 at 18:48

rpstewart said:
Whoa tiger!!!

Snip!

Hi RP,

Just a quick question if I may? How come the access time on your 6 disk array is 10ms and 12.3ms on the 2 disk array? 10ms sounds really good, not far of the Raptor benchies!

Thanks in advance,

D.M

rpstewart · 2 Apr 2008 at 19:04

Seems a bit on the low side doesn't it. Without knowing how the benchmarking works outs the access time and how the controller handles those sorts of requests it's not possible to say for sure but if you look at the RAID5 chart the random accesses (yellow dots) aren't all that random which could explain a lot.

jbloggs · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:38

rpstewart said:
Whoa tiger!!!

6 x 640Gb AAKS in RAID5 (HDTune seems to get the size of the volume wrong if it's too big).

Nice....!

rpstewart · 4 Apr 2008 at 17:47

Engage silly grin.....

8 x WD 6400AAKS, RAID5.

There's definitely something up with the access time, looking at the graph HDTune doesn't attempt random accesses beyond 2Tb hence the heads don't have to move as far.

But who cares. Mwwaahhh hah hah hah!!!

ChrisD. · 4 Apr 2008 at 17:54

That's excellent mate. I'm keeping an eye out for a spare hardware RAID controller through work, only problem is that they are all SCSI cards.