• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

my raid 0 benchmark

H

hypertek

Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
585
hdd.jpg


is that good? my first raid attempt

2x seagate beracuda 7200.10 320hd sata3gb
 
Well, I'd like to have that kind of transfer speed.

I noticed your burst xfer is under 300 MBps, which would be the saturation point for two SATA I links. The 7200.10 series of drives support SATA III, which can run at 300 MBps over each link. In order to enable it you have to remove the jumper located next to the power connecter on the drive (they way they are shipped, they default to 150 MBps). Of course, your MB has to support it as well.
 
Actually, that's really good. Transfer speed in on par with two raptors in raid 0
 
i got a gigabyte 965 s3, so it does support sata 3.. and i did remove the jumpers on the back of the hard drives.. hmm maybe i dont have it configured right..
 
Pevo is talking about theoretical peak bandwidth. I had my raid 0 array on a sata 150 controller for a long time. Burst was always about 120MB/s. Then i put it on a sata 300 controller, and the burst speed went up to about 210MB/s.
 
underdone said:
Actually, that's really good. Transfer speed in on par with two raptors in raid 0
Click to expand...
And seek time on par with a single disk ;) The 7200.10 disks have really nice STRs, yes, but in desktop application performance they aren't up there with the Raptors.

 
hd.png

This is RAID 0 2x Fujitsu 36Gb 15K RPM U320 SCSI drives on a Dell Perc4e/DC controller in the 2nd SLI slot of a DFI Lanparty SLI-DR set to sli mode (8x8). Looks like SATA has it all the way when it comes to bang for the buck.
 
at least one person ITT has used the correct image compression algorithm. just for that, you win in my book :)
 
drizzt81 said:
at least one person ITT has used the correct image compression algorithm. just for that, you win in my book :)
Click to expand...

Ppbbbbhhtttt .... get off that 56k modem and don't worry about it.

:D
 
drizzt81 said:
at least one person ITT has used the correct image compression algorithm. just for that, you win in my book :)
Click to expand...
what's wrong with jpeg?
 
EnderW said:
what's wrong with jpeg?
Click to expand...
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/JPG_GIF_PNG.asp

JPG does not work well on line drawings, lettering or simple graphics because there is not a lot of the image that can be thrown out in the lossy process, so the image loses clarity and sharpness.
[...]
GIF is better than JPG for images with only a few distinct colors, such as line drawings, black and white images and small text that is only a few pixels high
Click to expand...
Note the JPG artifacts around the text in the screenshots in posts 1 and 7. I don't know what istymie did in order to make the image look so wrong, but generally the first two pics would be clearer if they were PNG or GIF compressed. Also, they'd be smaller.
 
The low burst rate figures may be down to the driver.
My Sata 1 drive should burst up to 150MB/s but is detected on the controller as ATA 100 and has accordingly much lower burst speed.
It performs like a demon still so I'm not fussed to find out why.
 
Hmmmmm.....my HDTach image is a JPEG pasted to MS Paint with Alt+PrntScrn.....lol, so I don't know why the others look like dookey. Never had an image problem capturing benchmarks like that.
 
yah i dont think im taking advantage of sata 3 for some reason, no idea how to configure it thru my motherboard or if its software.. ugh i wanna figure this out!!! i spent the cash i should get the performance.
 
Showing burst over 150 does not mean its enabled, considering two drives are connected, not one. However, you are right that even if it was bursting to 600 (300x2), it would make very little to zero impact on actualy performance. The sustained throuput is already capped below the current burst, so there is no room for improvement there.

Having a burst of 600 would be strictly cosmetic, but, you know, cool.
 
/rant

it's suppose to be sata2 (SATA II), sata3 doesn't exist. sata2 is also known as sata 300 MB/s.

/end rant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top