![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,841
2 years ago or so I got a Fujitsu MAU3036NP 36g 15k rpm SCSI drive along with an older Adaptec 39160 PCI scsi card. Ive been using that as an OS/Games drive since then.
I just got two 500g seagate 7200.11 drives and decided to set them up using Matrix Raid on my ICH9R controller. I made a 120g raid-0 partition and another 811g raid-0 partition.
This is how the three volumes stack up in synthetic benchmarks:
Fujitsu MAU 36g scsi drive:
Seagate 7200.11 Raid-0 (small fast slice)
Seagate 7200.11 Raid-0 (large semi-fast slice)
Between the SCSI drive and the small fast slice, Im not sure which would be the better candidate for the pagefile. Making the small partition via matrix raid brought the seek times way down but still not as good as the scsi drive. I suppose it comes down to whether pagefile performance is dependent on seek time or transfer rate. Then again the scsi drive probably still holds up better under heavy load so who knows?
Any ideas?
I just got two 500g seagate 7200.11 drives and decided to set them up using Matrix Raid on my ICH9R controller. I made a 120g raid-0 partition and another 811g raid-0 partition.
This is how the three volumes stack up in synthetic benchmarks:
Fujitsu MAU 36g scsi drive:
Seagate 7200.11 Raid-0 (small fast slice)
Seagate 7200.11 Raid-0 (large semi-fast slice)
Between the SCSI drive and the small fast slice, Im not sure which would be the better candidate for the pagefile. Making the small partition via matrix raid brought the seek times way down but still not as good as the scsi drive. I suppose it comes down to whether pagefile performance is dependent on seek time or transfer rate. Then again the scsi drive probably still holds up better under heavy load so who knows?
Any ideas?