Your HD tune scores

CSC Tiscali said:
2 x Hitachi 7k1000.C's in RAID 0, short stroked with 30GB boot partition
Click to expand...

4x Hitachi 7k1000.Cs in raid 0, short stroked to 200gb/64kb stripe

sleepy_raid-1.png


judging by our results, these hdds scaled up flawlessly.
 
I decided I would see what the 3 drives I have installed at the moment compare to what others scored, as well as benching them against each other...here is what I came out with...
Of all 3 drives, my System drive is far an away the fastest...as it should be. The Storage Drive and Music Drive are about equal, with the Music Drive being slower due to it having more data on it at this time. Overall, not too shabby IMO...but what about in the rest of [H]`s opinion...are these speeds acceptable for a non-gaming. primarily home/movie ripping machine?

37349409772602732815.jpg
 
your hdd speeds are fine; to make most use of them, you'll want more ram so you can run a ramdisk, anyway. if you leave the file to be converted on a ramdisk and outputted to the hdd, you'll see some kick ass numbers. that aside, your hdds ARE most likely bottlenecking your number crunching performance. blame random i/o for that, but ramdisks truly do make hdds a much better investment. hdd throughput is just way cheaper, still.
 
Raptor after defrag (which said it was NOT fragmented)
150gbraptorafterdefrag.png


Kingston 4gb DataTraveler
4gbdatatravelerthumb.png
 
So far so good. RAID6 over 20 drives on my Areca 1680i with a HP SAS expander:

hdtach.png
 
Did a litle test today :p was bored O+

installed a clean windows 7x64 with 4*640GB WD drives in Raid0 and it gives me a 6.3 in win 7 !!!!

testingw.jpg
 
Last edited:
LightStar said:
Did a litle test today :p was bored O+

installed a clean windows 7x64 with 4*640GB WD drives in Raid0 and it gives me a 6.3 in win 7 !!!!
Click to expand...

Cool, that's what I have on order for my RAID0 setup.
I am not sure if i`m using all 4 for Raid0 or 3xraid0 and 1x for backup.

If you want to be a pal compare 3xRaid0 to your 4xRaid0 hehe :D
 
ssdki.jpg


How does that look for 2x Kingston SSDNow V Series (Flashed w/ Intel firmware) in Raid 0.

Why are the read speeds higher when there is no data....is that normal?
 
ToddW2 said:
Cool, that's what I have on order for my RAID0 setup.
I am not sure if i`m using all 4 for Raid0 or 3xraid0 and 1x for backup.

If you want to be a pal compare 3xRaid0 to your 4xRaid0 hehe :D
Click to expand...

Sry m8 but allready build them in my Backup-server :p not in 4x640 but in 2 pairs :)
 
Got an OCZ Agility 60GB SSD recently on a Shell Shocker deal. I had to get it. I just set it up as my boot drive for 7 64 bit. I don't know if there's anything I should be doing differently with it. I think I took all the precautions with preparing it, I'm just unsure that it's all doing what it's supposed to be doing.

boot.png


This is my storage and program drive. Western Digital Caviar 1TB Green. I think it's practical, so I bought it.

Storage.png
 
Two Seagate 500GB ES drives in raid 0 and two stand alone Seagate 1.5TB drives. Not to shabby I think. System specs in my sig.

HD_Tune.jpg
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 192.015 MB/s
Sequential Write : 84.481 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 165.914 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 85.406 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 19.763 MB/s [ 4825.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 43.299 MB/s [ 10571.0 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 104.202 MB/s [ 25440.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 81.908 MB/s [ 19997.0 IOPS]

Test : 100 MB [C: 17.5% (13.0/74.5 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/04/06 21:47:07
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x86)


I've no idea what this means but it's with an intel X25-M 80GB. Is this okay/within what it should be?
UPDATE: Took it off the JMicron controller and onto the regular SATA port and got this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 253.442 MB/s
Sequential Write : 87.491 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 189.953 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 88.480 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 20.940 MB/s [ 5112.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 56.056 MB/s [ 13685.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 86.781 MB/s [ 21186.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 73.986 MB/s [ 18063.0 IOPS]

Test : 100 MB [C: 17.7% (13.2/74.5 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/04/06 22:11:13
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x86)
 
Last edited:
Here are mine:
300gb 15k SAS drive
15ksas.jpg

7 disk hardware raid6
hwr6read.jpg

hwr6write.jpg


Both hanging off of my Adaptec 5805
 
captureld.jpg
captureio.jpg

eh, the dip is crap but snappy drives for three 500gig drives in RAID0. Happier with this than my SSD due to size IMO.
 
Last edited:
Pkirk618 said:
captureld.jpg
captureio.jpg

eh, the dip is crap but snappy drives for three 500gig drives in RAID0. Happier with this than my SSD due to size IMO.
Click to expand...

your hdtune screeny looks like you don't have write cache enabled for the raid volumes. i'm not entirely sure what kind of hdds you have there, so i could be wrong
 
i checked and they are. what gave u that impression? They're just some cheap 500g wd hard drivers purchased couple months ago.

checked raid drivers...not installed. Should fix that I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Second try....


capturejm.jpg


after installed drivers. thanks for the catch. A little better me thinks.

Now the question I have is about below. My drive is kinds old, not fragmented and has plenty installed. It's not a fresh install. Could what I see below and what I explained be the cause?
capturebe.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have two WD Velociraptor 10k rpm drives in Raid 0 on my workstation.
hdtuneq.jpg


My laptop has an OCZ-Vertex 128gb
hdtunelaptop.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pkirk618 said:
Now the question I have is about below. My drive is kinds old, not fragmented and has plenty installed. It's not a fresh install. Could what I see below and what I explained be the cause?
capturebe.jpg
Click to expand...

yeppers. for some reason the benchmarks are prettier when they are fresh.

sidenote, the zig-zag/teeth pattern of the hdtune score is what pointed it out to me. saw the same thing the first time i benched my raid0
 
well thanks, I totally forgot about drivers and little things like paging and such that I do turn off. Kyles review of 6gb tech and raiding 6 drives got me thinking I should just make the most of the drives i already own. I get better numbers doing what i did with cheap 500g drives than my 500 dollar 120g vertex. I get more space too. For now, this works--until ssd size gets bigger on the cheap.
 
A tip for most people using HDTune if you're interested (and if you didn't already know this beforehand, I must add):

You can adjust the accuracy of the benchmark (in terms of the graphing aspect) by clicking File - Options - Benchmark and adjusting the slider to the bottom setting ("Accurate"). This will cause benchmarks to take more time but, obviously the tradeoff is a more accurate result.

And you can also adjust the size of the blocks it uses for testing; useful for checking out RAID stripe sizes.

Also, it helps "smooth out" the graphs especially when you're doing live benchmarking on a drive that's in use, like your primary OS drive.
 
Looks damned right to me. Nice solid speeds there, not bad at all. Burst rate is insane but, that's just HDTune not being able to read it correctly which it's never been capable of doing.
 
3Ware 9650SE and 2x WD740ADFD Raptors in Raid 0

zmi0w4.jpg


Why is my burst rate so slow?
 
Last edited:
Defense said:
2x WD5000AAKS in Raid 0 (500gb's)

Does this look right?
Click to expand...


why does your total size show up as 429GB on a Raid 0 setup with 2 500GB drives?

did you short stroke the array?

if so I guess that would explain your awesome access times and burst rate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top