post your hard drive benchmarks :)

All drives run on my GA-P35-DS3L.(XP-Pro 32-bit)

Seagate 7200.10 (320GB)...OS drive:

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...DS3LSATA3g.jpg

WD 5000AAKS(500GB)..storage:

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...GBonDS3L-1.jpg


Seagate 7200.10 (250GB)..For my daughters' PC.. but tested on mine first: Surprisingly quick. :D

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...GBonDS3L-1.jpg

WD 6400AAKS(640GB)..storage. Tried it, and it's awesome as an OS drive. :D

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...AAKSonDS3L.jpg

HDTune:

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...0AAKS-DS3L.jpg

:cool: Tanker

Small Update. Write Caching enabled.

slightly slower, but higher burst rates.
personally, I dont care for burst rates.... it makes no difference if a hard drive can go super fast, for a second. I like constant performance, not occassional.

Yep that makes my 4 Raptor RAID0 runs look slow.

Everest has some different numbers though...what do you think of the Everest bench? Is it accurate?

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/6...testly2.th.jpg

Same as b4 but a 73GB LD to decrease seek time!

http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/dawnsmack.gif

RAM Disk :)

http://img.techpowerup.org/080713/Capture026828.jpg

that's stupid insane!!!!

is the wd 640's best bang for buck and performance if wanna raid0 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaim

that's stupid insane!!!!

is the wd 640's best bang for buck and performance if wanna raid0 ?

---

I would say they're the best bang/buck in RAID or by itself. I posted my 640 result(HDTach) a few posts up ^....but i reran, and got a very sizable increase-with no changes.:D Hey... increased performance(well....benchie) for free, i'll take it.

New run:

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...AKSonDS3L2.jpg

:woot:

Can someone help me please?
I bought a WD360GD 36GB Raptor SATA1 (second-hand) and tried to run this HD Tach test. The results:
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/raptor8mb.jpg
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/raptor32mb.jpg
How can the burst and read be so low?:confused:

Compared to my Hitachi T7K500 320GB SATA2:
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/hdtach8m-seek.JPG
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/hdtach32m-seek.JPG

I also tried the other jumper placements:
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....hp?p_faqid=872

Tho, it all seems OK on win :shrug:

Because its an old SATA 1 drive burst is low. Because of the nature of the drive, transfer is rather low (single-platter, two-headed if I recall correctly). Your HDD is perfectly normal, it's strength lies with the low random access. So as a system disk it would probably still outperform a WD6400AAKS. ;)

jcool, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

Because its an old SATA 1 drive burst is low. Because of the nature of the drive, transfer is rather low (single-platter, two-headed if I recall correctly). Your HDD is perfectly normal, it's strength lies with the low random access. So as a system disk it would probably still outperform a WD6400AAKS. ;)

---

I'll admit to never trying a Raptor, but when i set up my 640AAKS as an OS drive(XP-Pro-32) i found it very snappy. I assume the Raptors quick access times would make opening folders and apps very quick, but i found installing programs with the 640 was amusing....it just ripped through installs... i'm assuming due to the high STR's.:D

http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/sram.gif

Ludicrous speed! :rofl:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HB7tc9pVvYg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1Tanker

I'll admit to never trying a Raptor, but when i set up my 640AAKS as an OS drive(XP-Pro-32) i found it very snappy. I assume the Raptors quick access times would make opening folders and apps very quick, but i found installing programs with the 640 was amusing....it just ripped through installs... i'm assuming due to the high STR's.:D

---

The WD6400AAKS is a great drive, no doubt. Currently I'm very impressed with the Velociraptor, it matches the Savvio 15k.1 easily for single-threaded desktop applications and can nearly keep up with simultaneous requests, too :up:

Rubycon, wtf is that :shocked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubycon

http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/sram.gif

Ludicrous speed! :rofl:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HB7tc9pVvYg

---

WTH is thet thing:eek:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adpr_02

WTH is thet thing:eek:?

---

ram drive

ARE YOU KIDDING ME. MY main HD is Ludicrous SLOW!!!! and it's 80GB WD Sata 3.0Gb .......

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k2...rking/80gb.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biohead

ram drive

---

1400GB ram drive ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biohead

ram drive

---

So, how do I get one of them "ram drives"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pudi

1400GB ram drive ?

---

can't explain th size. just the speed. plus the pic url is "http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/sram.gif"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adpr_02

So, how do I get one of them "ram drives"?

---

google "ram disk" and "gigabyte i-ram".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by computerking

ARE YOU KIDDING ME. MY main HD is Ludicrous SLOW!!!! and it's 80GB WD Sata 3.0Gb .......

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k2...rking/80gb.jpg

---

When's the last time you defragged that drive? :eek: Here's what my WD 80GB(8MB) IDE got in march/06.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...ker/HDTune.jpg

I didn't I think from 1.5 year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biohead

ram drive

---

Thought so too at first.. but a 1,4TB ramdrive is virtually impossible. So either it's an error or a fake...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubycon

http://www.dawnitgirl.com/pic/sram.gif

Ludicrous speed! :rofl:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HB7tc9pVvYg

---

Holy crap! What kind of a setup is that from?

Ramsan? $200K

EDIT: $200K for the TMS 128GB version.

Also access times on that SS are 0.1ms, I would expect ~0.01ms for a DRAM based device. Maybe they are 4 arrays of ARECA's with NAND SSDs using volume manager? Anyways, Very Interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ

Holy crap! What kind of a setup is that from?

Ramsan? $200K

EDIT: $200K for the TMS 128GB version.

Also access times on that SS are 0.1ms, I would expect ~0.01ms for a DRAM based device. Maybe they are 4 arrays of ARECA's with NAND SSDs using volume manager? Anyways, Very Interesting

---

I'm surprised that minimum transfer rate is higher than the burst speed. :eek:

linux eee 900 @ xp pro

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7579/95485017ew9.jpg