post your hard drive benchmarks :)

**derektm** · 10-11-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by fade2green514

i added an alternate download site.
what are your hard drive specs derektm?

4 x Seagate 320GB sata's. They run very cool and i'm very happy with their performace. I'm usualy the first one to load the map in games like BF2 and CSS. (99% of the time anyways.) AFAIK map loading and caching is really hard drive dependent. Correct me if i'm wrong. That's the main reason I got them. Faster map loading/caching

Thanks for the alternative link! (for those of us to lazy to search google

)

**Yay for Cheese** · 10-11-2006, 10:09 PM

If you used RAID 5 instead, how much of a performance loss would there be compared to your current setup?

**STEvil** · 10-11-2006, 11:44 PM

I should plug the WD USB hdd into my other laptop and see what it gets for transfer rates and stuff on USB 1.0... lol

**derektm** · 10-12-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Yay for Cheese

If you used RAID 5 instead, how much of a performance loss would there be compared to your current setup?

There was a thread on another forum where people were running raid 5. Raid 5 affected performance some, but not by a lot. It is plenty fast for storage. I will see if I can find you the link in the morning. Sleepy time now

Been up with a stomach ache

**fade2green514** · 10-12-2006, 10:14 AM

derektm - are you running RAID 0 then or what?
also, feel free to post your hd tune benchmark now that theres an extra link lol

**fhpchris** · 10-12-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by derektm

HDtune links is down but heres with HDtach....

I think my drives are faster, and cheaper than Raptors aswell:

Avg read: 400+ MB/s and pretty low access time too!

You need to run the long test and not the quick test!

**fasttruck860** · 10-12-2006, 02:18 PM

The first two shots are from my 3 80Gb Hitachi 7200rpm 8mb cache 3Gb/s on a Ich7r raid 0.

The last shot is my 250Gb Seagate 7200rpm 8mb cache.

**Yay for Cheese** · 10-12-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by derektm

There was a thread on another forum where people were running raid 5. Raid 5 affected performance some, but not by a lot. It is plenty fast for storage. I will see if I can find you the link in the morning. Sleepy time now

Been up with a stomach ache

Well I found a topic here comparing RAID 0 to RAID 5.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...highlight=raid

**IluvIntel** · 10-13-2006, 02:17 AM

Looks like a nice benchy to run. But should we not run other HD benchmarks & combine them in one thread ?

**icon57** · 10-13-2006, 05:34 AM

http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hdqu5.jpg

2 raptor 150's in raid0

**fade2green514** · 10-16-2006, 03:42 PM

well, quite obviously we can note that dual or quad hard drives would add more heat to the case and be less reliable... not "redundant" like a "Redundant Array of Inexpensive (interchangable with independant i think) Disks" suggests lol... but if run in RAID 0 can be a lot faster and more consistent. raptors lower latency and access times, but they get bottlenecked by sata150 if run in dual triple or quad RAID 0 it seems.

**fade2green514** · 10-16-2006, 04:28 PM

so heres the quandary i face... will two of these hard drives (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822135106) be fast enough for me... or would i rather 3, or even 4 of them?

and would i rather have two of those in RAID 0 and a larger storage drive, or would i rather just have four of them in RAID 0?

what are your opinions?

**shaithis** · 10-16-2006, 04:57 PM

Areca 1210 with 4 Seagate 7200.10 320GB drives in RAID5 64k Stripe.

**fade2green514** · 10-16-2006, 05:03 PM

how is it 960GB? lol if youve got 4 320gb in RAID 5 then it should be 1280GB shouldnt it?
how does RAID 5 work anyways?
edit: nvm found a nice site explaining it (and the other RAID levels)
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/...els/single.htm

only thing that prevents me from wanting to use this array is this:

Special Considerations: Due to the amount of parity calculating required, software RAID 5 can seriously slow down a system. Performance will depend to some extent upon the stripe size chosen.

**syne_24** · 10-16-2006, 05:20 PM

triple 74gb raptors

**fade2green514** · 10-16-2006, 05:25 PM

personally, i like the look of the raptors still, just because of the low access time.
put 4 of them in RAID 0 and you're set, though that interface still does bottleneck a little bit.

**shaithis** · 10-17-2006, 01:08 AM

9% CPU time on the raptors seems a little excessive.

What chipset are they running off?

**fade2green514** · 10-18-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by shaithis

9% CPU time on the raptors seems a little excessive.

What chipset are they running off?

i'd have to blame that on background processes like anti-virus or something... maybe he was playing music.
i mean, running progs isnt bad during this benchmark (though its not suggested) since most of the time they run off the RAM or something...

**[cTx]Philosophy** · 10-18-2006, 11:25 PM

Single 74 rap, massivly needs some work done to it, but not bad overall..

**eminatic** · 10-18-2006, 11:38 PM

Single Seagate 750GB

**fade2green514** · 10-19-2006, 04:22 PM

i dono... i personally prefer speed over size. i don't use up a whole lot of hard drive space anyways... i had a 250gig for my storage drive (before i sold my X2 rig) and i was only using 1/3 of it at the time...

**IluvIntel** · 10-20-2006, 01:55 AM

4 x formatted Maxtor 6V300F0 in Raid 0

**[XC] MarioMaster** · 10-20-2006, 05:20 PM

Dual 250Gb WD 7200rpm SATA2 Drives
Rig from my signature - "Optimal" Stripe size
Edit - Ignore the 100% cpu usage - I was running WCG at the time

**fade2green514** · 10-29-2006, 10:19 PM

i'd say im quite happy with my RAID 0 array

compare to single hard drive configuration:

wow i nearly doubled bandwidth

YAY lol

**-Acid-** · 10-29-2006, 10:24 PM

all these arrays have a good R/W speeds but the access times are nasty

average 14 ns

Thread: post your hard drive benchmarks :)

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions