post your hard drive benchmarks :)

[Pain|Killer]

Maxtor 250GB sata 8mb




A quick bench of hd tach RW



Are these benches ok for my hard drive?



How can I activate UDMA mode 6 (Ultra ATA/133)?

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

[WesM63]

10 Raptor RAID0 scratch disk on Areca 1261ML with 2GB cache.

Thats bad ass, but do you really have 10 raptors in your system or was it just a benchmark thing?

[Rubycon]

Thats bad ass, but do you really have 10 raptors in your system or was it just a benchmark thing?

Yes I do.

[ncsa]

Rubycon .. v.nice array, shows what a real controller can do.

A quick run using:

6x Drives Seagate 16Mb cache RAID-0 64K stripe
ICH9R Matrix Vista x64 WBC Enabled
Abit IP35 Pro

[Apokalipse]

Board: MSI K9A2 Platinum
*edit*
using XP x64 edition

single Raptor on ATI SB600:


single 750GB Seagate 7200.10 on SB600:


single 750GB Seagate 7200.10 on Promise T3:


Promise controller gives faster throughput, but higher access time.

[Pain|Killer]

How can I activate UDMA mode 6 (Ultra ATA/133)?

No body knows its answer.. O God send a saint at this forum to answer my question.

[-X-hellfire]

Q6600 @ 2400 Ghz default 9x266, mem @800MHz default, everything @ default


3x500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA RAID 0



3x500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA RAID 5



300gb Seagate 7200.10 ATA is a fourth drive on the Gigabyte controlller












3 x 500GB on a Intel Matrix Storage Manager...
120GB RAID 0 stripe 128kb and the rest
850GB RAID 5 stripe 128kb


The write performance is not so good on the RAID 5 with 12-20Mb/s for a copy big file from RAID 0 or the 300GB ATA

[Zucker2k]

Maximus Formula Bios 907
2x160GB WD1600YD in Raid0

[XRTweaked]

Here's a quick run, this is 2 WD 7200rpm 16mb cache 250gb drives in raid 0

My rig is: Asus P5B Deluxe, E6750 @ 3.6 w/c, 2gb Ballistix 6400, Evga 8800gts 640mb, OCZ 700w PSU.

[tiro_uspsss]

Here's a quick run, this is 2 WD 7200rpm 16mb cache 250gb drives in raid 0

My rig is: Asus P5B Deluxe, E6750 @ 3.6 w/c, 2gb Ballistix 6400, Evga 8800gts 640mb, OCZ 700w PSU.

[Polizei]

Specs are in sig, running on the Matrix RAID with my utter crap ICH7R southbridge. 32k stripe size.

The document Ive attached is the output file from a program stevecs hooked me up with called IOZone. Awesome program if youve got the 10 hours to run a benchmark with it. steve.

The document has both MS Excel tables and charts - click the tabs in bottom left to scroll through charts. Its a much more thorough test to determine RAID performance. If anyone wants to run IOZone or needs help with it, shoot me a PM and I can set you up generally with it and do my best to help.

[XRTweaked]

Hehe, thanks

[vbo]

3x 250GB Seagate NCQ 16MB buffer (STRIPE)

Write Cache DISABLED:


Write Cache ENABLED:




Windows Vista Ultimate x86

[Rubycon]

Test size of 50MB means it runs to and from the 2GB cache which is on 8X PCI-E.

EDIT: Different every time it's run. Vista is ALWAYS messing with the damn disks even with indexing OFF. grrr

[The0men]

Can anyone please tell me of a good HD stress test utility or a good error checking utility, I had to manually install some RAID drivers because my floppy disk corrupted during install, now windows is behaving badly and im getting BSOD's.

Thank you for any replies.

[Dark Revenger]

Maxtor 250Gb Sata 2 16Mb



Maxtor 80Gb Ata 133

[WoLpH]

Perhaps a little off-topic, but as I'm facing the decision to get a new system and I have a pretty high-end disk array, I'm wondering what the performance would be using a 'normal' motherboard?

My current workstation (dual opteron 246), has an Areca 1280ML with 16x WD5000AAKS on it and 2GB cache. But as these processors clearly need an upgrade I'm thinking of buying either a fast Core 2 Quad or a (most likely less fast because of the price) Xeon system. So I'm wondering, has anyone around here have experience with a regular desktop system running a high-end disk setup? I haven't found anyone with a similar setup in this topic.
Since workstation motherboards don't offer any overclocking possibilities and are a lot more expensive I find a Core 2 Quad a nice option, if my raid card will still be used to the maximum. I really like the high disk performance I have right now.

PS: I only run Linux and Unix, so some hardware might not be completely compatible/possible.

[Rubycon]

Perhaps a little off-topic, but as I'm facing the decision to get a new system and I have a pretty high-end disk array, I'm wondering what the performance would be using a 'normal' motherboard?

My current workstation (dual opteron 246), has an Areca 1280ML with 16x WD5000AAKS on it and 2GB cache. But as these processors clearly need an upgrade I'm thinking of buying either a fast Core 2 Quad or a (most likely less fast because of the price) Xeon system. So I'm wondering, has anyone around here have experience with a regular desktop system running a high-end disk setup? I haven't found anyone with a similar setup in this topic.
Since workstation motherboards don't offer any overclocking possibilities and are a lot more expensive I find a Core 2 Quad a nice option, if my raid card will still be used to the maximum. I really like the high disk performance I have right now.

PS: I only run Linux and Unix, so some hardware might not be completely compatible/possible.

I'm using a similar set up as you with 10 raptors striped. Yes you want to upgrade to a quad core or dual quad. I went from a 975X to X38 system and the PCI-E performance on the Areca is better. The burst speed in HD Tach is about 450MB/S better than the pic above.

[Polizei]

HDTach doesnt measure burst right.

[WoLpH]

I'm using a similar set up as you with 10 raptors striped. Yes you want to upgrade to a quad core or dual quad. I went from a 975X to X38 system and the PCI-E performance on the Areca is better. The burst speed in HD Tach is about 450MB/S better than the pic above.

With a setup like that you should be getting about 700MB/s, are you getting results like that?

Cause I'm afraid a regular motherboard with a single bus might not be able to handle the performance, with my current dual system I can easily flood the entire bus from CPU 1 and still have CPU 2 completely available for me. Although that wouldn't be the case with a Xeon I guess since they share the memory and bus anyway.

HDTach doesnt measure burst right.

He was talking about hdtune I suppose, since the screenshot above my post is one of hdtune

[Polizei]

Im curious as to what stevecs has to say about your question... he seems to be quite the RAID guru around here.

[Rubycon]

Actual STR reaches 800MB/S from the ten disk array. About 1.9GB/S from the cache.

HD Tach is not measuring burst correctly on some chipsets. No way in hell is hostraid doing 4GB/S as pictured in some people's posts. Obviously that is an anomaly. Raw file copy performance when cutting a/v data is what is needed and it seems to scale nice on 800MHz IOP 341's.

[tictac]

HDD : 1 x Hitachi 7200rpm 160GB 8mb cache sata2
Controller : AMD SB600

[iadstudio]

Still waiting on my second 150 raptor.

[stevecs]

Perhaps a little off-topic, but as I'm facing the decision to get a new system and I have a pretty high-end disk array, I'm wondering what the performance would be using a 'normal' motherboard?

My current workstation (dual opteron 246), has an Areca 1280ML with 16x WD5000AAKS on it and 2GB cache. But as these processors clearly need an upgrade I'm thinking of buying either a fast Core 2 Quad or a (most likely less fast because of the price) Xeon system. So I'm wondering, has anyone around here have experience with a regular desktop system running a high-end disk setup? I haven't found anyone with a similar setup in this topic.
Since workstation motherboards don't offer any overclocking possibilities and are a lot more expensive I find a Core 2 Quad a nice option, if my raid card will still be used to the maximum. I really like the high disk performance I have right now.

PS: I only run Linux and Unix, so some hardware might not be completely compatible/possible.

If you're not going to change your disk subsystem (ie, type of drives, or separate your work flows to different spindle groups et al) you're not going to see much at all of an improvement. Basically your computer MB/cpu, et al is generally NOT the bottleneck. It's mainly the drive subsystem that kills you (at least first, there are numerous bottlenecks in a system but that's a much bigger discussion a decent reference would be John Hennessy's/David Patterson's book "computer architecture: a quantitative approach")

Before anyone can really point you in a direction a lot more information would be needed to model your type of access requirements and setup. I've just posted in the storage/raid thread some spreadsheets to do some quantitative analysis but they are only a start.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=150176&page=2

Really comes down to is what is your workload type, and what performance level are you seeking. From that then you design the system to match. There's also the issue of disk subsystem utilization curves which come into play (Queuing theory & Markov models like the M/M/1 or M/M/m).