HD Tune - Problem with my Raptor ??

[yngndrw]

Hi guys (And girls),

I have been looking at my Hard Disk performance with HD Tune and I think I have a problem with my Raptor.

It's a very old 10,000RPM Raptor 74GB (Think it's actually only SATA1). I have it on a 680i port, with two 500GB Seagates in RAID0 on the same controller.

Also note that I was using the computer for internet while the tests were in progress, so that may explain the large dip.

Here's the tests for the Raptor (Done twice):



Here's the comparison test for the Seagate Array:



It alarms me that the Raptor's transfer rate goes down over the time of the test. Is this normal or do I have a problem ?
Would it be worth me dropping the Raptor and using 4x Seagates in RAID01 (Or 10 ?) and having them as one big drive ?

Other info:
The HDDs are all cooled by a 120mm fan.
The model number of the Raptor is: WD740GD-00FLA0
The model of the Seagates is: Barracuda 7200.10 500GB
The Raptor is my C drive. (Running Vista x86.)
The Seagates are just a games drive.

Thanks for any help,
-Andrew.

[Giacomo]

Your Raptor shows "GD" in the model number, then it's the first of the two Raptor series. It's got a 8 MB cache, instead of the 16 MB one which you can find in the later "WD760ADFD" models.

It's SATA1, and that's normal because the only SATAII Raptor was announced a few months ago, and it sports a 200GB capacity, if I'm not wrong.

I don't think that these graphs show any drive failure or wear, I don't think that the drive itself could get anything slower with time. When it has problems, it will die.

About the RAID thing: the benefits of RAID operation are endlessy discussed in many places on the net, and it's told that the biggest benefits only show up when you handle very large files (i.e. if you acquire videos, or similar kind of activities). So, as far as I've learned, a slower drives RAID isn't necessarily better than your single, very fast Raptor... It depends upon your PC usage.

Maybe someone who has better knowledge of this subject will come in and help you better understand. However, I definitely believe that your Raptor is fine and healthy.

Giacomo

[yngndrw]

Well that's reassuring to hear.

Thanks for your reply.

[stevecs]

Just to add here that yes, drive speed (streaming) will decrease as you go from outer to inner track (drives are constant angular velocity devices, and the linear distance the head travels decreases as you move toward the center of the platter)

As for drives getting 'worse' over time, yes this is also common when drives reallocate sectors or develop media errors, head-platter distance errors, and a host of other items will cause reading/writing retries which will slow down performance. Keep an eye on your SMART data for this stuff.

As for raid's they have various benefits but you have to tune them to your workload otherwise your results can be anywhere from piss-poor to excellent. Also remember that RAID is not a performance solution in and of itself, RAID's primary function is for drive availability, performance is just a good side benefit.

From your graphs your raptor looks normal.

[yngndrw]

Ah I see, that makes sense then. Only thing is that how come the RAID array gives a near constant transfer rate ?

Cheers.

[tiro_uspsss]

It's SATA1, and that's normal because the only SATAII Raptor was announced a few months ago, and it sports a 200GB capacity, if I'm not wrong.

links? first i've heard of it...

[yngndrw]

The Raptor I have is 74GB. Not seen a 200GB Raptor anywhere - Think that's a mistake. :P

[tiro_uspsss]

The Raptor I have is 74GB. Not seen a 200GB Raptor anywhere - Think that's a mistake. :P

[stevecs]

Ah I see, that makes sense then. Only thing is that how come the RAID array gives a near constant transfer rate ?

Cheers.

A couple things. Look at your chart, you have a delay in your system (see the spikes), that would be one of the first items where you are giving the drives some time to recover between queries. Next this is one of the benefits of a raid system is that with multiple spindles you will eventually average out your access (ie, you will reach a point where you are going to saturate another point of your system (raid controller, driver, interface et al). In your case here you are showing that you are not getting full raid-0 performance from your two 7200.10's. Those drives have a peak of ~78MiB/s each so assuming you can keep their queues full you should see ~150MiB/s at the outer edge and down to probably 40 or at the inner per drive (so ~80MiB for two). From that I would guess that you're hitting a cap somewhere in your system, effectively locking you to ~80MiB/sec.

[Giacomo]

Checked that out: yes, 200GB was a mistake, it was 160GB indeed, and I read about it here: http://www.pctuner.net/articoli/memo...sata_II/2.html

Translating the first sentence for you: "This new Raptor, in fact, besides pushing the capacity to 160 GB, keeps the same amount of cache, but finally uses the SATAII interface."

Then I really don't know what happened, if happened, but this was my source of a few months ago

Giacomo

[tiro_uspsss]

Checked that out: yes, 200GB was a mistake, it was 160GB indeed, and I read about it here: http://www.pctuner.net/articoli/memo...sata_II/2.html

Translating the first sentence for you: "This new Raptor, in fact, besides pushing the capacity to 160 GB, keeps the same amount of cache, but finally uses the SATAII interface."

Then I really don't know what happened, if happened, but this was my source of a few months ago

Giacomo

mmmm interesting