Looking around the net, it appears to me that my jumpers in the factory setting is fine on Raptors. Some post said that a couple of the incorrect options would even prevent the system from booting. The other info that I read thought there was no, or very little performance difference between jumper totally removed, and the factory settings. (At least on the WD 10K RPM 150GB Raptors.)
I think I am just going to keep my jumpers in the default position for now.
If anybody believes this is incorrect, please speak up.
If I ran my defrag program after the OS and all Microsoft patches were installed, then also ran it after each game I installed, dosen't the OS already have the fastest part of my array already? I am wondering if my OS is already allowing the system to boot AFAP just due to it's location on the disks, and the only thing that might look slower, is the benchmark as it covers 279GB's of shere animal storage.
If I look at dividing my graph into thirds, to show how long I actually hold my 158MB/sec transfer rate, it looks like it coveres most if the first 80GB or so. I can tell by making it into a 100GB array, my minimum transfer rate would rise allot for sure, but would my actual system performance? If my data is loaded to the fastest portion of the drive with the defrag program, I might already be golden. At 50% into my array, about 140GB's worth of actual storage, I still look to be getting around 140MB/sec. I am hoping there is nothing even written onto the slowest half of the drive.
My newbie eye's are starting to appreachiate my graph more, or at least to better understand it...
The performance graph dosen't mean much if you don't know exactly the size of array your looking at.
I bet we could make a smoken 10GB 2 disk array performance graph!
I was simply thinking flat = better, and looking at the minimum, average, maximum, and burst transfer rates.
I was having a hard time understanding why my Raptors performance dropped off so much. Answer = I am using the entire drives in my array, and that is to be expected when doing so. I would do better to focus on how many GB's of storage, that I am holding my 'good speed' before taking any major performance drop. That is the better way to judge ones probable array speed and boot time.
I haven't read it yet, but I sure hope Auslogics Defrag program automatically selects the fastest portion of the array to write on... I gotta believe any respectable RAID defrag program would.
My lesson for a large 2 disk array is that it might be wasteful yes, but extra system performance by making it into 2 drives, say 100GB and a 197GB, probably wouldn't offer much more speed for me to be had. That's providing my OS and games were located on the fastest half of the array already. Would you agree?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks