«

I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
I'd post.

I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage Manager
software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive (I
know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark tool
btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320 drive
does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor for
example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
heard. So yeah, I'm happy.

So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha got!
I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?

My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
Random Access: 5.6ms
CPU Utilization: 3%
Burst: 114.7 MB/s
Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s

The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across the
top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other drives
fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
scores so well there.

-Larry

Just made the download, does it run on 64bit?


Tony. . .


"Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
> I'd post.
>
> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
> Manager
> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive (I
> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
> tool
> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
> drive
> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor
> for
> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>
> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha got!
> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>
> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
> Random Access: 5.6ms
> CPU Utilization: 3%
> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>
> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across the
> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other drives
> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
> scores so well there.
>
> -Larry
>
>
>
>
>

If it doesn't, this one works great. http://www.hdtune.com/

"Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Just made the download, does it run on 64bit?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
>>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
>> I'd post.
>>
>> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
>> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
>> Manager
>> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive
>> (I
>> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
>> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
>> tool
>> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
>> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
>> drive
>> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor
>> for
>> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
>> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>>
>> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha
>> got!
>> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
>> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>>
>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>> Random Access: 5.6ms
>> CPU Utilization: 3%
>> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
>> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>>
>> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across
>> the
>> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other drives
>> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
>> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
>> scores so well there.
>>
>> -Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Yes, thanks - it is in my collection, I like that it can make the health
report if you have S.M.A.R.T. enabled and puts the temp in the taskbar -
very nice!

Tony. . .


"John Barnes" <> wrote in message
news:...
> If it doesn't, this one works great. http://www.hdtune.com/
>
> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Just made the download, does it run on 64bit?
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
>>> I'd post.
>>>
>>> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
>>> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
>>> Manager
>>> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive
>>> (I
>>> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
>>> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
>>> tool
>>> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
>>> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
>>> drive
>>> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor
>>> for
>>> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
>>> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>>>
>>> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha
>>> got!
>>> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
>>> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>>>
>>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>>> Random Access: 5.6ms
>>> CPU Utilization: 3%
>>> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
>>> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>>>
>>> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across
>>> the
>>> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other
>>> drives
>>> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
>>> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
>>> scores so well there.
>>>
>>> -Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I am running RAID 1 on a Windows XP x64 Dell Precision:

My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
Random Access: 21.0 ms
CPU Utilization: 1%
Burst: 61.8 MB/s
Ave. Read: 47.1 MB/s

"Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
> I'd post.
>
> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
> Manager
> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive (I
> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
> tool
> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
> drive
> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor
> for
> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>
> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha got!
> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>
> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
> Random Access: 5.6ms
> CPU Utilization: 3%
> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>
> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across the
> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other drives
> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
> scores so well there.
>
> -Larry
>
>
>
>
>

Are you running SATA II, SATA 1.5 or SCSI? And do you know the rpm of the
drives in the array? Do you know what your RAID controller is?

Average Read and Burst are good, but your Random Access seems really slow.
Here is an explanation of Random Access:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/random_access.html

I wonder if there is a way to speed that up. Do you defrag? And if so,
just with the Windows defrag? I use PerfectDisk 7.0, which has worked very
well on x64. I'm not sure if fragmentation would effect Random Acces, but
I was just curious.

With severe fragmentation, your file(s)...including the test file the
benchmark program uses...is spread across the disk anywhere the disk has
free sectors. A good defrag utility will group files together in adjacent
sectors, and group your free space together as well.

Hard drives are the one thing most geeks like us don't take into
consideration when assembling a system. We pick our CPU, mobo, the vid
card, how much RAM, and if we're really geeky, we'll pay attention to the
stepping numbers for the RAM. But very few people pay attention to data
throughput. And that's what delivers everything...your apps, your
data...everything to your RAM. It is usually the weak link in systems from
my experience.

-Larry

"Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
news:u%...
>I am running RAID 1 on a Windows XP x64 Dell Precision:
>
> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
> Random Access: 21.0 ms
> CPU Utilization: 1%
> Burst: 61.8 MB/s
> Ave. Read: 47.1 MB/s
>
> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
>>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
>> I'd post.
>>
>> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
>> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
>> Manager
>> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive
>> (I
>> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
>> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
>> tool
>> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
>> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
>> drive
>> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor
>> for
>> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
>> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>>
>> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha
>> got!
>> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
>> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>>
>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>> Random Access: 5.6ms
>> CPU Utilization: 3%
>> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
>> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>>
>> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across
>> the
>> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other drives
>> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
>> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
>> scores so well there.
>>
>> -Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Well, RAID1 is a mirroring concept, that will be slow, the valuable thing
about it is that you can loose either one of your drives and don't loose a
thing. Higher orders of RAID can do both schemes, but they will not be as
fast as RAID0 were if you loose any one of your disks all data is completely
and unretrievably gone. It might only take a power surge during boot to
roast it all. No free lunches!


Tony. . .


"Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> Are you running SATA II, SATA 1.5 or SCSI? And do you know the rpm of the
> drives in the array? Do you know what your RAID controller is?
>
> Average Read and Burst are good, but your Random Access seems really slow.
> Here is an explanation of Random Access:
>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/random_access.html
>
> I wonder if there is a way to speed that up. Do you defrag? And if so,
> just with the Windows defrag? I use PerfectDisk 7.0, which has worked
> very well on x64. I'm not sure if fragmentation would effect Random
> Acces, but I was just curious.
>
> With severe fragmentation, your file(s)...including the test file the
> benchmark program uses...is spread across the disk anywhere the disk has
> free sectors. A good defrag utility will group files together in adjacent
> sectors, and group your free space together as well.
>
> Hard drives are the one thing most geeks like us don't take into
> consideration when assembling a system. We pick our CPU, mobo, the vid
> card, how much RAM, and if we're really geeky, we'll pay attention to the
> stepping numbers for the RAM. But very few people pay attention to data
> throughput. And that's what delivers everything...your apps, your
> data...everything to your RAM. It is usually the weak link in systems
> from my experience.
>
> -Larry
>
> "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
> news:u%...
>>I am running RAID 1 on a Windows XP x64 Dell Precision:
>>
>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>> Random Access: 21.0 ms
>> CPU Utilization: 1%
>> Burst: 61.8 MB/s
>> Ave. Read: 47.1 MB/s
>>
>> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
>>> I'd post.
>>>
>>> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
>>> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
>>> Manager
>>> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive
>>> (I
>>> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
>>> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
>>> tool
>>> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
>>> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
>>> drive
>>> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor
>>> for
>>> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
>>> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>>>
>>> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha
>>> got!
>>> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
>>> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>>>
>>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>>> Random Access: 5.6ms
>>> CPU Utilization: 3%
>>> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
>>> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>>>
>>> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across
>>> the
>>> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other
>>> drives
>>> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
>>> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
>>> scores so well there.
>>>
>>> -Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

The drives are 4 x 7200 RPMs, Western Digital 2500s. I have a Intel 8280
Ultra ATA Stroage Controller (2) - as I have 4 drives, configured as two
RAID 1 drives. It also says I have a Dell CERC SATA 1.5/6ch RAID
Controller. It's an Adaptec controller.

I defrag with the generic Windows defrag that comes with Windows XP x64. I
noticed there is a free one people are using, maybe I'll try that one and
see if the stats change.


"Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> Are you running SATA II, SATA 1.5 or SCSI? And do you know the rpm of the
> drives in the array? Do you know what your RAID controller is?
>
> Average Read and Burst are good, but your Random Access seems really slow.
> Here is an explanation of Random Access:
>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/random_access.html
>
> I wonder if there is a way to speed that up. Do you defrag? And if so,
> just with the Windows defrag? I use PerfectDisk 7.0, which has worked
> very well on x64. I'm not sure if fragmentation would effect Random
> Acces, but I was just curious.
>
> With severe fragmentation, your file(s)...including the test file the
> benchmark program uses...is spread across the disk anywhere the disk has
> free sectors. A good defrag utility will group files together in adjacent
> sectors, and group your free space together as well.
>
> Hard drives are the one thing most geeks like us don't take into
> consideration when assembling a system. We pick our CPU, mobo, the vid
> card, how much RAM, and if we're really geeky, we'll pay attention to the
> stepping numbers for the RAM. But very few people pay attention to data
> throughput. And that's what delivers everything...your apps, your
> data...everything to your RAM. It is usually the weak link in systems
> from my experience.
>
> -Larry
>
> "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
> news:u%...
>>I am running RAID 1 on a Windows XP x64 Dell Precision:
>>
>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>> Random Access: 21.0 ms
>> CPU Utilization: 1%
>> Burst: 61.8 MB/s
>> Ave. Read: 47.1 MB/s
>>
>> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I thought
>>> I'd post.
>>>
>>> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
>>> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
>>> Manager
>>> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive
>>> (I
>>> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array. Man
>>> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
>>> tool
>>> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
>>> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
>>> drive
>>> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA Raptor
>>> for
>>> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what I've
>>> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>>>
>>> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha
>>> got!
>>> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable. I
>>> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>>>
>>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>>> Random Access: 5.6ms
>>> CPU Utilization: 3%
>>> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
>>> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>>>
>>> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across
>>> the
>>> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other
>>> drives
>>> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays in
>>> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this array
>>> scores so well there.
>>>
>>> -Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I'd try the non-Windows defrag. And if you can identify the controller
model, download the drivers directly from Adaptec and force install them if
you need to. Just as with nVidia-based video cards, you're better off using
drivers directly from the manufacturer, not the OEM vender.

With PerfectDisk, you can schedule an "offline defrag", which runs next time
you reboot. It will defrag your disk prior to loading windows, specifically
your paging file and system files. There is no other way to do this.

Also, I'm using the Adaptec Storage Manager software (available as a free DL
from Adaptec) to set up and manage my RAID. Works very well.

And you might consider setting your "write-cache mode" to "write back". But
only if you have a battery backup to prevent data loss. However, it does
speed things up.

Try any or all of those and see if that improves your numbers.

-Larry

"Don Awalt" <dawalt@atcomcastdotnet> wrote in message
news:8F48A2EF-7A6B-4448-81EC-...
> The drives are 4 x 7200 RPMs, Western Digital 2500s. I have a Intel 8280
> Ultra ATA Stroage Controller (2) - as I have 4 drives, configured as two
> RAID 1 drives. It also says I have a Dell CERC SATA 1.5/6ch RAID
> Controller. It's an Adaptec controller.
>
> I defrag with the generic Windows defrag that comes with Windows XP x64. I
> noticed there is a free one people are using, maybe I'll try that one and
> see if the stats change.
>
>
> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
>> Are you running SATA II, SATA 1.5 or SCSI? And do you know the rpm of
>> the drives in the array? Do you know what your RAID controller is?
>>
>> Average Read and Burst are good, but your Random Access seems really
>> slow. Here is an explanation of Random Access:
>>
>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/random_access.html
>>
>> I wonder if there is a way to speed that up. Do you defrag? And if so,
>> just with the Windows defrag? I use PerfectDisk 7.0, which has worked
>> very well on x64. I'm not sure if fragmentation would effect Random
>> Acces, but I was just curious.
>>
>> With severe fragmentation, your file(s)...including the test file the
>> benchmark program uses...is spread across the disk anywhere the disk has
>> free sectors. A good defrag utility will group files together in
>> adjacent sectors, and group your free space together as well.
>>
>> Hard drives are the one thing most geeks like us don't take into
>> consideration when assembling a system. We pick our CPU, mobo, the vid
>> card, how much RAM, and if we're really geeky, we'll pay attention to the
>> stepping numbers for the RAM. But very few people pay attention to data
>> throughput. And that's what delivers everything...your apps, your
>> data...everything to your RAM. It is usually the weak link in systems
>> from my experience.
>>
>> -Larry
>>
>> "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
>> news:u%...
>>>I am running RAID 1 on a Windows XP x64 Dell Precision:
>>>
>>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>>> Random Access: 21.0 ms
>>> CPU Utilization: 1%
>>> Burst: 61.8 MB/s
>>> Ave. Read: 47.1 MB/s
>>>
>>> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
>>> news:. ..
>>>>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I
>>>>thought
>>>> I'd post.
>>>>
>>>> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
>>>> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
>>>> Manager
>>>> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C drive
>>>> (I
>>>> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array.
>>>> Man
>>>> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
>>>> tool
>>>> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php), I
>>>> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
>>>> drive
>>>> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA
>>>> Raptor for
>>>> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what
>>>> I've
>>>> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>>>>
>>>> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha
>>>> got!
>>>> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable.
>>>> I
>>>> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>>>>
>>>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>>>> Random Access: 5.6ms
>>>> CPU Utilization: 3%
>>>> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
>>>> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>>>>
>>>> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across
>>>> the
>>>> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other
>>>> drives
>>>> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays
>>>> in
>>>> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this
>>>> array
>>>> scores so well there.
>>>>
>>>> -Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Only, you cannot change drivers without zapping that RAID! and with four
drives?


Tony. . .


"Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> I'd try the non-Windows defrag. And if you can identify the controller
> model, download the drivers directly from Adaptec and force install them
> if you need to. Just as with nVidia-based video cards, you're better off
> using drivers directly from the manufacturer, not the OEM vender.
>
> With PerfectDisk, you can schedule an "offline defrag", which runs next
> time you reboot. It will defrag your disk prior to loading windows,
> specifically your paging file and system files. There is no other way to
> do this.
>
> Also, I'm using the Adaptec Storage Manager software (available as a free
> DL from Adaptec) to set up and manage my RAID. Works very well.
>
> And you might consider setting your "write-cache mode" to "write back".
> But only if you have a battery backup to prevent data loss. However, it
> does speed things up.
>
> Try any or all of those and see if that improves your numbers.
>
> -Larry
>
> "Don Awalt" <dawalt@atcomcastdotnet> wrote in message
> news:8F48A2EF-7A6B-4448-81EC-...
>> The drives are 4 x 7200 RPMs, Western Digital 2500s. I have a Intel 8280
>> Ultra ATA Stroage Controller (2) - as I have 4 drives, configured as two
>> RAID 1 drives. It also says I have a Dell CERC SATA 1.5/6ch RAID
>> Controller. It's an Adaptec controller.
>>
>> I defrag with the generic Windows defrag that comes with Windows XP x64.
>> I noticed there is a free one people are using, maybe I'll try that one
>> and see if the stats change.
>>
>>
>> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>> Are you running SATA II, SATA 1.5 or SCSI? And do you know the rpm of
>>> the drives in the array? Do you know what your RAID controller is?
>>>
>>> Average Read and Burst are good, but your Random Access seems really
>>> slow. Here is an explanation of Random Access:
>>>
>>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/random_access.html
>>>
>>> I wonder if there is a way to speed that up. Do you defrag? And if so,
>>> just with the Windows defrag? I use PerfectDisk 7.0, which has worked
>>> very well on x64. I'm not sure if fragmentation would effect Random
>>> Acces, but I was just curious.
>>>
>>> With severe fragmentation, your file(s)...including the test file the
>>> benchmark program uses...is spread across the disk anywhere the disk has
>>> free sectors. A good defrag utility will group files together in
>>> adjacent sectors, and group your free space together as well.
>>>
>>> Hard drives are the one thing most geeks like us don't take into
>>> consideration when assembling a system. We pick our CPU, mobo, the vid
>>> card, how much RAM, and if we're really geeky, we'll pay attention to
>>> the stepping numbers for the RAM. But very few people pay attention to
>>> data throughput. And that's what delivers everything...your apps, your
>>> data...everything to your RAM. It is usually the weak link in systems
>>> from my experience.
>>>
>>> -Larry
>>>
>>> "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
>>> news:u%...
>>>>I am running RAID 1 on a Windows XP x64 Dell Precision:
>>>>
>>>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>>>> Random Access: 21.0 ms
>>>> CPU Utilization: 1%
>>>> Burst: 61.8 MB/s
>>>> Ave. Read: 47.1 MB/s
>>>>
>>>> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:. ..
>>>>>I know this isn't a HDD specific ng, but since I hang out here, I
>>>>>thought
>>>>> I'd post.
>>>>>
>>>>> I successfully configured my two 15k rpm U320 Fujitsu HDDs in RAID 0
>>>>> yesterday. It was easier than I thought. I used Adaptec's Storage
>>>>> Manager
>>>>> software, and it was smooth as can be. I decided to make it my C
>>>>> drive (I
>>>>> know, but I back up daily), so I ghosted my old drive to the array.
>>>>> Man
>>>>> does it smoke! Using Simpli Software's HD Tach (a great HDD benchmark
>>>>> tool
>>>>> btw, and it's free. http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php),
>>>>> I
>>>>> sustain an Average Read of around 109 MB/s. My other Hitachi 10k U320
>>>>> drive
>>>>> does around 75 MB/s, which isn't bad. A 10k Western Digital SATA
>>>>> Raptor for
>>>>> example does around 65 MB/s. Most SATAII is around 50-60 from what
>>>>> I've
>>>>> heard. So yeah, I'm happy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So fellas, download HD Tach and post some numbers! Let's see whatcha
>>>>> got!
>>>>> I am curious as to whether there is anything SATA that is comparable.
>>>>> I
>>>>> know that gap has narrowed between SCSI and SATA. Has it caught up?
>>>>>
>>>>> My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
>>>>> Random Access: 5.6ms
>>>>> CPU Utilization: 3%
>>>>> Burst: 114.7 MB/s
>>>>> Ave. Read: 107.3 MB/s
>>>>>
>>>>> The other interesting note is the Sequential Read (the red line across
>>>>> the
>>>>> top of the test results), is a consistant flat line. All my other
>>>>> drives
>>>>> fall off throughout the test. And the other drives, even RAID arrays
>>>>> in
>>>>> the Graph Data test results fall off too. Not quite sure why this
>>>>> array
>>>>> scores so well there.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Larry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>