OT: My RAID 0 is working great!

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Larry Hodges, Jun 2, 2006.

  1. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    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
     
    Larry Hodges, Jun 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Larry Hodges

    John Barnes Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Jun 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Larry Hodges

    Don Awalt Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Don Awalt, Jun 3, 2006
    #5
  6. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Jun 3, 2006
    #6
  7. Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 3, 2006
    #7
  8. Larry Hodges

    Don Awalt Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Don Awalt, Jun 4, 2006
    #8
  9. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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:...
    > 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
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Jun 4, 2006
    #9
  10. Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    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:...
    >> 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
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 4, 2006
    #10
  11. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    Ahh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:OFU%...
    > 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:...
    >>> 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
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Jun 4, 2006
    #11
  12. Larry Hodges

    RonK Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    Hey Larry,

    Considering the drives you are using in a Raid0 - your numbers should be
    higher.

    I am running 2 of my Maxtors (Sata2, 16meg cache 7200rpm) in Raid0 and my
    numbers are:

    My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
    Random Access: 13.6ms
    CPU Utilization: 5%
    Burst: 279.8 MB/s
    Ave. Read: 102.3 MB/s

    Are your drives Sata2 ?

    Ron


    "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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    RonK, Jun 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    Your numbers look great.

    I'm running SCSI U320. Two Fujitsu 15,000rpm 74gb drives with 8mb cache.
    SCSI is a completely different interface than SATA. In the old says, SCSI
    was much faster. These days, the gap has narrowed and SATA is nipping at
    SCSI's user base. For one, SATA is cheaper by a long shot. However, I
    usually pick my stuff up off eBay. These drives, for example are about $350
    each at Newegg. I picked them up brand new for $90 on eBay. The drives are
    usually built better that the SATA stuff because it's Enterprise level gear.
    Bearing systems are more robust, etc. The one SATA exception would be the
    Western Digital Raptors.

    Here're the drives I have:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822116010

    Mine would be faster if I had the right mobo. My SCSI controller is a
    64-bit PCI-X, but I'm running it on a Abit KN8 32-bit mobo in a standard PCI
    slot. So, instead of 133MHz, I'm getting 33MHz.

    Here's my Adaptec controller:
    http://adaptec.com/en-US/support/scsi/u320/ASC-39320A-R/

    But this I also picked up from eBay for $75. So I can't complain. :)

    -Larry


    "RonK" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hey Larry,
    >
    > Considering the drives you are using in a Raid0 - your numbers should be
    > higher.
    >
    > I am running 2 of my Maxtors (Sata2, 16meg cache 7200rpm) in Raid0 and my
    > numbers are:
    >
    > My numbers using "Long Bench 32mb zones":
    > Random Access: 13.6ms
    > CPU Utilization: 5%
    > Burst: 279.8 MB/s
    > Ave. Read: 102.3 MB/s
    >
    > Are your drives Sata2 ?
    >
    > Ron
    >
    >
    > "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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Jun 4, 2006
    #13
  14. Larry Hodges

    Don Awalt Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    Larry --

    I bought PerfectDisk, and defragged online and offline. I ran the tests two
    more times, not much change:

    >>> Random Access: 21.6 ms, 21.2 ms
    >>> CPU Utilization: 2%, 1%
    >>> Burst: 60.5 MB/s, 61.5 MB/s
    >>> Ave. Read: 46.3 MB/s, 46.9 MB/s


    Don

    "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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Don Awalt, Jun 9, 2006
    #14
  15. Larry Hodges

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    Well, at least we know that fragmentation wasn't it. :)

    I'd say Tony hit the nail on the head. RAID 1 is the tradeoff of
    performance for data integrity.



    -Larry


    "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Larry --
    >
    > I bought PerfectDisk, and defragged online and offline. I ran the tests
    > two more times, not much change:
    >
    >>>> Random Access: 21.6 ms, 21.2 ms
    >>>> CPU Utilization: 2%, 1%
    >>>> Burst: 60.5 MB/s, 61.5 MB/s
    >>>> Ave. Read: 46.3 MB/s, 46.9 MB/s

    >
    > Don
    >
    > "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
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Jun 9, 2006
    #15
  16. Larry Hodges

    Don Awalt Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    I like PerfectDisk, it does a nice job - I got that out of the exercise <g>


    "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, at least we know that fragmentation wasn't it. :)
    >
    > I'd say Tony hit the nail on the head. RAID 1 is the tradeoff of
    > performance for data integrity.
    >
    >
    >
    > -Larry
    >
    >
    > "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Larry --
    >>
    >> I bought PerfectDisk, and defragged online and offline. I ran the tests
    >> two more times, not much change:
    >>
    >>>>> Random Access: 21.6 ms, 21.2 ms
    >>>>> CPU Utilization: 2%, 1%
    >>>>> Burst: 60.5 MB/s, 61.5 MB/s
    >>>>> Ave. Read: 46.3 MB/s, 46.9 MB/s

    >>
    >> Don
    >>
    >> "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
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Don Awalt, Jun 9, 2006
    #16
  17. Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    Thank you, but it is far too well known that I will accept credit for that
    information, I'll take credit for telling you though, no problem.

    But of course, you could go for a RAID5 or even higher orders, and get
    mirroring AND striping all rolled into one, that is also not as fast as
    RAID0, but you actually sacrifice only the overhead of doing the mirroring.
    That is more expensive as you'll need at least three drives. But then you
    could go for a set of small drives and you could be a lot faster than a SATA
    RAID0.

    Tony. . .


    "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, at least we know that fragmentation wasn't it. :)
    >
    > I'd say Tony hit the nail on the head. RAID 1 is the tradeoff of
    > performance for data integrity.
    >
    >
    >
    > -Larry
    >
    >
    > "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Larry --
    >>
    >> I bought PerfectDisk, and defragged online and offline. I ran the tests
    >> two more times, not much change:
    >>
    >>>>> Random Access: 21.6 ms, 21.2 ms
    >>>>> CPU Utilization: 2%, 1%
    >>>>> Burst: 60.5 MB/s, 61.5 MB/s
    >>>>> Ave. Read: 46.3 MB/s, 46.9 MB/s

    >>
    >> Don
    >>
    >> "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
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 9, 2006
    #17
  18. Larry Hodges

    Don Awalt Guest

    Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    Thanks, but for a dev workstation, the disks seem amp,le fast enough. I am
    very pleased with RAID 1, while I do backups there is nothing worse than a
    disk corruption if you ask me!


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Thank you, but it is far too well known that I will accept credit for that
    > information, I'll take credit for telling you though, no problem.
    >
    > But of course, you could go for a RAID5 or even higher orders, and get
    > mirroring AND striping all rolled into one, that is also not as fast as
    > RAID0, but you actually sacrifice only the overhead of doing the
    > mirroring. That is more expensive as you'll need at least three drives.
    > But then you could go for a set of small drives and you could be a lot
    > faster than a SATA RAID0.
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Well, at least we know that fragmentation wasn't it. :)
    >>
    >> I'd say Tony hit the nail on the head. RAID 1 is the tradeoff of
    >> performance for data integrity.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> -Larry
    >>
    >>
    >> "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Larry --
    >>>
    >>> I bought PerfectDisk, and defragged online and offline. I ran the tests
    >>> two more times, not much change:
    >>>
    >>>>>> Random Access: 21.6 ms, 21.2 ms
    >>>>>> CPU Utilization: 2%, 1%
    >>>>>> Burst: 60.5 MB/s, 61.5 MB/s
    >>>>>> Ave. Read: 46.3 MB/s, 46.9 MB/s
    >>>
    >>> Don
    >>>
    >>> "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
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Don Awalt, Jun 10, 2006
    #18
  19. Re: My RAID 0 is working great!

    No, that should be hard to beat!

    Tony. . .


    "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Thanks, but for a dev workstation, the disks seem amp,le fast enough. I am
    > very pleased with RAID 1, while I do backups there is nothing worse than a
    > disk corruption if you ask me!
    >
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> Thank you, but it is far too well known that I will accept credit for
    >> that information, I'll take credit for telling you though, no problem.
    >>
    >> But of course, you could go for a RAID5 or even higher orders, and get
    >> mirroring AND striping all rolled into one, that is also not as fast as
    >> RAID0, but you actually sacrifice only the overhead of doing the
    >> mirroring. That is more expensive as you'll need at least three drives.
    >> But then you could go for a set of small drives and you could be a lot
    >> faster than a SATA RAID0.
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Well, at least we know that fragmentation wasn't it. :)
    >>>
    >>> I'd say Tony hit the nail on the head. RAID 1 is the tradeoff of
    >>> performance for data integrity.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> -Larry
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Don Awalt" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Larry --
    >>>>
    >>>> I bought PerfectDisk, and defragged online and offline. I ran the tests
    >>>> two more times, not much change:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Random Access: 21.6 ms, 21.2 ms
    >>>>>>> CPU Utilization: 2%, 1%
    >>>>>>> Burst: 60.5 MB/s, 61.5 MB/s
    >>>>>>> Ave. Read: 46.3 MB/s, 46.9 MB/s
    >>>>
    >>>> Don
    >>>>
    >>>> "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
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 11, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    816
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    764
  3. SATA - Raid and Non Raid Question

    , Jan 10, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    785
  4. =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?=

    Does x64 require a SATA RAID Driver to install non-RAID SATA Drive

    =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?=, Jul 15, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    909
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jul 18, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    RAID 5 Down, RAID 6 To Go

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 23, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Feb 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page