1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

HD Tach Benchmarks

Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by disarmedmeteor, Mar 3, 2007.

  1. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,224 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    I wonder if the presence of the third disk contributes alot to performance...
    I have 2 7200.10 with 128k stripe and I only ever reached about the 140mb mark max.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    11,951 (3.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,354
    That's pathetic :slap:

    I realized that I forgot to remove the jumper to enable SATA2. That helped a little bit, as it brought the burst up about 50MB/s and the overall reads up about 6MB/s. :(

    Now, obviously I won't be using the JMicron or the Silicon Image controllers if I go to Raid three of these drives, as none of them support more than two drives. My only option is the ICH7R or an add-in card.
     

    Attached Files:

    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU
  3. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    11,951 (3.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,354
    If you have two drives giving you about 140 MB/s reads, then you would probably get about 200-210MB/s reads with three drives. Four would get you 260-280MB/s reads... :D
     
    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU
  4. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    yeah, performance is fairly linear when it comes to RAID0

    t I hadn't even thought to mention taking those out haha that was the first thing I did to mine :p
    as for your controller that ICH7R should be all you need, an add-in is overkill and unnecessary IMO
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  5. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,323 (6.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Unless you're like me, and constantly changing hardware (unwillingly. lol). Saves you from having to rebuild your array every time.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  6. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    I suppose, though it's not that difficult, usually they transfer over with no problem between onboard intel controllers
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  7. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    11,951 (3.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,354
    That's what I was thinking. Plus, the one I'm looking at (here) has:

    SMART, SMTP, Staggered spin-up and a few others are just a few of those things that could be really useful that you don't get with built-in controllers.

    I looked at my funds, and I would need to sell all three Raptors to buy the card and two more Seagates, and that only gets me a raid 0 or 5 array. I would prefer a raid 0 array for the OS & games, and a raid 1 array for important data, pics, music, etc.

    Anyone want to make me an offer on the three 36GB Raptors? lol :pimp:
     
    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU
  8. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    11,951 (3.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,354
    But if you don't go from one Intel solution to another, you're screwed. I went from a SiL 2112 to an NF 4 and almost lost everything. Thanks the powers that be for Raid Reconstructor and Get Data Back.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU
  9. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    to each his own, I'd never spend $100+ on something my motherboard already has :D
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  10. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,323 (6.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I plan on it when funds allow a card and more drives. If you buy the right card, it completely offloads the cpu.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  11. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    11,951 (3.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,354
    If it gave you better performance I think it would. I think that's why you have 3 x 320 GB drives in raid 0, instead of two drives in raid 0 or just a single drive. Same reason why you have a quad core instead of a dual core.

    Besides, it's got a lot of things your mobo doesn't have...
     
    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU
  12. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    I have 3 drives mainly because I was able to get good deals on the 320s and I assumed I'd need the space which I'm finding probably won't be so haha
    and I got the quad for a few reasons, performance, folding, and OCing :)
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  13. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,224 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    My mobo runs ICH8R and im pretty sure it supports almost every raid type possible.
    From memory it does RAID 0, 1, 0+1, 3, 5 and 10
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  14. DanTheBanjoman SeƱor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,546 (2.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,384
    Enjoy your onboard video.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  15. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,224 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    :laugh: You never fail to make me lol
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  16. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    lol Dan I should've stated that more clearly, though I have to point out that my Abit IP35 Pro doesn't have onboard video so HAH :)
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  17. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    11,951 (3.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,354
    No, you wouldn't even consider an on-board video solution because you want something that provides real performance. Same thing.

    And if you only are using the three drives because you thought you'd need the space, why aren't you running them in JBOD? Simple, because Raid 0 performs much better. I'm not bashing you, but just trying to remind you that this is what we're all about here - performance. There are guys out there that swear by and live only by add-in boards, because they know the difference.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU
  18. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    I guess it's all personal preference,
    regarding VGA, that's a completely different story and I should've stated that comment better before haha
    as for the controller, all I'm saying is I wanted space and performance, my motherboard already has a decently performing RAID controller and I don't have to pay any more for what I believe would be a relatively negligible increase in performance
    for those of you that also want it for the ease of transfer in addition to the other benefits I say more power to you if you have the money to spare
    Personally I would rather put that $100+ into something such as video card, memory, cpu etc
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  19. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    11,951 (3.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,354
    That's true - everybody needs something different.

    But take a look at it this way. Say your three drives each give 66 MB/s reads, combined for a total of 200 MB/s. What if an add-in board gave you 10-20MB/s more per drive? So instead of 200 MB/s, you were getting 230-260 MB/s - would that make it worth more to you? Granted, I saw a huge difference when going from one drive to two in Raid 0, and as you go up the performance increase gets lower. But since the hard drive is the slowest component of a modern PC, any improvement you can make in the data transfer would be worthwhile, at least IMHO. Of course, I'd spend $300-500 on a decent solution, maybe more, if I had the money. :(
     
    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU
  20. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,424 (2.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,923
    The Intel ICHR7 has more bandwidth than you can shake a stick at. It will not be the bottleneck. It may be a limiting factor in other ways that you may or may not notice, like minimal CPU useage, or ability to create advanced RAID arrays.



    I believe we need additional benchmarks for disk performance. Such as application load time. Something independant of other hardware used, something consistant. We have too many variables with this test.



    A fresh restart and a video of a steam load.
    A video of a few game level loads.
    A video of a few applications loads.
    A video of a file move.


    Etc....




    Any other ideas?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU 10 Million points folded for TPU
  21. Dawgdoc New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    32 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    I just found this thread :)

    4 X 320gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 in matrix RAID 0/5.

    Here is the RAID 0 part....top that!
     

    Attached Files:

  22. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    that doesn't make sense...refer to my 3x 320 7200.10s in RAID0 on page 7...
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  23. Dawgdoc New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    32 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Yes I see....much lower it looks like. Maybe its time for a defrag or rebuild the array?

    As I said, Im running a Matrix Dual Array 0/5 with volume write-back caching enabled so maybe that is a factor. I have 4 drives to your 3, but that part should only be a very small difference......
    EDIT: 64k stripe to your 32k too.
    EDIT #2: HDtach DOES certainly work in Vista. You just need to run it as an administrator. Perhaps this one you need to disable driver signing as well I cannot remember as I always disable driver signing when I reboot.

    How do you have your array set up?

    Here is another I just ran a moment ago.
     

    Attached Files:

    • HD2.jpg
      HD2.jpg
      File size:
      105.1 KB
      Views:
      177
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2007
  24. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Location:
    Texas
    I'm not familiar dual arrays off hand
    Mine is a simple RAID 0 on the intel ICH9R integrated into my Abit IP35 Pro
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  25. Dawgdoc New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    32 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Intel Matrix Storage Technology

    Great stuff. Worth looking at. Basically, you need 4HDs and you put 2 arrays across the 4 drives, instead of 2 in 1 array, and 2 in another.
    EDIT: I think I mispoke here. You need 4 HD to do a 0/5, but you can do a 0/1 with only 2HDs.

    This gives you the benefit of using the fastest part of each HD for your RAID 0, making your RAID 0 more efficient and quicker. Then the rest you use for your storage (RAID 1, 5, whatever) and it doesnt really matter if its all the slower parts because.....well its just storage.

    Check out the link, and there is plenty of other stuff on the net regarding Matrix RAID stuff too. Damn good read here too.
     
    t_ski says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)