• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

HD Tach Benchmarks

Don't tempt me. I have been thinking about migrating our RAID 5 array to a PCI-Express controller to get the disk performance up higher.

Hey, guess what I got in the mail yesterday? Another raptor! haven't had time to play with it, but when I pop that into the array it should bring things up to around 230MB/s :D

But you do have me beat on the Raid 5. I wish my controller supported that :(
 
What is RAID 5?
 
The ULTIMATE in RAID configurations, at least for desktop systems like ours...
 
To the best of my understanding, Raid 5 is similar to raid 0, except that it has redundancy built into it. In raid 0, if one drive goes bad, you lose the entire array. With raid 5, if one drive goes bad, there is an algorithm in place (again, IIRC) that can recreate the datafrom the bad drive.

Unfortunately, most motherboard manufacturers don't put raid 5 in their controllers, and a good raid 5 controller can cost a good chunk of change. But it's definitely worth it.
 
stevo u should get a new sata controler that 3114 must suck, i had that and its not a good at all, what kind of results did u get?
 
finally got my raid sorted and this is my result.
 

Attachments

  • hd tach.JPG
    hd tach.JPG
    101.2 KB · Views: 542
I've never seen a graph start low and climb like that - very weird?????
 
plus the seek times are really high
 
finally got my raid sorted and this is my result.

after removing the jumper to enable sata2 this is the new result................doh...........:o
 

Attachments

  • hd tach.JPG
    hd tach.JPG
    102.8 KB · Views: 552
have you got western digital drives? i didnt think u had a jumper to enable sat1 or sat2!!what drives have you got??
 
To the best of my understanding, Raid 5 is similar to raid 0, except that it has redundancy built into it. In raid 0, if one drive goes bad, you lose the entire array. With raid 5, if one drive goes bad, there is an algorithm in place (again, IIRC) that can recreate the datafrom the bad drive.

Unfortunately, most motherboard manufacturers don't put raid 5 in their controllers, and a good raid 5 controller can cost a good chunk of change. But it's definitely worth it.

So your telling me i should have used RAID 5 instead of RAID 0? (my mobo supports it)

:banghead:
 
If you have it and are worried at all about fault tolerance, yes you should use it. I think there is only a minor (if that) performance hit as compared to Raid 0.

If you're worried about having to reinstall everything, there are ways to back up your array, reconfigure the drives, and restore all your files.
 
have you got western digital drives? i didnt think u had a jumper to enable sat1 or sat2!!what drives have you got??

now got two seagate barracuda's 2x 160gb - set @ Sata 2 (jumper removed).
 
Here's mine - Good or bad? Looks rubbish next to your RAID configurations.
 

Attachments

  • hd.JPG
    hd.JPG
    115.4 KB · Views: 507
Average read is very low. I had a similar Hitachi drive before and got around 50mb/s. Part of the problem may be how the graph is very erratic. I's there other disk activity going on while you're running the test?
 
Average read is very low. I had a similar Hitachi drive before and got around 50mb/s. Part of the problem may be how the graph is very erratic. I's there other disk activity going on while you're running the test?

Not that I know of...:confused:
 
humm 106 avg read.. not the greatest but Im still happy having raid :)



since the performance starts to drop around 490gb mark does that mean If I fill up my hd to 490gbs it will still perform good?

I have 400gbs partitioned off just for data storage and would like to be able to use as much as I can without affecting my performance.
 
shitty speed ever
(this is my old seagate 40gb hdd after being revived in the freezer)
should be dying again soon...
hdd.jpg
 
humm 106 avg read.. not the greatest but Im still happy having raid :)



since the performance starts to drop around 490gb mark does that mean If I fill up my hd to 490gbs it will still perform good?

I have 400gbs partitioned off just for data storage and would like to be able to use as much as I can without affecting my performance.

Performance over 490GB shouldn't matter. Remember that if this was a single drive it, too would dip in performance toward the end of the drive.

However, what I would worry about is that you're using a raid 0 array for storage. There is no fault tolerance for raid 0, so you will lose everything if one of the drives fail.
 
Performance over 490GB shouldn't matter. Remember that if this was a single drive it, too would dip in performance toward the end of the drive.

However, what I would worry about is that you're using a raid 0 array for storage. There is no fault tolerance for raid 0, so you will lose everything if one of the drives fail.

thanks man

damm thats the poorest hdtach ever PT.. lol Im in a rush so of to complete things.

@ t-ski

the only fault that could happen would be one hd dieing aint it? I do back up most of my dls, I would just like to not have to dig trough all kinda of back-up dvds.. I want to have a big audio collection of like 100+ gigs lol :) wont be hard at all.. I prob have that now on my dvds or more :). my HD space turned out perfect for me than, I was contemplating on buying another hd 500gig one or 320 since they both have gotten cheaper where I shop, but wont need to now.

thanks once again.:rockout:

also my drives are sata II drives wehy is my burst speed just @ sata one? 157mb when sataII is 300mb.
 
Yes, one or both drives dieing ruins all the data. I assume you have 2 x 250GB drives. You could run them in raid 1 and not have to worry about backups. How much do you actually have filled so far? I have an 80GB iPod and with over 300 CD's on it I only have ~16GB filled.

As for your burst speed, you are over 150MB/s, so you are into SATA2 range. I assume it's just because of your settings. You could try disabling NCQ and read caching if you want to try to get the numbers up. We discussed it earlier in this thread if you need tips on how to do that.
 
cool man Im ahappy with my speed, its steady speed that counts anyway.

so far I have like 10gbs used in my OC partition lol and like maybe 1 @ most in my storage.. COH game is on my OS still I havent bother reinstalling yet. I have 2x320 seagate barracudas :) I dont want any preformance loss at all lol so I think I will keep at least 160 gigs free.

I got a 30gig ipod :P I dont have all my music on it though I saved em to dvds about 25 dvds of albums/diskographys prob more.

thanks man, you sorted me out :D
 
Back
Top