- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,380 (0.29/day)
| System Name | Desktop |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Xeon E5-1680v2 |
| Motherboard | ASUS Sabertooth X79 |
| Cooling | Intel AIO |
| Memory | 8x4GB DDR3 1866MHz |
| Video Card(s) | EVGA GTX 970 SC |
| Storage | Crucial MX500 1TB + 2x WD RE 4TB HDD |
| Display(s) | HP ZR24w |
| Case | Fractal Define XL Black |
| Audio Device(s) | Schiit Modi Uber/Sony CDP-XA20ES/Pioneer CT-656>Sony TA-F630ESD>Sennheiser HD600 |
| Power Supply | Corsair HX850 |
| Mouse | Logitech G603 |
| Keyboard | Logitech G613 |
| Software | Windows 10 Pro x64 |
For quite some time I was thinking of using the 3 SAS drives from my DL380 G5 in my PC instead of my Hitachi SAS.
Today I finally decided to benchmark both my drive and the 3 drives in the DL which are in RAID 0. I always come up with weird results which probably come from using different RAID controllers.
My PC uses an Adaptec 2405 with 128MB cache (write-back cache), on the DL there is a HP P400 controller with 256MB of cache (no idea if it's write-back or write through I tried different settings regarding caching and come up with even worse results).
Hitachi drive is a HP branded drive (450GB) with 4 platters spinning at 15k RPM and it's a standard 3.5'' drive.
The drives in RAID 0 are 3 Seagate HP branded drives (146GB each) with 2 platters spinning at 10k RPM and are 2.5'' (If I remember correctly they are Seagate Savvio 10.2).
I remember doing benchmarks on the Seagate drives before putting them in RAID 0 and I was getting around 75-80MB read, that is why the following results seem weird to me.
This is my Hitachi drive (ignore the burst speeds and CPU utilization):
This is the RAID 0 on the DL (ignore the dips since they are probably cause by system access):
I proceeded with ATTO:
My Hitachi drive:
RAID 0 on the DL:
Now this is my problem, the numbers with RAID 0 are all over the place this is only one of the runs I made.
Some came much better than my Hitachi, others about the same, the one posted is probably the worst of all, am I missing something?
Either way I continued to do more benchmarks, next is HD Tune (I heard it doesn't do well with RAID's but I ran it anyway).
Seeks (Hitachi):
RAID 0 on DL:
Obviously the Hitachi is better because of 15k RPM
Next, sequential read.
Hitachi:
RAID 0 on DL:
Again, ignore the bursts and the CPU usage.
Before you ask why I didn't run the 3 drives from my server on my Adaptec controller, well I need to get 3 adapters for the connectors, since the 3 drives are HP hot-swap and don't have separate connector for the interface cable and power cable.
So my question is: is it worth using the 3 SAS drives instead of my Hitachi, or should I get the adapters and try them on my Adaptec which is probably a better card than the HP P400 controller.
Today I finally decided to benchmark both my drive and the 3 drives in the DL which are in RAID 0. I always come up with weird results which probably come from using different RAID controllers.
My PC uses an Adaptec 2405 with 128MB cache (write-back cache), on the DL there is a HP P400 controller with 256MB of cache (no idea if it's write-back or write through I tried different settings regarding caching and come up with even worse results).
Hitachi drive is a HP branded drive (450GB) with 4 platters spinning at 15k RPM and it's a standard 3.5'' drive.
The drives in RAID 0 are 3 Seagate HP branded drives (146GB each) with 2 platters spinning at 10k RPM and are 2.5'' (If I remember correctly they are Seagate Savvio 10.2).
I remember doing benchmarks on the Seagate drives before putting them in RAID 0 and I was getting around 75-80MB read, that is why the following results seem weird to me.
This is my Hitachi drive (ignore the burst speeds and CPU utilization):
This is the RAID 0 on the DL (ignore the dips since they are probably cause by system access):
I proceeded with ATTO:
My Hitachi drive:
RAID 0 on the DL:
Now this is my problem, the numbers with RAID 0 are all over the place this is only one of the runs I made.
Some came much better than my Hitachi, others about the same, the one posted is probably the worst of all, am I missing something?
Either way I continued to do more benchmarks, next is HD Tune (I heard it doesn't do well with RAID's but I ran it anyway).
Seeks (Hitachi):
RAID 0 on DL:
Obviously the Hitachi is better because of 15k RPM
Next, sequential read.
Hitachi:
RAID 0 on DL:
Again, ignore the bursts and the CPU usage.
Before you ask why I didn't run the 3 drives from my server on my Adaptec controller, well I need to get 3 adapters for the connectors, since the 3 drives are HP hot-swap and don't have separate connector for the interface cable and power cable.
So my question is: is it worth using the 3 SAS drives instead of my Hitachi, or should I get the adapters and try them on my Adaptec which is probably a better card than the HP P400 controller.
