# HD tune Thread



## DarkEgo (Aug 14, 2008)

Post your HD Tune http://www.hdtune.com/download.html scores here. I will catalog them from best to worst. In your post put your name, your hard drive, your Average Transfer Rate (in MB/sec), and a screenshot verifying your score. 

Score List


Username|Device|Average|Latency
STUdog|8x 1.5TB 7200.11 RAID0|719.9|9.2
STUdog|4x 1.5TB 7200.11 RAID0|443.3|10.4
wjallen69|4x Seagate 7200.12 250gb Raid0|436.7|8.1
Jizzler|4x WD Black 640GB RAID0|403.9|8.5
simunovic|3x Seagate 7200.12 500gb RAID0|367.3|8.7
TIGR|4x WD RaptorX 150GB RAID0|329.0|5.8
TIGR|4x 1TB Hitachi Ultrastar RAID0|323.7|8.8 
AsRock|1x WDC Blue 250GB + 3x Western Digital Caviar RE16 240GB Raid0|323.1|9.9
DRDNA|320GBx4 Perpendicular SG RAID0x4|314.3|14.9
thebeephaha|8x 74GB WD Raptors RAID0|294.4|8.1
thebeephaha|8x 74GB WD Raptors RAID0|263.9|7.7
DanTheBanjoman|4x 1.5TB Seagate RAID5|263.1|15.1
slyfox2151|2x Seagate 7200.12 1TB RAID0|252.6|9.6
TIGR|3x WD RaptorX 150GB RAID0|247.1|5.5
thebeephaha|4x WD Raptor 80GB RAID)|235.4|8.1
Shevanel|2x Samsung SpinPoint F3 500gb Raid0|232.5|9.6
simunovic|2 x Seagate 7200.12 500 GB RAID0|229.6|9.4 
Jakethesnake011|Patriot Torqx 128GB|216.2|0.1
STUdog|G.SKILL Falcon v1 64GB|213.6|0.1
Woody112|2x WD VelociRaptor 300GB RAID0|208.4|5.7
thebeephaha|8x Western Digital Raptors in RAID50|208.3|8.0
lisburnni|2x 7200.12 500gb raid 0|207.6|14.1
thebeephaha|4x 750GB Hitachi Deskstar RAID5|202.3|10.9
poo417|2x WD VelociRaptor 150GB RAID0|193.7|6.9
CStylen|2x WD VelociRaptor 300GB RAID0|192.4|7.0
Psychoholic|2X Samsung F1 640GB RAID0|190.5|9.4
Woody112|2x WD VelociRaptor RAID0|183.9|7.2
Lazzer408|2x WDC 750gb RE-3 RAID0|179.3|10.5
DarkEgo|OCZ Vertex 120GB|177.1|0.1
exodusprime1337|2x WDC Black 1TB RAID0|174.1|9.9
ap4lifetn|2x Samsung F1 320GB RAID0|173.8|13.1
slyfox2151|2x WDC Blue 640GB Raid 0|173.7|11.5
bpgt64|Corsair P128 128 GB|173.0|0.2
The Haunted|2x WDC Black 640gb Raid0|171.8|12.3
exodusprime1337|2x Seagate 7200.11 320GB RAID0|169.6|15.9
Vhozard|2x Samsung F1R Spinpoint 320GB RAID0|168.4|13.5
Laurijan|2x Maxtor DiamondMax 22 500GB RAID)|164.5|13.5
DrunkenMafia|2x WDC Blue 640GB|163.9|12.5
TIGR|2x WD RaptorX 150GB RAID0|162.7|6.1
DarkEgo|2x Seagate Barracuda LP 1.5TB RAID0|162.4|11.5
Pinchy|2x WDCaviar SE16 320GB RAID 0|161.2|16.6
stordoff|2x WDC Blue 640GB RAID0|161.4|11.6
btarunr|2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500 GB|160.0|15.7
Lazzer408|2x Seagate 500gb ST3500320AS RAID0|157.7|12.5
anglerbrian|2x Seagate 7200.11 250GB RAID0|154.7|15.5
Studabaker|2x WDC SE16 250GB RAID0|153.8|16.8
Anusha|2x Samsung SpinPoint 250GB RAID0|150.4|14.0
stordoff|2x WDC Blue 640GB RAID0|148.2|11.6
Dbiggs9|2x Seagate 7200.11 250GB RAID0|145.1|15.3
Pinchy|Samsung SpinPoint F1 640GB RAID0|139.6|12.9
CarolinaKSU|2x Samsung SpinPoint F1 750GB|136.4 12.4
burebista|Corsair S128 SSD 128GB|133.9|0.1
slyfox2151|OCZ 30GB Core V2|132.6|0.2
exodusprime1337|G.SKILL 64GB MLC|132.0|0.2
CStylen|2x WD Raptor 150Gb RAID0|131.7|8.4
department76|2x Seagate 7200.10 250GB RAID0|131.3|16.3
philbrown23|2X WDC Blue 250GB RAID0|128.1|16.7
ntdouglas|2x Seagate 7200.11 320GB RAID0|126.6|13.1
Wile E|2x Seagate 7200.10 320GB RAID0|123.6|12.9
Jakethesnake011|2x 74GB WD Raptor RAID 0|121.7|8.3
Arctucas|4x Seagate 7200.10 320GB RAID0+1|121.4|12.8 
brandonwh64|2x WDC Blue 500GB RAID0|119.6|15.0
enzolt|2x WDC Blue 500GB RAID0|117.2|13.7
Suraswami|2x WDC Blue 160GB|113.9|13.2
marsey99|2xSamsung SpinPoint 250GB|106.1|14.2
3dsage|Seagate 7200.12|104.5|14.6
Cybrnook2002|2x Seagate 7200.10 RAID0|104.2|15.0
Grasshopper|2x Seagate 7200.11 160GB|104.1|15.1
CStylen|WD VelociRaptor 300GB|103.2|7.0
3DSAGE|WD VelociRaptor 300GB|100.5|6.9
Metropolis|Samsung F1 750GB|100.0|12.1
jmcslob| WDC Black 500GB|99.8|13.0 
bigtye|Samsung SpinPoint F1|97.3|12.9
mullered07|WDC Blue 640GB|97.1|12.1
twicksisted|2x WDC 320GB RE16 RAID0|96.2|13.3
Mlee49|Seagate 7200.11 320GB|94.5|19.7
exodusprime1337|Seagate 7200.11 320GB|94.3|17.9
alexp999|WDC Blue 640GB|93.9|12.1
tigger|Seagate 7200.12 500GB|93.7|14.7
deathvirus_me|WDC Blue 640GB|93.7|12.3
P4-630|Seagate 7200.11 320GB|93.1|20.1
MoonPig|Samsung Spinpoint F1 500GB|92.3|13.7
burebista|WDC Blue 640GB|92.2|12.4
alexp999|WDC Blue 640GB|91.6|12.3
nafets|Samsung SpinPoint F1 320GB|91.3|13.0
farlex85|WDC Blue 320GB|91.3|16.7 
3dsage|Seagate 7200.11 320GB|88.0|19.6
DarkEgo|WDC Blue 320GB|87.4|16.6
enzolt|1TB WDC Black|86.6|12.0
Zyrocenus|Seagate 7200.11 500GB|86.1|12.7
Widjaja|WDC SE16 320GB|85.3|16.8
Bytor|WDC Blue 640GB|85.0|12.1
I see SPY!|WDC Blue 500GB|76.9|12.6
lemonadesoda|Samsung SpinPint F1 750GB|75.5|13.6
Damian^|Seagate 7200.11 250GB|75.3|15.5
Chewy|Samsung Spinport F1 750GB|73.8|13.5
Jmatt110|Samsung Spinpoint F1 750gb|72.7|13.5
Metropolis|Samsung F1 750GB|72.6|13.9
oli_ramsay|WD Raptor 36GB|72.5|8.2
ShadowFold|Seagate 7200.10 250GB|71.8|15.9
erocker|WD Raptor 150GB|71.7|8.4
farlex85|WD RaptorX 150GB|71.7|8.1
oli_ramsay|Samsung SpinPoint F1 750GB| 71.6|13.9
unclewebb|Samsung SpinPoint F1 750GB|71.2|13.7
TIGR|WD RaptorX 150GB|70.5|8.3
Yogurt_21|WD RaptorX 150gb|70.0|8.4
Jmatt110|WDC Blue 500GB|67.2|13.3
lapino|Samsung F1 750GB|66.0|16.8
Arctucas|WDC Blue 160GB ESATA|65.7|13.6
powerspec|Samsung SpinPoint T Series 500GB|65.1|14.2
bigtye|Maxtor DiamondMax 21 250GB|64.5|13.
oli_ramsay|Seagate 7200.10 320GB|63.8|15.1
Hardi|Samsung HD321KJ 320GB|63.0|14.1
CrackerJack|WDC Blue 320GB| 62.2|12.6
3dsage|Seagate 7200.9|61.3|13.2
philbrown23|WDC IDE 160GB|61.2|13.1
MadClown|Seagate 7200.11 320GB|60.4|13.4
erocker|WDC Blue 320GB|59.9|13.8
Altered|WD Raptor 74GB|59.6|8.8
WhiteLotus|WDC Green 1TB|59.2|15.0
Yogurt_21|WDC Blue 320GB|58.5|12.5
TonyMontana|Samsung SpinPoint 400GB|57.1|16.2
erocker|WD Raptor 36GB|55/5|8.0
theeldest|Samsung SpinPoint T166 400GB|54.4|14.1
freakshow|WDC SE 160GB|52.6|13.3
bigtye|WDC SE 200GB|52.4|18.7
TIGR|WDC SE 250GB|52.0|14.0
Widjaja| WDC SE 160GB|50.2|13.2
erocker|WDC SE 80GB|49.4|13.8
EnglishLion|Samsung SpinPoint P80 160GB|49.3|13.5
NeotonicDragon3|WDC Blue 160GB|48.7|19.2
Dark_Webster|Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB|48.0|15.5
Urbklr|WDC SE 80GB|47.8|14.3
Yogurt_21|WD Raptor 36.7GB|47.5|8.6
Suraswami|WDC IDE 80GB|47.5|13.9
DarkEgo|WDC Blue 80GB|46.9|13.4
powerspec|WDC Blue 80GB|45.9|19.7
Zyrocenus|Samsung SpinPoint P80 80GB|44.9|13.7
WhiteLotus|Seagate 7200.10 80GB|44.2|13.2
SirJangly|WDC Blue 500GB|41.5|14.6
CarolinaKSU|Toshiba MK1637GSX 160GB|35.3|17.5
Triprift|Hitachi 160GB|34.7|17.7
Mlee49|Hitachi Travelstar 80GB|34.0|17.3
Mlee49|Fujitsu MHV2080BH 60GB|30.6|18.0
alexp999|Maxtor Basics Portable 80GB (USB)|30.0|18.5
philbrown23|Seagate FreeAgent 500GB External|27.2|20.8
NeotonicDragon3|Seagate FreeAgent 250GB External|23.1|23.6
powerspec|Hitachi Travelstar 40GB|20.6|18.9
Please post your name, _full_ hard disc name, and your average score from HD Tune.
Thank you,
DarkEgo


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 14, 2008)

DarkEgo
Western Digital Caviar SE16 320GB
87.4 MB/sec


----------



## btarunr (Aug 14, 2008)

It's using two 500GB drives. Something odd with the burst-rate calculations


----------



## freakshow (Aug 14, 2008)

heres mine lol


----------



## btarunr (Aug 14, 2008)

Next time, use Alt+PrintScr (to capture only the active window).


----------



## erocker (Aug 14, 2008)

AMD 2800+
1gb Kingmax DDR400
ATi 9800SE
WD 80gb 8mb cache IDE


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 14, 2008)

My Pagefie/ music HDD


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 14, 2008)

here's mine (WD6400AAKS in SATA IDE mode, it has two 320gb platters):


----------



## SirJangly (Aug 14, 2008)

I think something is wrong with my computer lol


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 14, 2008)

^ JESUS LOL






Heres mine! 250gb Seasonic with 8mb cache!


----------



## SirJangly (Aug 14, 2008)

I had bitlord on, would that matter?  My computer was purchased in May from circuit city, I don't think my score(s) make sense :\


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 14, 2008)

Here's me raptor x, average transfer but got that low access time.






And for comparison my WD 320gb se16 external. Higher average but much higher access.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Aug 14, 2008)

Here's my RamDrive 






I win


----------



## btarunr (Aug 14, 2008)

*facepalm*

The memory benchmark thread is elsewhere.


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Aug 14, 2008)

two seagate 80GB sata Barricudas 7.200 8MB raid 0


----------



## EnglishLion (Aug 14, 2008)

oli_ramsay said:


> Here's my RamDrive
> 
> I win



Not on low CPU usage you don't!

Here's my Samsung 160Gb in a USB enclosure.






And in the same enclosure using the eSATA connector - oh what a difference - eSATA rocks. 






Look at the difference in burst speed!


----------



## department76 (Aug 14, 2008)

drive specs: 250gb 7200rpm 16mb cache sataII

config: 2x seagate barracuda 7200.10 in raid 0

average read: 131.3 MB/sec


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 15, 2008)

work computer intel p33 mobo, e2180 wd 320gb.
Edit: update with right info. 
I'll do my rig when I rememeber when I'm at home lol

Yogurt_21
 Western Digital Caviar 320GB
58.5MB/s


----------



## unclewebb (Aug 15, 2008)

Samsung HD753LJ
71.2 MB/s

Not bad for a hundred bucks.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 15, 2008)

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 8MB 80GB





Western Digital Caviar WD10EACS 1TB


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 15, 2008)

Western Digital Cavier SE 80GB (Sata)


----------



## erocker (Aug 15, 2008)

36gb Raptor 8mb cache





150gb Raptor 16mb cache





320gb WD Caviar 16mb cache


----------



## nafets (Aug 15, 2008)

Great post, DarkEgo! You're gonna be busy though...  

nafets, Samsung 320GB 16MB (SATA), 91.3MB/sec


----------



## powerspec (Aug 15, 2008)

powerspec
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB SATA
98.6MB/s





And my
SAMSUNG SpinPoint T Series HD501LJ 500GB SATA
65.1MB/s





I must point out, upgrading from my SAMSUNG 500GB drive to the VelociRaptor makes windows so much faster.  Loading times in games are about the same, but everything in windows just seems faster.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

*Here's mine updated. (this time i ran in SATA AHCI mode with Advanced Performance enabled)*

alexp999, Western Digital Caviar SE16 640GB (Sata), 93.9 MB/sec









> Just as a side note, check these out. (it shows the difference between performance and advanced performance in Vista)
> 
> Performance (left) vs Advanced performance (right)
> 
> ...


----------



## nafets (Aug 15, 2008)

I doubt ACHI had anything to do with the better performance. I've never seen ACHI actually increase hard drive performance...

When you see large drops like during the first test, it's usually a sign alot of times that there are background programs or processes running that are causing delays while running HDTune.

With not factoring in the large drop at the end of your first test, the minimum and maximum transfer rates are pretty much the same, along with Access Times, Burst Rates, and CPU Usages.

Try running the test again with ACHI off, maybe you'll see different results, more along the lines of what was seen in the second test...


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

nafets said:


> I doubt ACHI had anything to do with the better performance. I've never seen ACHI actually increase hard drive performance...
> 
> When you see large drops like during the first test, it's usually a sign alot of times that there are background programs or processes running that are causing delays while running HDTune.
> 
> ...



This is the difference between AHCI and IDE:

IDE (on left) vs AHCI (on right)









I was updating cus I had changed to Advanced Performance, that was the main reason. i went to AHCI as well, cus it reduces HDD wear due to NCQ but also to see if it made a difference. All it has changed is the Burst Rate. but advanced performance has given the biggest gain.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

MadClown said:


> yeah idk wtf happened towards the end, but this is my Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA 7200RPM split into 2 volumes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi,

Could you use TPU's upload server 

www.techpowerup.org

Your Imageshack pic is taking forever to come through


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 15, 2008)

Thank you everyone for complemnts on the thread. It would be alot easier for me if when you post a drive you put this above the screenshot: 
Name, full name of your drive[ex. Western Digital Caviar SE16 640GB (Sata)], your average speed in MB/ sec. This makes keeping up with the thread alot easier because then I can just copy and paste every thing to the score list. 
Thank you,
DarkEgo.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

alexp999, Maxtor Basics Portable 80GB (USB), 30.0 MB/sec


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 15, 2008)

You have my raptor labeled wrong. It's just 71.7mb/s, I think you tacked on yogurt's score by accident. Just fyi.


----------



## MadClown (Aug 15, 2008)

ffs i didnt know tpu had a pic upload server, lol

Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA 7200RPM split into 2 volumes









DarkEgo said:


> Can you please post your name, full drive name, and your average score, please.



my name is Jon if thats what your getting at, avg. score is 60.4


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 15, 2008)

Can you please post your name, full drive name, and your average score, please.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

DarkEgo said:


> Can you please post your name, full drive name, and your average score, please.



@ madclown, can you do it as an edit to avoid this thread getting overloaded and harder to navigate too quick.  And maybe delte your last post with the imageshack screenie, its still sitting their for ages trying to load while I'm on thr page.

Cheers!


----------



## Zyrocenus (Aug 15, 2008)

*Heres my work "beast"*

This stupid lil dell did and ok job!

Samsung 80G 7200RPM 2meg buffer 

max: 57m\sec
avg: 44.9
access: 13.7ms
burst: 70.6m\sec

later I'll post my home system just to make the dell choke a lil more on its inferiority  lol



Zyro

PS   How do I make the image display larger?   I didnt want it to be like  alil thumbnail    -is new-


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

Zyrocenus said:


> This stupid lil dell did and ok job!
> 
> Samsung 80G 7200RPM 2meg buffer
> 
> ...



the easiest way is to use TPU's image server:

www.techpowerup.org

Then after you upload click the vbb link which will add the image link to your clipboard. Then paste it into your message. 

if your still stuggling to do so, Pm me and I'll send you a screenie walkthrough.


----------



## Zyrocenus (Aug 15, 2008)

*Just for fun how about raided SAS 10K drives!*

Just for fun i thought I'd bench my server....   73 Gig 10000 RPM SAS drives in a raid array

Go Dell....  Cant wait to stack this result against my monster

Max: 91.4m\sec
avg: 77.6m\sec
access: 5.4ms
burst: 99.2m\sec






Zyro

Thanks for the tips on uploadin images Alexp999!


----------



## CrackerJack (Aug 15, 2008)

WD 320Gb Non-Raid 
Well running WoW, i'll test again when I'm done playing


----------



## CarolinaKSU (Aug 15, 2008)

Here is my Raid 0 array with 2 Samsung 750gb Spinpoint F1s


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 15, 2008)

If you want me to feature your post read the front page. 
Post your name, full hard disc name, and your average H Tune score.


----------



## CrackerJack (Aug 15, 2008)

CrackerJack
Western Digital Caviar 320Gb SE16 SATA 63.2MB/ sec


----------



## btarunr (Aug 15, 2008)

Hey why isn't CarolinaKSU in that list ?

CarolinaKSU: 2x Samsung 750 GB Spinpoint F1 (RAID 0), 136.4 MB/s


----------



## CStylen (Aug 15, 2008)

CStylen
2 150GB Raptor's Raid 0  on ICH9R


----------



## Zyrocenus (Aug 15, 2008)

*sorry dudeski   *



DarkEgo said:


> If you want me to feature your post read the front page.
> Post your name, full hard disc name, and your average H Tune score.



Zyrocenus, Samsung Spinpoint P80 80GB 2meg(IDE), 44.9 MB/ sec  <----- benchmark 1
Zyrocenus, Fujitsu MAX3147 15K 73GB 16meg(SAS) RAID0, 77.6 MB/ sec     <-----benchmark 2


Zyro

Found out the drive is a 15K RPM drive and not a 10K RPM


----------



## oli_ramsay (Aug 15, 2008)

750GB Samsung F1, 32MB cache






37GB raptor 16MB cache






320Gb seagate barracuda 7200.10 16MB cache, PATA


----------



## CarolinaKSU (Aug 15, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Hey why isn't CarolinaKSU in that list ?
> 
> CarolinaKSU: 2x Samsung 750 GB Spinpoint F1 (RAID 0), 136.4 MB/s



I should have written out my name and average with my screenshot 

So...

CarolinaKSU
Samsung Spinport F1 750GB x2 (RAID 0) 136.4 MB/s


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 15, 2008)

in your face velociraptor 


mullered07 wd6400aaks 97.1 MB/s


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> in your face velociraptor
> 
> 
> mullered07 wd6400aaks 97.1 MB/s



WD6400AAKS ftw!


----------



## btarunr (Aug 15, 2008)

For Raptor/VelociRaptor, the trump card is its access time.


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 15, 2008)

I will probly be gone for the weekend so sont post to much.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

btarunr said:


> For Raptor/VelociRaptor, the trump card is its access time.



Not really worth the price tag though. the WD6400AAKS is only £50. The velociraptor is less than half the capacity at more than three times the price.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 15, 2008)

Think of Access Time as memory latency with RAM.  You can have 5 GHz RAM, but at 15-15-15-40 it isn't really great.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 15, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Think of Access Time as memory latency with RAM.  You can have 5 GHz RAM, but at 15-15-15-40 it isn't really great.



Would you pay over three times the amount for less than half the capacity and 40% reduction in access time?

Not denying they are good, but performance/$ ratio, the WD6400AAKS would win.

Someone with a really big budget could get one or two, same as they could get two 4870X2's for Crossfire.

I just found it interesting to see how based on average transfer rates the WD me and mullered07 have comes so close to a HDD that has a smaller capacity and bigger price tag.


----------



## Widjaja (Aug 15, 2008)

Interesting to see the comparisons between the same HDDs.

Widjaja, Western Digital Caviar SE 160GB (Sata), 50.2 MB/sec






Widjaja, Western Digital Caviar SE16 320GB (Sata), 85.3 MB/sec


----------



## Zyrocenus (Aug 15, 2008)

*my personal drive*

ok heres the last one.  Benchs from my own personal comp

Zyrocenus,86.1 MB\s, Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, 500GB, 32MB,(SATAII)







Cheers

Zyro


----------



## CarolinaKSU (Aug 15, 2008)

Too bad they dont have 160GB SSD's yet that dont cost as much as my car. 

CarolinaKSU
Toshiba MK1637GSX 160GB (my laptop drive)


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 15, 2008)

I should fix my array.


----------



## powerspec (Aug 16, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Not really worth the price tag though. the WD6400AAKS is only £50. The velociraptor is less than half the capacity at more than three times the price.



I find my Velocirapter well worth the asking price, but thats just me.  capacity does not bother me as i have close to 3TB of storage in external drives laying around the house.  And low access time rules!


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 16, 2008)

Yeah the low access time really does seem to help. I haven't compared them directly, but I know in games that many complain of long loading times I don't have to endure them, they are always quick and painless. Worth the money, maybe not, I probably wouldn't buy it again.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 16, 2008)

Yogurt_21 Western Digital RaptorX 150gb (sata) 70 MB/s





Yogurt_21 Western Digital Raptor 36.7GB (sata) 47.5 MB/s


----------



## btarunr (Aug 16, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I should fix my array.



uh oh... that 6x Cheetah thingy will eat mine without leaving bones.


----------



## Pinchy (Aug 16, 2008)

Pinchy 

2x Western Digital Caviar SE16 320GB RAID 0 (single platter)






2x Samsung Spinpoint F1 640GB RAID 0 (m-atx rig)


----------



## btarunr (Aug 16, 2008)

A more consistent score after disabling some services (AV software, network interfaces, etc.)

btarunr - 2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500 GB (RAID 0) 160.0 MB/s avg.


----------



## TIGR (Aug 17, 2008)

Hi everyone, this is my first post here.    Thought I'd jump in with a few HD Tune benchmarks.  I build custom computers for a living and usually use h2benchw for drive benchmarking but HD Tune is handy too.  It's worth noting that these were casual benches done while the systems used were intermittently doing other tasks.  

TIGR, old WD2500JS on Intel ICH10R controller, 52.0MB/s:





TIGR, 150GB Raptor X on Intel ICH10R controller, 70.5MB/s:





TIGR, 2x WD5000AAKS 446GB Intel ICH8R Matrix RAID 1 array, 64.3MB/s:





TIGR, 2x WD5000AAKS 107GB Intel ICH8R Matrix RAID 0 array, 132.3MB/s:





Write-back caching was disabled for the WD5000AAKS drives and enabled for the following Ultrastars:

TIGR, 4x 1TB Hitachi Ultrastar 1721GB Intel ICH10R Matrix RAID 10 array, 132.5MB/s:





TIGR, 4x 1TB Hitachi Ultrastar 558GB Intel ICH10R Matrix RAID 0 array, 323.7MB/s:





The Ultrastars are great drives whose reliability is greater than their performance.  Intel's Matrix RAID is very well designed and implemented.  The Ultrastars are on my personal system.  If anyone wants more benchmarks, at the moment I can do up to 3x WD5000AAKS, and up to 4 Raptor X drives in any kind of RAID you want.


----------



## Bytor (Aug 17, 2008)

One WD 640 GB AAKS HDD


----------



## Dark_Webster (Aug 17, 2008)

Dark_Webster
Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB(Sata II)
Average: 48.0 MB


----------



## allen337 (Aug 17, 2008)

3 old wd raptor 36gig sata1 drives in raid 0 



http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/2532/hdtunequ5.png    .




The scores I see should be higher. Anyone using intel chipset in raid should go to intel.com and download the latest intel raid drivers for windows and install them then go to program files and open your intel matrix storage manager and then go to view and advanced, then right click your raid array and select enable write back cache and watch them fly. For thos with no raid go into device manager and find your hd and right click select peoperties and policies make sure cashing on disk and advanced performance is checked.  ALLEN


----------



## Chewy (Aug 17, 2008)

Chewy  Samsung Spinport F1 750GB

 I find my score kinda low, was expecting this drive to be faster! Ohwell its working good for me


----------



## lemonadesoda (Aug 18, 2008)

Intel 865, AGP system. Still up there!
(non-optimised score... multiple windws/services running in background)

lemonadesoda, Samsung F1 750GB, 75.5MB/s


----------



## Jmatt110 (Aug 18, 2008)

Damn my scores are lower than Chewy's and lemonadesoda's.

Jmatt110, Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD753LJ 750gb, 72.7 MB/sec







Jmatt110, Western Digital WD5000AAKS-00YGA0 500gb, 67.2 MB/sec


----------



## ntdouglas (Aug 19, 2008)

Here's mine.
2 320g Seagate Barracuda's in raid 0 7200.11 16mb buffer each
126.6 average 
ntdouglas


----------



## Laurijan (Aug 19, 2008)

Username:        Laurijan
Hard-Disks:       2x Maxtor, DiamondMax 22, STM3500320AS, 500GB, 32MB Cache, Raid0, Sata-II
Average Score: 164,5MB/sec


----------



## TIGR (Aug 19, 2008)

Laurijan, those are good numbers from those Maxtors.  What kind of controller is running them?


----------



## Chewy (Aug 19, 2008)

Hey Jmatt, check out post #67. thats prob why. I have a Backup power supply/UPS so I put all the advanced performance options for my drive.


----------



## Jmatt110 (Aug 19, 2008)

Chewy said:


> Hey Jmatt, check out post #67. thats prob why. I have a Backup power supply/UPS so I put all the advanced performance options for my drive.



Thanks, but that was one of the first things I did when I built this computer


----------



## Widjaja (Aug 19, 2008)

Interesting how there awas the Western Digitals Suck thread with what looked about 50% saying yes and 50% saying no yet the majority of the people who submitted thier results own Western Digitals.


----------



## TIGR (Aug 19, 2008)

Widjaja said:


> Interesting how there awas the Western Digitals Suck thread with what looked about 50% saying yes and 50% saying no yet the majority of the people who submitted thier results own Western Digitals.



As in most markets, every company makes some gems and some junk.  Best, I think, to select each hard drive on its own merits, not by brand.


----------



## Laurijan (Aug 19, 2008)

TIGR said:


> Laurijan, those are good numbers from those Maxtors.  What kind of controller is running them?



I got a P35 board with ICH9R controller, btw my maxtor hdds are actually produced by seagate..


----------



## TIGR (Aug 19, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> I got a P35 board with ICH9R controller, btw my maxtor hdds are actually produced by seagate..



Thanks!  Those ICH*R controllers are impressing me.  Despite Seagate acquiring Maxtor in '06, I was surprised to see those numbers from drives I don't know much about.


----------



## TIGR (Aug 20, 2008)

*New Benchmarks*

I got a request via PM to bench the Raptor X drives in RAID 0, so here is some data that I hope will help someone out.    These benches were done carefully, from a Windows installation located off the drives.  HD Tune Pro set to the most accurate setting, each configuration was benched twice to check consistency (all were within 1MB/sec).  Controller is the Intel ICH10R Matrix RAID on an Asus P5QL-E.

TIGR, 2x Western Digital RaptorX 150GB (21GB RAID 0), 162.7MB/s






TIGR, 3x Western Digital RaptorX 150GB (21GB RAID 0), 247.1MB/s





TIGR, 4x Western Digital RaptorX 150GB (21GB RAID 0), 329MB/s





Here is how RaptorX drives scale if you use the full size of the drives for the RAID 0 array:

TIGR, 1x Western Digital RaptorX 150GB, 71.7MB/s





TIGR, 2x Western Digital RaptorX 150GB (300GB RAID 0), 136.9MB/s





TIGR, 3x Western Digital RaptorX 150GB (450GB RAID 0), 207.1MB/s





TIGR, 4x Western Digital RaptorX 150GB (600GB RAID 0), 270MB/s





And finally, a more accurate bench done of my Ultrastars in RAID 0.

TIGR, 4x 1TB Hitachi Ultrastar (558GB RAID 0), 329.3MB/s





Which is why I'm selling the RaptorX drives.  

Hope this helps someone out.


----------



## Chewy (Aug 20, 2008)

^^ nice, yes sell those raptors on Ebay before they really hit EOL and noone buys them anymore! Im glad I didnt splurdge on one about 6 months ago now. I was close to.

 man your raid is fast lol


----------



## thebeephaha (Aug 20, 2008)

thebeephaha, 4x 80GB Western Digital Raptor (WD800GD) in RAID0, 235.4MB/s





thebeephaha, 4x 750GB Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 (HDS721075KLA33) in RAID5, 202.3MB/s


----------



## Wile E (Aug 20, 2008)

Wile E, 2X Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB RAID0, 123.6MB/s


----------



## btarunr (Aug 20, 2008)

I miss my Raptors


----------



## TIGR (Aug 20, 2008)

You can buy mine.  =P


----------



## btarunr (Aug 20, 2008)

I didn't sell them. My brother just took them away, my entire older Q6600 rig. It had 4x WD Raptor 150G in RAID 0. The board I used was Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R.  Hopefully some day I get them back. What a great day that will be.


----------



## TIGR (Aug 20, 2008)

That wasn't very nice of him.  =P

Nonetheless, I prefer 4x Ultrastars over 4x Raptors.  The benches don't lie: the Ultrastars beat the Raptors in 4x RAID 0 by 60MB/sec and match the Raptors' access time.  There's just no reason to keep the Raptors.

If only I didn't already have my arrays and data set up, I'd try a ~20GB RAID 0 array with 4 Ultrastars to see what kind of access times they'd manage at the beginning of the drives.  I think such an array could approach a Velociraptor's access times.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 20, 2008)

Technically I still own them and spent a serious lot of money buying them


----------



## Widjaja (Aug 20, 2008)

TIGR said:


> As in most markets, every company makes some gems and some junk.  Best, I think, to select each hard drive on its own merits, not by brand.



So true.
Just like some reputable brands release a dud motherboard or GPU from time to time.


----------



## thebeephaha (Aug 20, 2008)

"I didn't sell them. My brother just took them away"

You would have to beat me half life crowbar style to get me to give up my Raptors.


----------



## theeldest (Aug 20, 2008)

*Linux version -- zcav*

Here's my output from zcav graphed with gnuplot:






Here's the data file:
http://theeldest.googlepages.com/raid5.txt

The columns are KB, KB/s, sec. If you sum the last column and divide it by the size, you get the average read speed. In this case:


TheEldest -- 3 Western Digital 640GB AAKS RAID5 -- 171.9 MB/s
Average Speed: 171.9 M/s
Max: 223.8 M/s
Min: 110.5 M/s

The problem with using zcav (currently, thought the latest experimental release has an option to get around this problem) is that it reads *all* the sectors of the drive. So this took  7,100 seconds (~2 hours). But I set it to run 4 times and took the average. 

If more proof is needed, I've got a screen shot of my SSH terminals when I was running zcav.




EDIT: Just realized I didn't say much about the drives. It's 3x Western Digital 640GB AAKS drives in a RAID5 setup acting as a file server in a *nix box that's network attached.

Here are the drives:
640GB AAKS


----------



## TIGR (Aug 20, 2008)

Haha it's pretty hard to fake that kind of data theelder.  What kind of controller are you using there?  I have toyed with the idea of swapping my four Ultrastars for six WD6400AAKS units.  They are good drives.


----------



## CyberDruid (Aug 21, 2008)

I wish HD tune worked for me...but it does not.

So if you can deal with a lil HD Tach...here's some testing I did with a variety of drives.

The SS below is from a few months back when I was running 4 74GB Raptors in RAID0 on my controller card.




As you can see sustained read is around 300mb/sec

In RAID5 same setup it drops to about 200mb/sec








...and here is the same controller running 4 Samsung F1 750GB drives in RAID0




And again in RAID5





And here is the velociraptor.

ANd here is the 7200.10




I'll dig some more for other comparisons.


----------



## theeldest (Aug 21, 2008)

TIGR said:


> Haha it's pretty hard to fake that kind of data theelder.  What kind of controller are you using there?  I have toyed with the idea of swapping my four Ultrastars for six WD6400AAKS units.  They are good drives.



I'm running these off an older s939 Asus A8N5X motherboard. It's *software* raid that I'm running. I really wonder if it makes much of a difference. I've got a 1GHz - 2GHz processor and 1GB of mem with a Gentoo install specifically setup to be a server. I don't think it's much slower than a hardware RAID card would be.

I'd really like someone else to try the same setup, though. Let us know if there's a real difference between software and hardware RAID.


Also, I've got a drive (400GB Maxtor something or other) that's not doing much. I'll run a benchmark on it in the *nix system, then I'll move it to the windows box and test it with HD Tune so we know if zcav is a comparable benchmark.

I'll start the first half tonight.


Also: It's fairly easy to fake that data. There's a predictable fall off rate for the speed of the data (square root function). That knowledge combined with a random number generator would let me generate some data that's believable.

If anyone has an idea for adding a checksum of some sort, I'm all ears (or eyes, i guess ...)


----------



## CyberDruid (Aug 21, 2008)

From what I have seen running RAID0 on my Areca1210 and on various chipsets is that there is little difference. However running RAID5 you will se a HUGE difference. RAID5 being much faster with a controller card (highend) that has a dedicated processor. It's the Parity calculations that slows down onboard RAID5 as it must wait on the CPU to tell it what to do.


----------



## theeldest (Aug 21, 2008)

CyberDruid said:


> From what I have seen running RAID0 on my Areca1210 and on various chipsets is that there is little difference. However running RAID5 you will se a HUGE difference. RAID5 being much faster with a controller card (highend) that has a dedicated processor. It's the Parity calculations that slows down onboard RAID5 as it must wait on the CPU to tell it what to do.



So what you're saying is that the write performance in software RAID for RAID5 will be decreased?

I can handle that. Most of the writing will be done automatically at night. It'll mostly be used to serve files.

Also, I'm only running a 100 MBit network.    Even if it gets faster, I won't notice.


----------



## Triprift (Aug 21, 2008)

Triprift
Hitachi 160 gig (Sata) 34.7 MB/sec


----------



## CyberDruid (Aug 21, 2008)

theeldest said:


> So what you're saying is that the write performance in software RAID for RAID5 will be decreased?
> 
> I can handle that. Most of the writing will be done automatically at night. It'll mostly be used to serve files.
> 
> Also, I'm only running a 100 MBit network.    Even if it gets faster, I won't notice.



It's going to use some CPU time. Since I use all my machines for Distributed Computing at full load 24/7 the less CPU time my HDDs use the better I perform the tasks.

In your case the CPU is not doing a lot I imagine except serving so it should be ideal to go onboard for simplicity.

One other reason an enterprise may want to use a controller card for whatever RAID option is that it greatly eases migration to a new motherboard and allows for replacing the controller without introducing compatibility issues. Plus there is the Hot Spare option and in some cases Hot Swap option.

Although I have found you can regroup a RAID5 array when replacing a failed drive or switching from one motherboard to another one of a diffferent build  in general you will need to be on the same SB.


----------



## theeldest (Aug 21, 2008)

I found an article comparing software and hardware RAID.

http://www.linux.com/feature/140734

It's interesting. Basically confims what CyberDruid said, hardware is faster.

There was one interesting bit about RAID5. When using ext3 for the file system, the hardware card is only slightly faster than the software option for writes, and is actually slower at reads.

*when using XFS, writing on the hardware card is nearly twice as fast compared to software*

So I guess I'm using a good option. I've a dedicated box just running RAID5 and I'm using ext3.


----------



## theeldest (Aug 22, 2008)

*zcav vs. HD Tune*

Here is a Samsung HD403LJ -- 400GB SATAII

The first benchmark is done in Linux via zcav with the graph generated by gnuplot. The data file is Here and the gnuplot script is Here.

*i mislabeled the drive in the plot as Maxtor when it's a Samsung*


This data from zcav shows:
Maximum: 72.19 M/s
Minimum: 28.97 M/s
Average: 52.03 M/s






The HD Tune data show:
Maximum: 70.9 M/s
Minimum: 30.5 M/s
Average: 54.4 M/s







I'm glad that the results are fairly close (the average is off by ~5% -- I'd say it's not statistically significant). I'd say that anyone wanting to post *nix scores can use zcav (it's part of the Bonnie++ package in most Distros).


As an aside, I think it's interesting that I have that dip in the beginning. It showed up on both tests and is a physical anomaly. The zcav scores come from a set of 5 runs with the top and bottom third 'outliers' discarded (as designated by the programmer, not me). For it to still show on that test shows that it's not just a fluke.

What would cause a drive to do that?


----------



## CyberDruid (Aug 22, 2008)

I see some ups and downs on a lot of dreives I bench that are repeatable and consistent from bench mark to benchmark and I associated it with processes in the OS...but since you are using two different OS I guess Iwas wrong.

Anyone know what that the dip is caused by? You got me curious now.

Side note...

It should be obvious why you get a faster more responsive desktop when you partion the OS...the fast part of the drive is on the outside of the platter as shown on the graphs...as the arm swings in speed drops significantly.

Not all dirves have such a dramatic tailing off of speed. But in general the first third is pretty fast and rest starts gettting slower, so divide capacity by 3 and set partition size to that number for optimal results.


----------



## TIGR (Aug 22, 2008)

An illustration of CyberDruid's explanation that drives get slower toward the "end" of the drive (the inside of the platters where they spin most slowly) is my 4x Raptox X RAID 0 benches:

4x Raptor X RAID 0 600GB array: 270MB/sec average transfer, 8.8ms access
4x Raptor X RAID 0 20GB array: 329MB/sec average transfer, 5.8ms access

This is why I believe RAID 0 _does_ have a place in regular desktop usage.  By combining drives and then creating small RAID 0 arrays at the beginning of the drives using Matrix RAID, one can not only significantly outpace 10k drives' throughput but also approach if not equal their access times.  My 4x Ultrastar 1TB (7200rpm) 558GB RAID 0 array:

4x Ultrastar RAID 0 558GB array: 329.3MB/sec average transfer, 8.8ms access

And that is with a 558GB array.  I believe a 150GB RAID 0 array with those drives would beat a Raptor-X drive's access time of 8.5ms.

If I don't shut up, I'll never sell my Raptors.  =P

Hope it helps.


----------



## NeotonicDragon3 (Aug 22, 2008)

Here are my 2 Hard drives lol

1) 160GB Western Digital Cavalier SATA II 7,200 RPM





lol
2) Seagate FreeAgent Desktop SATA300 7,200RPM




wooo


----------



## powerspec (Aug 22, 2008)

My hard drive at work.

powerspec Western Digital Caviar Blue WD800JD 80GB 8MB Cache SATA 45.9MB/s





This here is my laptop hard drive, man is it slow 
Travelstar 40GB 4200RPM 2MB Cache IDE


----------



## CStylen (Aug 22, 2008)

CStylen
2 X 300GB Velociraptors RAID 0
AVG: 192.4 MB/sec






2 X 300GB Velociraptors at 322GB RAID 0
AVG: 209.4 MB/sec






2 X 300GB Velociraptors at 162GB RAID 0
AVG: 217.4 MB/sec






1 300gb Velociraptor
AVG: 103.2 MB/sec






What impresses me most about these drives is how much more quiet they are over the old raptors...


----------



## TIGR (Aug 22, 2008)

Thanks CStylen, good to see those benches.


----------



## powerspec (Aug 22, 2008)

CStylen my i ask, im thinking of getting another Velociraptor and doing raid 0 with them, do you see any difference in speed in windows/apps by going with 2 Velociraptor over just 1?


----------



## CStylen (Aug 23, 2008)

I haven't installed my OS or anyhting else on them yet, I was just testing to see if they would be significantly faster than my two 150GB Raptor RAID 0...

Judging by the numbers, it would be safe to say that you would see an improvement.


----------



## Woody112 (Aug 24, 2008)

2x Velociraptors---average 183.9
was expecting a little more from these drives. Owell should have better scores after I rma my bad drive. Keep getting "A drive in a raid 0 volume is failing". Just seeing if I can smoke it before I send it back.


----------



## Woody112 (Aug 24, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> 2x Velociraptors---average 183.9
> was expecting a little more from these drives. Owell should have better scores after I rma my bad drive. Keep getting "A drive in a raid 0 volume is failing". Just seeing if I can smoke it before I send it back.




It is now dead owell. Just pulled it out and sending it back tomorrow. Benched it all night with sandra and HDTune. Enterprise class drive.. Ha.Ha.Ha. Please what a marketing ploy. Hopefully the next one will live up to to the task and not is't name. If you know what I mean.

Anyways I just posted the new build in the case gallery take a look and cast a vote. Be glad to hear what everyone has to say. 

http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/1737.html


----------



## suraswami (Aug 24, 2008)

Suraswami, 2 x WD SATAII 160GB, 113.9 MB/sec
1 x WD 80GB IDE, 47.5 MB/sec.


----------



## CarolinaKSU (Aug 25, 2008)

One question I have been pondering to myself is why do most of the graphs on HD Tune drop off as the test progresses? And what causes the spikes to be smaller and the graph flatter on other benches?


----------



## theeldest (Aug 25, 2008)

CarolinaKSU said:


> One question I have been pondering to myself is why do most of the graphs on HD Tune drop off as the test progresses? And what causes the spikes to be smaller and the graph flatter on other benches?



Imagine that there are "tracks" on the platters in your hard drive. Each track is a ring around the platter. The rings on the outside of the platter can hold more data because they're longer.

But the platter spins at the same speed no matter where the data is being read from. So imagine it takes a 1/100th of a second to read a track (no matter how much data is on the track), and there is 1MB on the outer ring, and .1MB on the inner most ring.

The hard drive could read 100 MB / second on the outside track and 10MB / second on the inside track.


It's called Zoned Constant Angular Velocity.



So as the drive reads from the beginning (outside of the platter) to the end, it slows down because there is less data on each ring.


----------



## theeldest (Aug 26, 2008)

Just another comment.

One thing I didn't understand was why the graphs aren't linear? Why do they curve down?

As you get toward the center, the rate that date can be read decreases at a rate proportional to the radius of the track. Since each track is the same width, as you get closer to the center, the rate that the read speed changes should remain constant (ie, the graphs should be straight lines).


Then I figured it out. (and I'm posting it here incase anyone else has had the same question).

The rate *does* change in a linear way. The read speed is linear to the *track*, but not to the place on the disk.

Imagine a platter with 5 tracks. The tracks (from the outside going in) have 5MB, 4MB, 3MB, 2MB, and 1MB of data. Everytime the read head switches tracks, it gets a bit slower since it's closer to the center. 

So it reads the first 5MB at it's highest speed, then slows down a bit to read the next 4MB. After those 4MB, it slows down some more to read the next 3MB. After those 3MB it slows down a bit to read the next 2MB. After it reads those 2MB, it slows down a bit to read the next 1MB.

Since the HDTune graphs are speed vs *position in MB* and not *track*. Everytime it switches a track, it reads less data before slowing down again. So the speed decrease seen from switching from the first 5MB to the second 4MB is the same as between the second to last 2MB and the last  1MB.


So it should look something like this:


```
|
| -----
|      ----
|          ---
|             --
|               -
|____________________
```

Eureka!


*to all of you that already knew this, please don't ruin my moment. *


----------



## Woody112 (Aug 31, 2008)

Woody112   2 x 300GB WD Velociraptors at 160GB raid 0 --average 208.4MB/s


----------



## mlee49 (Sep 5, 2008)

Fujitsu 60 GB notebook drive


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 10, 2008)

I wonder why burst rates are so irregular. Mine are crap, those Intel controllers are extremely high. I'm assuming they use system memory for cache?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 10, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I wonder why burst rates are so irregular. Mine are crap, those Intel controllers are extremely high. I'm assuming they use system memory for cache?



That's seems to be a known issue with RAID users. When burst speeds are lower than average speeds, you know the reading is flawed.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 10, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I wonder why burst rates are so irregular. Mine are crap, those Intel controllers are extremely high. I'm assuming they use system memory for cache?



Yeah. It's called write back cache.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 10, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Yeah. It's called write back cache.



I know, it's what screws up my performance when I turn it on. My controller uses PC133. As soon as I use the cache for anything speed drops to <133MB/s. Interesting that the Intel controllers use system memory though.

Still doesn't explain why my burst is so crap though.


----------



## alexp999 (Sep 10, 2008)

Just an idea for DarkEgo. any chance you could split the list up a bit. Getting a bit big! 

Maybe Raid and non raid for a start...


----------



## TonyMontana (Sep 10, 2008)

*My Hardrive test*

So here are my results not spectaclair but i'm happy not the slowest


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 11, 2008)

TonyMontana said:


> So here are my results not spectaclair but i'm happy not the slowest



CPU usage is quite high. Though seeing your specs that's no surprise. Still very annoying when copying huge files and trying to do other things. I guess you'll be posting new results after Christmas.


----------



## Flamingsupernova (Sep 11, 2008)

Flamingsupernova
Western Digital Caviar 320gb 3gb/s
Average 61.3 Mb/s


----------



## stordoff (Sep 11, 2008)

2x WD6400AAKS - Intel RAID 0 (AAM Disabled)

Write-back Cache Off:





Not sure what caused the dip around 20% - Burst seems a little low, HD Tach measures over 300MB/Sec

Write-back Cache On:





Going to get a third 

Should I seperate the first 30% for data, the rest for programs or leave as full drive?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 11, 2008)

I took the liberty of changing the tables, you can sort them by clicking the header.
Discuss this addition


----------



## burebista (Sep 11, 2008)

burebista
WD 6400AAKS
Average 92.2MB/s


----------



## suraswami (Sep 12, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I took the liberty of changing the tables, you can sort them by clicking the header.
> Discuss this addition



Hey, where is my score?  Guess Dark didn't update it


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 12, 2008)

suraswami said:


> Hey, where is my score?  Guess Dark didn't update it



It hasn't been updated since last month. I only took the data that was already there (and added myself), it's still DarkEgo's thread. He has to keep it up to date.

I would suggest giving your score in the format used in the table, making it easy for him to add you (just copy/paste the line)


> Username|Device|Min|Max|Average|Latency|CPU


Just replace the descriptions with the right values.


----------



## theeldest (Sep 13, 2008)

Can someone please order a few of the 1.5TB Seagate drives to benchmark?

Please? And if you don't want them you can give them to me!

Hot Price! Ouch!


----------



## Woody112 (Sep 13, 2008)

theeldest said:


> Can someone please order a few of the 1.5TB Seagate drives to benchmark?
> 
> Please? And if you don't want them you can give them to me!
> 
> Hot Price! Ouch!



your not seriours right. Like Someone is going to spend that kind of coin just to benchmark for ya:shadedshu


----------



## vega22 (Sep 13, 2008)

*add me*






marsey99 2x samsung spinpoint sp2504c ich9r avg 106.1

not bad for £50s worth of drives


----------



## theeldest (Sep 13, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> your not seriours right. Like Someone is going to spend that kind of coin just to benchmark for ya:shadedshu




If they were in a B&M store, I'd get a few, benchmark them (single & RAID setups) and return them. I'm pretty darn curious. I can't find any good benches for them online...


----------



## Woody112 (Sep 14, 2008)

theeldest said:


> If they were in a B&M store, I'd get a few, benchmark them (single & RAID setups) and return them. I'm pretty darn curious. I can't find any good benches for them online...



Just yankin your chain bro
If I had the extra cash laying around I would be gettng them as I was wanting to set up a NAS raid 5  anyways. Unfortunatly I got rear ended sitting at a red light with 15 other cars in front of me with a new build in the back seat for a friend. 

Give it a few weeks since it's a new product. I'm shure we will all see benchmarks appear online. My guess that it is going to be no different that the 1TB version, maby slightly faster but probably not by much.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 14, 2008)

theeldest said:


> Can someone please order a few of the 1.5TB Seagate drives to benchmark?
> 
> Please? And if you don't want them you can give them to me!
> 
> Hot Price! Ouch!



With 375GB per platter, I bet they approach the Velociraptor in everything but access times.

God I really want a couple of those. lol.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Sep 15, 2008)

well here's mine

seagate baracuda 7200.11 320gig drives in raid o
average speed 175.9


----------



## theeldest (Sep 16, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> well here's mine
> 
> seagate baracuda 7200.11 320gig drives in raid o
> average speed 175.9





That looks like an unusually fast falloff in read speed (as well as an unusually quick ramp up in access time). Is anyone else seeing those results with that controller?


----------



## Woody112 (Sep 16, 2008)

theeldest said:


> That looks like an unusually fast falloff in read speed (as well as an unusually quick ramp up in access time). Is anyone else seeing those results with that controller?



That is perfectly normaly given that the raid was not partioned and the entire length of the platers are being read. notice the capicity in the top box raid 0 640gb.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 17, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> That is perfectly normaly given that the raid was not partioned and the entire length of the platers are being read. notice the capicity in the top box raid 0 640gb.



It is still a little steep. Here are my 7200.10 320GB drives in a RAID0. Yours should look very similar in shape, just up a few MB/s faster. Yours rolls off much faster past 80%.

BTW, are those 7200.11's single platter?


----------



## Anusha (Sep 17, 2008)

Name: Anusha
HDD(s): Samsung Spinpoint (S250) HD250HJ 250GB in RAID-0 (x2) setup, on Intel ICH8R
Average read speed: 150.4MB/s


----------



## Skywalker12345 (Sep 17, 2008)

Lucas Weir
47.1mb /sec Average
SATA 80GB MAXTOR 6L080M0






Lucas Weir
58.2mb /sec Average
IDE WD 300GB WD3400AAJB-00TYA0


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 19, 2008)

Single SataII Seagate ST3320613AS 320GB 7200.11 16MB cache

Average transfer rate 93.1 MB/sec


----------



## AsRock (Sep 19, 2008)

AsRock

3x Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB + 3x  Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 250GB in Raid 5.
231.9 Average read.










I'll try it with raid 0 but that might not be for some time.


----------



## bigtye (Sep 22, 2008)

I have 3 hd's at the moment.

bigtye

Samsung HD753LJ 750gb           Min 79.1 Max 103.4 Average 97.3
Maxtor STM3250820AS 250gb    Min 38.7 Max 78.5 Average 64.5
WDC WD2000JS-98MHBO 200gb Min 38.4 Max 61 Average 52.4

Cheers
Tye


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Sep 24, 2008)

250g seagate 7200.10 x2. seems kinda low vs some others i see here


----------



## anglerbrian (Sep 25, 2008)

Heres mine 

2x250gb seagates intel raid 0 154.7 avg transfer


----------



## anglerbrian (Sep 25, 2008)

trying..


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Oct 10, 2008)

Here is mine:

2 x WD 640gb (WD6400AAKS)  


average - 163.9mb/s


----------



## Damian^ (Oct 14, 2008)

Damian^ Seagate 250GB 7200RPM (SATA) 75.3MB/s


----------



## poo417 (Oct 14, 2008)

2 x VelociRaptor 150GB 10000RPM SATA-II 16MB Cache - OEM (WD1500HLFS) Raid 0,ICH10R
 Average speed 193.7

Poo


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Oct 14, 2008)

Grasshopper
2x Seagate Barracuda 160GB/8MB 7200.11; Intel RAID 0 - 104.1MB/sec


----------



## mullered07 (Oct 14, 2008)

Bigtye Samsung HD753LJ 750gb *79.1 /97.3 /103.4 *

this is a mistake, you have the max and average the wrong way round


----------



## mlee49 (Oct 14, 2008)

Mlee49
Seagate 7200.11 320GB single platter





and just for the heck of it:


----------



## deathvirus_me (Oct 15, 2008)

deathvirus_me
Western Digital Caviar SE16 640 GB AAKS AHCI
Avg. Speed : 93.7 MBps






ICH8R still manages to well


----------



## poo417 (Oct 15, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> Bigtye Samsung HD753LJ 750gb *79.1 /97.3 /103.4 *
> 
> this is a mistake, you have the max and average the wrong way round



I was wondering when I was looking at the results form why people had higher averages than their max score! 

Poo


----------



## philbrown23 (Oct 15, 2008)

well heres my results:
1st shot 2X 250gb wd250aaks in raid0

2nd 160gb wd caviar ide style

3rd segate freeagent ehdd 50gb


----------



## mlee49 (Oct 28, 2008)

Seagate 7.2k 320 @ 95.5 MB/s






Hitachi 5.4k 80GB @ 34.0 MB/s





Fujitsu 5.4k 80GB @ 30.6 MB/s


----------



## anglerbrian (Dec 5, 2008)

Here goes after Ccleaner and Defrag


----------



## MoonPig (Dec 7, 2008)

Samsung Spinpoint F1 500GB 16mb Cache

Min: 45.4 - Avg: 74.1 - Max: 92.3
Access Time: 13.7 ... :O
Burst Rate: 164.1
CPU Usage: 5.0%

13.7ms!!!


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Dec 11, 2008)

here is my score, updated i was having problems with raid and now i'm not.  please add me if you can

name: exodusprime1337
Drive: 2x seagate barracuda 7200.11 single platter 320Gb sata II drives in raid 0
average score: 	169.6MB/s


----------



## thebeephaha (Jan 2, 2009)

Name: thebeephaha
Drives: 8x Western Digital Raptors in RAID50 (Raptors are mixed: 1x 74GB 16MB cache, 3x 74GB 8MB cache, 4x 80GB 8MB cache)
Average read speed: 208.3MB/sec
Screenshot:


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 3, 2009)

DRDNA , 320GBx4 Perpendicular SG , Average 314.3 ,Raid0X4


----------



## Wile E (Feb 4, 2009)

DRDNA said:


> DRDNA , 320GBx4 Perpendicular SG , Average 314.3 ,Raid0X4
> 
> View attachment 22585



If you really want high scores, you should Matrix RAID that. If you use the Storage console in windows, it will let you build those 4 drives into multiple arrays. You can take the first quarter of each drive, and put it in RAID 0, giving you 320 GB of ultra fast storage, you could then build the rest into a RAID5 if you wanted.


----------



## ap4lifetn (Feb 4, 2009)

How's this? seems decent?

2x Samsung F1 320GB's in RAID 0


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 4, 2009)

Wile E said:


> If you really want high scores, you should Matrix RAID that. If you use the Storage console in windows, it will let you build those 4 drives into multiple arrays. You can take the first quarter of each drive, and put it in RAID 0, giving you 320 GB of ultra fast storage, you could then build the rest into a RAID5 if you wanted.



I was thinking about doing that ...but want to on my raptors...I just wanted to test out the performance on the perps in raid 0 ...so far I am pleased.Good advise though


----------



## Metropolis (Feb 4, 2009)

Two samsung spinpoints HD753LJ in non-raid, ACHI sata

Drive C





Drive D


----------



## lapino (Feb 4, 2009)

Anonye got an idea why I have these extreme downward spikes? This is on my Vista-OS drive, other drives (320gb and 500gb) do not show this behaviour.


----------



## alexp999 (Feb 4, 2009)

lapino said:


> Anonye got an idea why I have these extreme downward spikes? This is on my Vista-OS drive, other drives (320gb and 500gb) do not show this behaviour.



Turn of indexing

I have mine off in the services.msc bit, its a major resource hog that provides little benefit.

Or you can turn it off by going to properties of the drive, and untick index this drive.


----------



## anglerbrian (Feb 8, 2009)

Here's my seagate 320 Gig in an external vantec enclosure. no raid


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 12, 2009)

In order

OCZ 30GB core V2

2x WD 640 AAKS Raid 0

2x Seagate 7200.12 Raid 0


----------



## Disparia (Mar 12, 2009)

Jizzler
4x WD Black 640GB RAID-0
Avg: 403.9MB/s
Min: 364.2MB/s
Max: 425.0MB/s


----------



## The Haunted (Mar 13, 2009)

The Haunted
2x Western Digital Black 640gb 32mb Raid0 Min:111.5 Max:209.5 Avg:171.8 At:12.3 Burst:130.9 cpu:3.4


----------



## DarkEgo (Mar 13, 2009)

If you guys want the scores updated PM me with the table and I will put it on the front page.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 13, 2009)

SuperSpeed_LLCRAM_Disk (1Gb RAMdisk)
3145.8 MB/s average
0ms access
60% CPU


----------



## TIGR (Mar 15, 2009)

Excellent advice from Wile E on Matrix RAID (several weeks ago)—that's precisely what I do. If you look at my 4x Ultrastar 558GB RAID 0 array you can see that doing this improves the seek time considerably while also keeping your read/write times extremely consistent across the array. This aside from the other benefits of Matrix RAID and the fact that ICH10R provides a superb controller.

I see that's what Jizzler has done as well, and using exactly the drives I'd recommend someone do it with. I'd like to see what 6 of the 640s could do in Matrix RAID.


----------



## Disparia (Mar 16, 2009)

I almost went with six of the Black's, but decided to spend upgrade money on other parts.

My Matrix RAID-0/5 split:






My Blacks in a Lian-Li EX-H34:


----------



## STUdog (Mar 16, 2009)

I get avg 720mb a sec with 8x 1.5tb seagates in raid 0

My mate gets avg 1.2gbs with 16x 1tb samsungs in raid 0

Both on highpoint controllers

Can get screen shots

Cheers

STUdog


----------



## allen337 (Mar 16, 2009)

allen337
4-HITACHI Deskstar 500gb 16m raid 0     Most stable drives ive ever owned
AVG 345.6 MB/s


----------



## thebeephaha (Mar 16, 2009)

thebeephaha
8 74GB WD Raptors in RAID0
AVG 263.9MB/sec


----------



## allen337 (Mar 17, 2009)

thebeephaha said:


> thebeephaha
> 8 74GB WD Raptors in RAID0
> AVG 263.9MB/sec
> 
> http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/14680/HDTune_Benchmark_DELL____PERC_5_i(2).png




Aint that a little off for 8 drives in raid 0?


----------



## thebeephaha (Mar 18, 2009)

allen337 said:


> Aint that a little off for 8 drives in raid 0?



No, not all controllers scale linear.

Going from 4 to 8 I only gained 30ish MB.

I am at the limit for this controller card.


----------



## allen337 (Mar 18, 2009)

Its still a good score especially the flat line staying at 270mb/s and not wondering down.


----------



## thebeephaha (Mar 19, 2009)

STUdog said:


> I get avg 720mb a sec with 8x 1.5tb seagates in raid 0
> 
> My mate gets avg 1.2gbs with 16x 1tb samsungs in raid 0
> 
> ...



Fast but with that much data on a RAID0 that's like asking to get shot in the face!

I hope the RAID0 was just for speed tests.


----------



## thebeephaha (Mar 19, 2009)

UPDATE,

Rebuilt my RAID0... changed the stripe size from 64KB to 256KB

thebeephaha
8 74GB WD Raptors in RAID0
AVG 294.4MB/sec


----------



## Disparia (Mar 19, 2009)

Nice. Looks like the IOP333 maxes out around 300MB/s, which is not surprising, it's been around for quite some time.

Time to overclock it!


----------



## AsRock (Mar 25, 2009)

AsRock

1x Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB + 3x Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 240GB in Raid 0.
233.8 Average read.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 25, 2009)

AsRock said:


> AsRock
> 
> 1x Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB + 3x Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 240GB in Raid 0.
> 233.8 Average read.



Decided on 60GB of each drive for RAID0 I see. How does the RAID5 portion do? Think you could do a write test on it before you put any data on it?


----------



## AsRock (Mar 25, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Decided on 60GB of each drive for RAID0 I see. How does the RAID5 portion do? Think you could do a write test on it before you put any data on it?




Well re did it all again and still working on it. When making Raid  1, 5 or 1+0 you have to wait for the initialization to finish which were talking about 5-6 hours lol.  I should remembered this and did it last night LMAO.

I think not sure till it's finished but i think Raid 1, 5 or 1+0 suffers due to having a raid 0 on 1st or last part of the drive. I'm going for raid 5 then Raid 0 due to losing a OS would be annoying lol.

Tested it Raid 0 @ 25% and results are below

And thanks for your input .
AsRock

3x Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB + 3x Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 275GB in Raid 0.
323.1 Average read.


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 26, 2009)

Arctucas
WD1600AAJS-22AA0 ESATA through SiL3132 controller
65.7 MB/s


----------



## Arctucas (Mar 26, 2009)

Arctucas
4xST3320620AS nVidia RAID 0+1
121.4 MB/s


----------



## Altered (Mar 26, 2009)

Name: Altered
Hard drive: Western Digital Raptor WDC WD740GD-50FLCO (74GB) 16MB Cache (Sata)
Average Transfer Rate (in MB/sec): 59.6
Min: 21.4	
Max: 68.5
Average: 59.6	
Latency: 8.8
CPU: 1.1%
Indexing: On


----------



## NapalmV5 (Mar 26, 2009)

4x supertalent px ssd/arc1231 *MFT*ed

note:  please dont take these results literally/seriously


----------



## 3dsage (Apr 9, 2009)

Name: 3DSAGE
Hard drive: WD VelociRaptor  WD3000GLFS (300GB) 16MB Cache (SataII)
Average Transfer Rate (in MB/sec): *100.5*







I get faster boot times than when I had 4x40GB WD's in RaiD0


----------



## thebeephaha (Apr 9, 2009)

DarkEgo, we need to get the first page table updated! Lots of new posts.

Thank you!


----------



## DarkEgo (Apr 9, 2009)

Between work and school I don't have the time to update this. If someone would like to update it, then PM me the updated scores I would be glad to copy and paste to the front page.


----------



## thebeephaha (Apr 9, 2009)

DarkEgo said:


> Between work and school I don't have the time to update this. If someone would like to update it, then PM me the updated scores I would be glad to copy and paste to the front page.



K I will try.


----------



## Studabaker (Apr 12, 2009)

I've got some weird results coming from my system based on nVidia i610.

Fresh install on dual WD SE16 250GB models:





Results after disabling a bunch of services:





Results after installing (the latest) nForce drivers:





Here you can see things acting weird already






Not only does my RAID array seem to be slow after installing the nForce drivers but it also uses up 3% more CPU






What the hell is going on here?






Anyway, I guess my official report on these two drives on this chipset is *153MB/s* average speed.  I'm still really ticked off about nForce drivers using more CPU and delivering performance decrease rather than increase.  Strange stuff.


----------



## Psychoholic (Apr 19, 2009)

2 X Samsung F1 640GB; Running on Intel Matrix raid, OS is 200GB Raid0, Storage is 500GB Raid1.


----------



## DarkEgo (Jul 9, 2009)




----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 9, 2009)

This 500gb seagate is pretty fast.Its so thin too,not far off half as thin as my old samsung.






Its a-Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache

DarkEgo,how can your SDD use -1% cpu? lol how can it use -%


----------



## DarkEgo (Jul 9, 2009)

idk I need to update this thread soon. Anyone want to help?


----------



## 3dsage (Jul 10, 2009)

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 - SATAII 320GB







Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 - SATAII 160GB






I dont understand why my access time is so slow on the 7200.11.


----------



## Jakethesnake011 (Jul 11, 2009)

How does this result look for my 2 74GB raptor RAID 0 on the Gigabyte UD5's internal Raid controller.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 11, 2009)

Corsair P128 128 GB SSD Drive


----------



## Jakethesnake011 (Jul 12, 2009)

Wow that is like a $300 drive right?  I think the raptors I have are running good for the 1/3 in price I paid, although the access time is crazy, just crazy.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 12, 2009)

The read/write is rediculus, but the acess time and responsiveness is why I got them.  I have a few of the first gen Jmicron SSDs and even those, however shitty stuttering, were amazingly responsive.  The new p128 however high priced, is very much so worth it,  I was moving files from SSD to SSD over my gigabit network last night at 110mb/s.


----------



## DarkEgo (Jul 12, 2009)

Good SSD'd are worth it over Raptors IMO. I could have gotten three 74GB Raptor's for $150 or my Vertex for $325. Even at two times the price I like the Vertex because of the incredibly low access times that translate to incredibly fast load times.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 12, 2009)

I can second that, installing apps, responsivness of basic apps like word etc...holy crap...it's a new kind of speed.   I am switching over to the i7 platform later this week, can't wait to see it all working together.


----------



## Jakethesnake011 (Jul 12, 2009)

The low latency is why I want to move over to them although the cost is keeping me away and the talk of the older Jmicron controller causing Chap performance when the drive fills up and then you have to do a secure format in order to clear up the junk that is making the perforance drop very low, I was told that it can get as slow as 1 to 2 Mbps, which is insanely slow for such a high price item. 
I am sure things have improved, but I might wait until they go Sata 3, or 6gbps.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 12, 2009)

Window's 7 does a world of good for SSDs, I still have 2 64gb G.Skills running on the laptop I am typing from right now and most of the stutter in unnoticeable vs Vista.  Vista makes SSDs suck.


----------



## Jakethesnake011 (Jul 12, 2009)

yes Windows 7 is excellent for SSd's from what I have heard, and the performance test for Win 7 RC includes SSD support, my raptors score around 6.1 to 6.3, and then the SSD's score higher.  But I think for the price my raptors are working well, I am happy with them and the speed with reading and writing but I wish the latency was a little lower, well maybe half


----------



## lisburnni (Jul 12, 2009)

2x 7200.12 500gb in raid 0 , ICH9R , 32kb Stripe p35T DQ6






[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Hardi (Jul 12, 2009)

smth slower for a change : P

Samsung HD321KJ - 320GB SATAII


----------



## Moose (Jul 17, 2009)

WD Caviar Black 750GB

Avg 88MB/s


----------



## 3dsage (Aug 2, 2009)

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 - SATAII 500GB - ICH9
Alot better than a 7200.11.


----------



## burebista (Aug 8, 2009)

Corsair S128 SSD 128GB. Vista64





Same Corsair in Seven with MFT enabled.


----------



## ComputerManiac (Aug 15, 2009)

burebista said:


> Corsair S128 SSD 128GB. Vista64
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090808/ssd.png
> 
> Same Corsair in Seven with MFT enabled.
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090808/SSD_MFT.png




Too bad the MFT is not bootable....

BTW, Nice score though. 

Here is my score:







ComputerManiac


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Aug 16, 2009)

here is mine

g.skill 64gig mlc ssd drive sata 2 drive windows 7 x86





seagate 7200.11 320gig sata 2 windows 7 x86


----------



## Jakethesnake011 (Aug 17, 2009)

Hey I got a question about my SSD Drive.  I have a Patriot Torqx 128GB edition and I have been using the TRIM (wiper.exe) utility Patriot has given customer to download and it has been helping the drive somewhat although I am not sure if the performance is up to par since I have the drive to 55% full capacity.  The bootup is very very fast but I feel the HDTune is slower compared to the drive brand new it is about 50MBps slower, now is that normal when you get it brand new and then format it and install OS?  50mbps seems like a lot, well anyways here is pic of HDTune Write...


----------



## enzolt (Aug 17, 2009)

1TB WD Black






500GB WD 5000aaks Raid-0


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 21, 2009)

*Can't wait go raid with 2 of these*





Already have the second gotta wait til monday for mobo


----------



## Vhozard (Sep 26, 2009)

Two Samsung F1R Spinpoint 320GB in RAID0.
Weird CPU usage, but I see that with other users too.


----------



## twicksisted (Oct 2, 2009)

This is with two Western Digital Caviar 320gb RE16 drives in Raid 0, 64kb stripe
whats up with the burst rate?... seems a little high??


----------



## Vhozard (Oct 3, 2009)

twicksisted said:


> This is with two Western Digital Caviar 320gb RE16 drives in Raid 0, 64kb stripe
> whats up with the burst rate?... seems a little high??



Look at the post above you 
I got a burst rate of more then 1000 too.
Seems you're not the only one with this problem.

Vhozard


----------



## I see SPY! (Oct 4, 2009)

My WD5000AAKS, 500gb. Sata2, AHCI, ICH10R.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Oct 5, 2009)

Lazzer408
2x Seagate 500gb ST3500320AS RAID-0
157.7mb/s









Lazzer408
2x WDC 750gb WD7502ABYS (RE-3) RAID-0
179.3/s


----------



## JohnnyX (Jan 10, 2010)

*HD Tune on JohnnyX system*

Name: JohnnyX
HD: NVIDIA STRIPE 596.18 Gb (320Gb x 2) raid 0
Average score: 208.1 MB/s


----------



## TIGR (Jan 30, 2010)

ComputerManiac said:


> Too bad the MFT is not bootable....
> 
> BTW, Nice score though.
> 
> ...



I'm going to have to guess this is six drives using the first ~15% for a Matrix RAID 0 array. What is the actual configuration (drives, controller, RAID setup)?


----------



## simunovic (Feb 14, 2010)

*Seagate 7200.12 500gb*

Here is test of my first 214 GB big partition of the 2 x Seagate 7200.12 500 GB hard drives in raid 0 configuration on ICH10R chipset. 3rd one is om the way )


----------



## TIGR (Feb 14, 2010)

simunovic: welcome to TPU! Those are good numbers from your Seagates. Matrix RAID FTW.


----------



## simunovic (Feb 14, 2010)

TIGR said:


> simunovic: welcome to TPU! Those are good numbers from your Seagates. Matrix RAID FTW.



Thanks bro, I can't wait for 3rd one to show up. I will end up with 6 of them in raid 0 but first I need to put together server and move the rest of my hard drives there. )


----------



## simunovic (Feb 14, 2010)

TIGR said:


> I'm going to have to guess this is six drives using the first ~15% for a Matrix RAID 0 array. What is the actual configuration (drives, controller, RAID setup)?



That is probably 2 x 60 gb SSD's. Access time is 0.1 ms...


----------



## TIGR (Feb 14, 2010)

Oi, fail by me missing that access time, right you are simunovic!

That six-drive Matrix RAID array should make you very happy! I'm actually going to doing that myself, but with none-too-fast Seagate ST31500541AS drives. Will post results here some time in the next few days.

Will you be running RAID 0 across the entire drives or something like RAID 10 or 5 across the rest?


----------



## arnoo1 (Feb 14, 2010)

i do not know how to insert an picture or how to show my system specs   but
i have had 2x Seagate 500gb ST3500320AS RAID-0

and minimum of 87.7  max of 200.7 and an everage of 158.5  acces time 12.5 ms and an burst rate of 88 
that al on vista x64
q9550 @ 3,6ghz (8.5x425 @ 1.28750v)
p5q-ws (p45)
kingston hyperX 1066 @ 851mhz(1:1)


----------



## TIGR (Feb 14, 2010)

arnoo1 said:


> i do not know how to insert an picture....


Put the link to the image into img tags, like this: http://www.imagehosting.com/yourimage.png[/ img] (but without the space between the [b][/[/b] and the [b]img][/b].
[quote="arnoo1, post: 1764725"]....or how to show my system specs....[/QUOTE]

Go [url=http://forums.techpowerup.com/profile.php?do=specs]here[/url] and you can fill in your system specs.


----------



## simunovic (Feb 14, 2010)

TIGR said:


> Oi, fail by me missing that access time, right you are simunovic!
> 
> That sox-drive Matrix RAID array should make you very happy! I'm actually going to doing that myself, but with none-too-fast Seagate ST31500541AS drives. Will post results here some time in the next few days.
> 
> Will you be running RAID 0 across the entire drives or something like RAID 10 or 5 across the rest?



Clean raid 0. I will made 2 partitions. First one will be about 200 gb just for system drive and the rest is temp/games... )
All important stuff i have on other storage hard drives. If one hard drive fail I will not really lose anything. This raid 0 configuration is just for system, games and working folders like ripping, video editing  etc.


----------



## arnoo1 (Feb 14, 2010)

[/IMG]
raid 0


----------



## TIGR (Feb 15, 2010)

Curious ... anyone have an explanation for the curve _up_ in arnoo1's setup?


----------



## arnoo1 (Feb 15, 2010)

TIGR said:


> Curious ... anyone have an explanation for the curve _up_ in arnoo1's setup?




i think it's normal
Lazzer408 has the same curve and he has exactly the same 2 hdd's


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 15, 2010)

Even though the table hasn't been updated in nearly a year, my storage drive:






4x 1.5TB Seagate disks in RAID 5.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 15, 2010)

here is mine! 2x Western Digital Blue Drives 500GB 16mb cache 7,200RPM in Raid 0


----------



## DarkEgo (Feb 15, 2010)

Huge Update! Everyone is now on the table on the front page. Spent the whole morning doing that, boss is gonna be pissed!


----------



## I see SPY! (Feb 15, 2010)

DarkEgo said:


> Huge Update! Everyone is now on the table on the front page. Spent the whole morning doing that, boss is gonna be pissed!



Now that is one big update. Thanks, it looks great!


----------



## DarkEgo (Feb 16, 2010)




----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

Shevanel 2x Samsung F3 500gb Raid0 232.5 mb/s


----------



## simunovic (Feb 16, 2010)

shevanel said:


> Shevanel 2x Samsung F3 500gb Raid0 232.5 mb/s
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100215/raidbench.jpg



nice one. is it 7200.12 500gb seagate?


----------



## simunovic (Feb 16, 2010)

simunovic said:


> nice one. is it 7200.12 500gb seagate?



oh sorry, i see now, it is samsung.... my bad


----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

simunovic said:


> nice one. is it 7200.12 500gb seagate?




no samsung, but i have a 7200.12 500gb on my desk going out for RMa tomorrow lol


----------



## simunovic (Feb 16, 2010)

shevanel said:


> no samsung, but i have a 7200.12 500gb on my desk going out for RMa tomorrow lol



with 7200.12 500gb you will get about the same results. the reason i like seagate is quiet, they are so quiet.


----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

yeah the samsung can be heard but it sounds different than usual hdd's

hard to describe


----------



## TIGR (Feb 16, 2010)

shevanel said:


> yeah the samsung can be heard but it sounds different than usual hdd's
> 
> hard to describe



Not sure about that particular model but I've noticed in the past a more broadband noise character with others in the same model line.


----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

reminds me of a dog whistle that makes just enough noise to be barely heard... lol best i can do to explain.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Feb 16, 2010)

awesome since you upgraded.. and i just got my wd caviar black 1tb drives in raid 0.. heres the screen for you


----------



## TIGR (Feb 16, 2010)

Will have a new screenshot to post soon. It's helpful to see all these drive comparisons.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Feb 16, 2010)

TIGR said:


> Will have a new screenshot to post soon. It's helpful to see all these drive comparisons.



thats exactly what i was thinking, i'd completely forgot this thread existed and put my new drives in and was looking for a place to compare, and wala!! here it is lol


----------



## simunovic (Feb 17, 2010)

*3 x Seagate 7200.12 500 gb raid 0*

Finally I got mine 3rd Seagate 7200.12 500gb. Here is benchmark of first 214gb big partition.
So this is Raid 0 with 3 x 7200.12 500gb on ICH10R Chipset


----------



## wjallen69 (Feb 17, 2010)

*4xSEAGATE 7200.12 250gB*

wjallen69
4 Seagate 7200.12 250gb Raid0
428.6mb read  8.3latency.

I am new to TPU,love the forums. Here is my Raid0 setup. I have run faster than this.What do you kind folks think?


----------



## simunovic (Feb 17, 2010)

wjallen69 said:


> wjallen69
> 4 Seagate 7200.12 250gb Raid0
> 428.6mb read  8.3latency.
> 
> I am new to TPU,love the forums. Here is my Raid0 setup. I have run faster than this.What do you kind folks think?



Nice one


----------



## shevanel (Feb 17, 2010)

simunovic said:


> Finally I got mine 3rd Seagate 7200.12 500gb. Here is benchmark of first 214gb big partition.
> So this is Raid 0 with 3 x 7200.12 500gb on ICH10R Chipset
> 
> [url]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8959/hdtune3x720012500gb.png[/URL]



that is awesome performance. makes me want to get a 3rd samsung but 2 are already too loud as it is so I think I'll pass on it.


----------



## simunovic (Feb 17, 2010)

shevanel said:


> that is awesome performance. makes me want to get a 3rd samsung but 2 are already too loud as it is so I think I'll pass on it.



mmmm I know what you mean. 8 sata connectors on my mobo are full. so until I move the rest of my drives to the new home server machine this is max I can do, aaaAAaaaAAAa 

...but this is not the end my friend


----------



## simunovic (Feb 17, 2010)

ComputerManiac said:


> Too bad the MFT is not bootable....
> 
> BTW, Nice score though.
> 
> ...



Can you get HD Tune Pro and do File Benchmark Test?


----------



## Super XP (Feb 17, 2010)

simunovic said:


> Finally I got mine 3rd Seagate 7200.12 500gb. Here is benchmark of first 214gb big partition.
> So this is Raid 0 with 3 x 7200.12 500gb on ICH10R Chipset
> 
> [url]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8959/hdtune3x720012500gb.png[/URL]


Who needs SSD's with those numbers
NICE!!!


----------



## simunovic (Feb 17, 2010)

Super XP said:


> Who needs SSD's with those numbers
> NICE!!!



Yeah, bat SSD have so nice access time. 1 ssd can be better then this with small files. like 4b files. because of very little access time SSD will do that much quicker. this raid 0 will kick some ass... with bigger files like 512b. 

 oh well, but this raid 0 with 3 top of the line HD's still cost less then 1 SSD 60gb. This is nice anyway. I like it a lot to


----------



## wjallen69 (Feb 18, 2010)

*4X Seagate 7200.12*

New Numbers also.
wjallen69
4 Seagate 250GB 7200.12 Raid0
436.7mb read

Thanks for the great feedback, Yeah I will take my HDD's in Raid0 right now over SSD's.
Simply cost is ALOT cheaper and I have 1TB of space as well. I am very impressed with Seagate Raid speeds.


----------



## TIGR (Feb 18, 2010)

Welcome to TPU wjallen69—excellent transfer speed you've got there.


----------



## STUdog (Feb 22, 2010)

Hey guys

heres my test

8x 1.5tbs raid 0   Highpoint 2340
8x 1.5tbs raid 0   Same highpoint 2340
4x 1.5tbs raid 0   Perc 5/i


----------



## Wile E (Feb 24, 2010)

Why would you use RAID0 for storage duties with 8 1.5TB drives? That's a whole mess of data to put at risk. Wouldn't at least RAID5, if not RAID6 be a bit more wise?


----------



## shevanel (Feb 24, 2010)

why is it that whenever i transfer large files from a raid0 partition to a raid1 partition on the same drive it transfers at about 22mb per second? isnt that kind of slow?


----------



## CStylen (Apr 11, 2010)

Time to revive this thread

CStylen 2x Intel X-25M 80GB G2 RAID0 508.6 .1


----------



## jagd (Apr 12, 2010)

Samsung 1Tb F3 32Mb 7200rpm HD103SJ ( tested at AHCI mod ,single HDD on p35 chipset)

http://img.techpowerup.org/100412/HDTune_Benchmark_SAMSUNG_HD103SJ.png

http://img.techpowerup.org/100412/HDTune_Extra_tests_SAMSUNG_HD103SJ.png   ekstra tests


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 12, 2010)

I recall adding a disk last month, reran the tests. 5x 1.5TB Seagate on a Raidcore 5252-08 in RAID 5. I'm guessing the large difference compared to the 4 disk run comes from the fact that I don't bother to make sure the array is idle. It must have been running something on the background previously. Or perhaps the difference in HD tune version, who knows.


----------



## shevanel (May 16, 2010)

2x Samsung F3 500gb

shows 284 because the rest of the 2 drives are partitioned and setup as Raid1 with 357gb usable.


----------



## sweeper (May 16, 2010)




----------



## OldMX (May 16, 2010)

Western Digital 2500AAJS


----------



## Winston_008 (May 20, 2010)

Winston_008
HDD: WDC_WD6401AALS-00J7B


----------



## Jeffis108 (May 30, 2010)

*Intel X25m-g2 80gb*


----------



## Melvis (Jul 16, 2010)

Wd 3200aaks


----------



## rammedst (Jul 19, 2010)

6x Samsung 1TB Spinpoint F3 (HD103SJ) Raid 0, Intel ICH10R (1TB partition for games and stuff 3.9TB Raid5 for data)


----------



## Wile E (Jul 19, 2010)

Gotta love the versatility of matrix arrays.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 19, 2010)

I don't know if this has been asked before.

Can someone give me a simple explanation as to how exactly RAID 0 arrays drastically improve HD read speeds?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 19, 2010)

A raid array splits up your files into tiny slices, and puts each of those slices on a different drive in the array, so it reads one tiny slice at a time from each disc.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 19, 2010)

Wile E said:


> A raid array splits up your files into tiny slices, and puts each of those slices on a different drive in the array, so it reads one tiny slice at a time from each disc.



Awesome! The more disks the smaller the slices the faster you can access them. GENIUS!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 19, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA | Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB/SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 | 99.2/110.5 MB/s | 12.4/13.7 ms


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 20, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> LAN_deRf_HA | Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB/SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 | 99.2/110.5 MB/s | 12.4/13.7 ms
> 
> http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5541/untitletyud1.jpg



Have the same Drive as you (WD Black 1TB)  and my average came out to be 107MB/s. I guess the difference isn't that big but what would account for that (Maybe disk fragmentation?)? And access time was 12.2. I'll run it again and post mine when I get back from work. I find it interesting comparing the same products.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 20, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> Have the same Drive as you (WD Black 1TB)  and my average came out to be 107MB/s. I guess the difference isn't that big but what would account for that (Maybe disk fragmentation?)? And access time was 12.2. I'll run it again and post mine when I get back from work. I find it interesting comparing the same products.



Background usage, chipsets, sata 2 vs 3. A lot of crap.


----------



## Widjaja (Jul 20, 2010)

Here comes the *BIG FOOT* yo!


----------



## shevanel (Jul 20, 2010)

rammedst said:


> 6x Samsung 1TB Spinpoint F3 (HD103SJ) Raid 0, Intel ICH10R (1TB partition for games and stuff 3.9TB Raid5 for data)
> 
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/677635/hdtune.png



sick array, sick monitor!


----------



## shevanel (Jul 20, 2010)




----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 20, 2010)

here is my work PC, two HDD booth 160G but one one them with 8M cash and the other one is 2M


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 21, 2010)

AphexDreamer | Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB | 107.3 MB/s | 12.6 ms


----------



## adrianx (Jul 23, 2010)

AphexDreamer   try make from raid 0 partition at 1/4 (or 1/5) size of the raid array will increase the seed, also the access time will decrease (not more but visible)


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 23, 2010)

adrianx said:


> AphexDreamer   try make from raid 0 partition at 1/4 (or 1/5) size of the raid array will increase the seed, also the access time will decrease (not more but visible)



Wait don't I need another WD1TB I only have one? Or is it possible to break my Tera into smaller HD and then RAID them (If thats what I think you are saying)?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2010)

You need more than one drive to RAID. I think he though you already had a raid array.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Aug 10, 2010)

rickss69
OCZ-VERTEX2 60GB
180.3 MB/sec


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Aug 10, 2010)

rickss69
STT_FTM32GX25H 32GB
128.9 MB/sec


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Aug 10, 2010)

rickss69
WDCWD1500HLFS-01G6UO 150GB
99.8 MB/sec


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Aug 10, 2010)

rickss69
WDCWD1001FALS-00E8B0 1000GB
90.4 MB/sec


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Aug 11, 2010)

rickss69
WDCWD1500HLFS-01G6UO 150GB/OCZ VERTEX2 60GB (combined with HDDBoost)
105.5 MB/sec


----------



## claylomax (Aug 11, 2010)

Mine.


----------



## CStylen (Aug 11, 2010)

CStylen 3x 80GB Intel X-25M RAID0 751.9 0.1


----------



## ERazer (Aug 11, 2010)

CStylen said:


> CStylen 3x 80GB Intel X-25M RAID0 751.9 0.1



i hate u  j/k very nice


----------



## Soylent Joe (Aug 12, 2010)

CStylen said:


> CStylen 3x 80GB Intel X-25M RAID0 751.9 0.1









That's insane


----------

