 |
|
|
|
Next: Durability of CDRW/DVD combo vs CDRW
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 273
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 1:19 pm
Post subject: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks?
Archived from groups: alt>comp>periphs>mainboard>abit, others (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:57 am
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Ran a quick test in Sandra2004 and got the following:
Drive index 52981 kB/s (2x SATA 200Gb 7.2krpm 8Mb cache in Raid 0) - I
didn't bother shutting down any applications/background processes/etc.
Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 146/80/8 Mb/s
Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 135/79/17 Mb/s
Avg. access time 7 ms
For some reason, my test file size is 1023Mb, while yours is 511Mb?
Anyways, not sure how the drive index is calculated from the individual
numbers, but it almost has to weigh sequential reads very heavily since your
index is higher but the only individual number that's higher in your test is
the sequential read number.
I noticed in your HD Tach result that your CPU% is very high, ideally that
should be less than 5%. My first guess would be that you have a very small
stripe size - too small a stripe size really overtaxes your CPU.
"Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:br6rv3$alc$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Greetings Abit and Storage Newsgroup,
>
> I have just had a bit of spare time to finally do some proper tests on my
> SATA RAID-0 set-up. I was hoping that some of you out there would be able
> to run some tests yourself so we can compare results. Doesn't matter what
> disk system you have (ATA/66 or SCSI etc), I just want some real world
> results. . .
>
> I have three results posted using three different programs:
>
> DiskSpeed32 (v3.0.0.4)
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font</a>>
>
> HD Tach v2.7
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font</a>>
>
> SiSoftware Sandra MAX
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font</a>>
>
>
> I would be interested to see some other results, here is my old system:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66...g</f</a>>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66...g</f</a>>
>
> --
> Wayne ][
>
> Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
> CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
> ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
> 512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
> Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
> 240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
> Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
> 2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
> WinXP-PRO-SP1
> Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 273
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:14 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Chris" wrote
> Ran a quick test in Sandra2004 and got the following:
> Drive index 52981 kB/s (2x SATA 200Gb 7.2krpm 8Mb cache in Raid 0) - I
> didn't bother shutting down any applications/background processes/etc.
> Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 146/80/8 Mb/s
> Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 135/79/17 Mb/s
> Avg. access time 7 ms
> For some reason, my test file size is 1023Mb, while yours is 511Mb?
> Anyways, not sure how the drive index is calculated from the individual
> numbers, but it almost has to weigh sequential reads very heavily since
your
> index is higher but the only individual number that's higher in your test
is
> the sequential read number.
>
> I noticed in your HD Tach result that your CPU% is very high, ideally that
> should be less than 5%. My first guess would be that you have a very small
> stripe size - too small a stripe size really overtaxes your CPU.
Hi Chris,
thanks for the post, quite interesting. You got 146MB/s Buffered Read! I
figure you are using the INTEL ICH5 Native RAID controllers?
--
Wayne ][
Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.7v)
Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
WinXP-PRO-SP1
Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:29 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap DeleteThis @btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:br6rv3$alc$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Greetings Abit and Storage Newsgroup,
>
> I have just had a bit of spare time to finally do some proper tests on my
> SATA RAID-0 set-up. I was hoping that some of you out there would be able
> to run some tests yourself so we can compare results. Doesn't matter what
> disk system you have (ATA/66 or SCSI etc), I just want some real world
> results. . .
Do me a favour, will you? Download and run the ATTO disk benchmark,
"bench32.exe". Set the "Total Length" to 32 MB and then run it. This is
perhaps the most widely used disk benchmark these days.
If you haven't got it already, you can download it here (as part of ATTO's
SCSI toolset package):
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.attotech.com/software/files/eptscsi.exe" target="_blank">http://www.attotech.com/software/files/eptscsi.exe</a>
I get writes of around 107~108MB/s and reads around 103.
I just ran Sandra for you. Here are the results:
Overall score : 64939kb/s
Buffered Read : 106 MB/s
Sequential Read : 99 MB/s
Random Read : 8 MB/s
Buffered Write : 103 MB/s
Sequential Write : 96 MB/s
Random Write : 21 MB/s
Average Access Time : 7 ms (estimated)
This is with 2 x Maxtor 120MB sata's also in an nf7-s.
Cheers,
Chip.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:38 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:br9chb$l6h$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Chris" wrote
> > Ran a quick test in Sandra2004 and got the following:
> > Drive index 52981 kB/s (2x SATA 200Gb 7.2krpm 8Mb cache in Raid 0) - I
> > didn't bother shutting down any applications/background processes/etc.
> > Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 146/80/8 Mb/s
> > Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 135/79/17 Mb/s
> > Avg. access time 7 ms
> > For some reason, my test file size is 1023Mb, while yours is 511Mb?
> > Anyways, not sure how the drive index is calculated from the individual
> > numbers, but it almost has to weigh sequential reads very heavily since
> your
> > index is higher but the only individual number that's higher in your
test
> is
> > the sequential read number.
> >
> > I noticed in your HD Tach result that your CPU% is very high, ideally
that
> > should be less than 5%. My first guess would be that you have a very
small
> > stripe size - too small a stripe size really overtaxes your CPU.
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> thanks for the post, quite interesting. You got 146MB/s Buffered Read! I
> figure you are using the INTEL ICH5 Native RAID controllers?
> --
You see, this is exactly my point. Although the Intel controller allows
higher burst (i.e. buffered) performance (since it isn't limited by the PCI
bus' 133MB/s bandwidth), this makes very little difference to the real-world
peformance of the disk subsystem, since it isn't *in* burst mode for very
long or very often. What really matters are the sequential and random
numbers.
Its for exactly the same reason that the performance of ATA100 interface
disks (e.g. Western Digital) is the same as for ATA133 disk (Maxtor)
although the interface allows higher burst rates, it makes little or no
difference to the actuall performance of the drive.
Chip.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 10, 2003
Posts: 1690
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 2:26 am
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Chip" <AnneOnymouse.DeleteThis@virgin.net> wrote in message news:br9dut$o9f6$1@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de
> "Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:br9chb$l6h$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Chris" wrote
> > > Ran a quick test in Sandra2004 and got the following:
> > > Drive index 52981 kB/s (2x SATA 200Gb 7.2krpm 8Mb cache in Raid 0)
> > > I didn't bother shutting down any applications/background processes/etc.
> > > Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 146/80/8 Mb/s
> > > Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 135/79/17 Mb/s
> > > Avg. access time 7 ms
> > > For some reason, my test file size is 1023Mb, while yours is 511Mb?
> > > Anyways, not sure how the drive index is calculated from the individual
> > > numbers, but it almost has to weigh sequential reads very heavily since your
> > > index is higher but the only individual number that's higher in your test is
> > > the sequential read number.
> > >
> > > I noticed in your HD Tach result that your CPU% is very high, ideally that
> > > should be less than 5%. My first guess would be that you have a very small
> > > stripe size - too small a stripe size really overtaxes your CPU.
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > thanks for the post, quite interesting. You got 146MB/s Buffered Read!
> > I figure you are using the INTEL ICH5 Native RAID controllers?
> > --
>
> You see, this is exactly my point. Although the Intel controller allows
> higher burst (i.e. buffered) performance (since it isn't limited by the PCI
> bus' 133MB/s bandwidth),
> this makes very little difference to the real-world peformance of the disk
> subsystem,
In the case of SATA - which is point to point - but not with ATA's 2 drive
per channel.
> since it isn't *in* burst mode for very long or very often.
It is in burst mode ALL of the time as that is the only way (most) buses
work, at 33/66/100/133/150 MB/s, in bursts, since obviously no device
(with those particular interfaces) can sustain those (particular) rates.
> What really matters are the sequential and random numbers.
Actually the burstrates would be an indication of what might happen
when two drives are accessed simultaniously on the same channel.
>
> Its for exactly the same reason that the performance of ATA100 interface
> disks (e.g. Western Digital) is the same as for ATA133 disk (Maxtor)
Not with 2 drives on the same channel accessed simultaniously when both
drives have STRs of over 45MB/s.
> although the interface allows higher burst rates, it makes little or no
> difference to the actuall performance of the drive.
Drive indeed, as in 'single' drive.
>
> Chip.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 25
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:25 am
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Chip" <AnneOnymouse.RemoveThis@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:br9dut$o9f6$1@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de...
> You see, this is exactly my point. Although the Intel controller allows
> higher burst (i.e. buffered) performance (since it isn't limited by the
PCI
> bus' 133MB/s bandwidth), this makes very little difference to the
real-world
> peformance of the disk subsystem, since it isn't *in* burst mode for very
> long or very often. What really matters are the sequential and random
> numbers.
Unless of course you use hardware which also wants to use a bit of PCI
bandwidth.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:36 am
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"tHatDudeUK" <randomcharacter4spammers.RemoveThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:brbu25$1ljca$1@ID-158809.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Chip" <AnneOnymouse.RemoveThis@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:br9dut$o9f6$1@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > You see, this is exactly my point. Although the Intel controller allows
> > higher burst (i.e. buffered) performance (since it isn't limited by the
> PCI
> > bus' 133MB/s bandwidth), this makes very little difference to the
> real-world
> > peformance of the disk subsystem, since it isn't *in* burst mode for
very
> > long or very often. What really matters are the sequential and random
> > numbers.
>
> Unless of course you use hardware which also wants to use a bit of PCI
> bandwidth.
>
That a completely separate issue. What I meant above is "What really
matters (as far as hard disk performance goes) are the sequential and random
numbers."
How the disk is attached to the system, through what controller and on which
bus etc its a separate issue that will determine other system performance
aspects..... like whether the sound works or not.
Chip.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 10, 2003
Posts: 1690
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:50 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Chip" <AnneOnymouse RemoveThis @virgin.net> wrote in message news:brbul2$1jgtu$1@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de
> "tHatDudeUK" <randomcharacter4spammers RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:brbu25$1ljca$1@ID-158809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Chip" AnneOnymouse RemoveThis @virgin.net> wrote in message news:br9dut$o9f6$1@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > You see, this is exactly my point. Although the Intel controller allows
> > > higher burst (i.e. buffered) performance (since it isn't limited by the PCI
> > > bus' 133MB/s bandwidth), this makes very little difference to the real-world
> > > peformance of the disk subsystem, since it isn't *in* burst mode for very
> > > long or very often. What really matters are the sequential and random numbers.
> >
> > Unless of course you use hardware which also wants to use a bit of PCI bandwidth.
> >
>
> That a completely separate issue. What I meant above is "What really matters
> (as far as hard disk performance goes) are the sequential and random numbers."
>
> How the disk is attached to the system, through what controller and on which bus
> etc its a separate issue that will determine other system performance aspects.....
> like whether the sound works or not.
.... or the drives perform or not.
>
> Chip.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 63
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:23 am
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I, too, just ran the test.
Drive index 57238 (2x ATA100 120GB 7.2krpm RAID 0)
Ran from fresh boot with all normal processes running.
Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 94/91/9 Mb/s
Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 74/71/15 Mb/s
Avg. access time 7 ms
I'd have to agree with Chris that sequential reads weigh VERY heavily in the
index.
"Chris" <cybersonic.TakeThisOut@nospam.crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:tNSBb.14554$hv2.9859@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Ran a quick test in Sandra2004 and got the following:
> Drive index 52981 kB/s (2x SATA 200Gb 7.2krpm 8Mb cache in Raid 0) - I
> didn't bother shutting down any applications/background processes/etc.
> Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 146/80/8 Mb/s
> Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 135/79/17 Mb/s
> Avg. access time 7 ms
> For some reason, my test file size is 1023Mb, while yours is 511Mb?
> Anyways, not sure how the drive index is calculated from the individual
> numbers, but it almost has to weigh sequential reads very heavily since
your
> index is higher but the only individual number that's higher in your test
is
> the sequential read number.
>
> I noticed in your HD Tach result that your CPU% is very high, ideally that
> should be less than 5%. My first guess would be that you have a very small
> stripe size - too small a stripe size really overtaxes your CPU.
>
>
> "Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:br6rv3$alc$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > Greetings Abit and Storage Newsgroup,
> >
> > I have just had a bit of spare time to finally do some proper tests on
my
> > SATA RAID-0 set-up. I was hoping that some of you out there would be
able
> > to run some tests yourself so we can compare results. Doesn't matter
what
> > disk system you have (ATA/66 or SCSI etc), I just want some real world
> > results. . .
> >
> > I have three results posted using three different programs:
> >
> > DiskSpeed32 (v3.0.0.4)
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font</a>>
> >
> > HD Tach v2.7
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font</a>>
> >
> > SiSoftware Sandra MAX
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font</a>>
> >
> >
> > I would be interested to see some other results, here is my old system:
> >
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66.jpg</a>
> >
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66.jpg</a>
> >
> > --
> > Wayne ][
> >
> > Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
> > CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
> > ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
> > 512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
> > Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
> > 240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
> > Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
> > 2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
> > WinXP-PRO-SP1
> > Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b
> >
> >
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 273
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:48 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Chip" wrote
> Do me a favour, will you? Download and run the ATTO disk benchmark,
> "bench32.exe". Set the "Total Length" to 32 MB and then run it. This is
> perhaps the most widely used disk benchmark these days.
>
> If you haven't got it already, you can download it here (as part of ATTO's
> SCSI toolset package):
>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.attotech.com/software/files/eptscsi.exe</font" target="_blank">http://www.attotech.com/software/files/eptscsi.exe</font</a>>
Hi,
I did download that *ATTO ExpressPro-Tools* but I have no idea how to use
it's *Disk Benchmark*?. There is allot of parameters to configure. Any
tips?
--
Wayne ][<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 273
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:48 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Colon Terminus" wrote
> I, too, just ran the test.
> Drive index 57238 (2x ATA100 120GB 7.2krpm RAID 0)
> Ran from fresh boot with all normal processes running.
> Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 94/91/9 Mb/s
> Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 74/71/15 Mb/s
> Avg. access time 7 ms
>
> I'd have to agree with Chris that sequential reads weigh VERY heavily in
the
> index.
Hi,
thanks for the feedback. Your still getting better scores than me using
your ATA/100 RAID-0 than I am getting using SATA RAID-0. Did you try using
HDTach v2.7 yet?
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</a>
--
Wayne ][
Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
WinXP-PRO-SP1
Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 29, 2003
Posts: 27
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 8:32 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Here are my Hdtach 2.70 stats:
Drive #1: Western Digital 200GB, 8MB cache, 7200RPM:
Random Access 13.8ms
Read Burst Speed: 67.1MB/s
Read Speed Average: 47.0MB/s
CPU Utilization: 8.7%
Drive #2: Seagate 18GB ST318452LW, 15000RPM
Random Access 5.9ms
Read Burst Speed: 81.9MB/s
Read Speed Average: 55.3MB/s
CPU Utilization: 5.7%
And, just for fun, Drive #3, Apple Ipod, 30GB, Firewire
Random Access 22.8ms
Read Burst Speed: 19.5MB/s
Read Speed Average: 12.3MB/s
CPU Utilization: 1.9%
I have two 15k drives in my office, one of which is the world's fastest
drive. I'll try to post those results later today or tomorrow.
"Colon Terminus" <Colon_Terminus DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HYOCb.3015428$Id.471009@news.easynews.com...
>
> I, too, just ran the test.
> Drive index 57238 (2x ATA100 120GB 7.2krpm RAID 0)
> Ran from fresh boot with all normal processes running.
> Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 94/91/9 Mb/s
> Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 74/71/15 Mb/s
> Avg. access time 7 ms
>
> I'd have to agree with Chris that sequential reads weigh VERY heavily in
the
> index.
>
> "Chris" <cybersonic DeleteThis @nospam.crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:tNSBb.14554$hv2.9859@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > Ran a quick test in Sandra2004 and got the following:
> > Drive index 52981 kB/s (2x SATA 200Gb 7.2krpm 8Mb cache in Raid 0) - I
> > didn't bother shutting down any applications/background processes/etc.
> > Buffered/Sequential/Random read: 146/80/8 Mb/s
> > Buffered/Sequential/Random write: 135/79/17 Mb/s
> > Avg. access time 7 ms
> > For some reason, my test file size is 1023Mb, while yours is 511Mb?
> > Anyways, not sure how the drive index is calculated from the individual
> > numbers, but it almost has to weigh sequential reads very heavily since
> your
> > index is higher but the only individual number that's higher in your
test
> is
> > the sequential read number.
> >
> > I noticed in your HD Tach result that your CPU% is very high, ideally
that
> > should be less than 5%. My first guess would be that you have a very
small
> > stripe size - too small a stripe size really overtaxes your CPU.
> >
> >
> > "Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap DeleteThis @btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:br6rv3$alc$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > Greetings Abit and Storage Newsgroup,
> > >
> > > I have just had a bit of spare time to finally do some proper tests on
> my
> > > SATA RAID-0 set-up. I was hoping that some of you out there would be
> able
> > > to run some tests yourself so we can compare results. Doesn't matter
> what
> > > disk system you have (ATA/66 or SCSI etc), I just want some real world
> > > results. . .
> > >
> > > I have three results posted using three different programs:
> > >
> > > DiskSpeed32 (v3.0.0.4)
<font color=brown> > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font</a>>
> > >
> > > HD Tach v2.7
<font color=brown> > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font</a>>
> > >
> > > SiSoftware Sandra MAX
<font color=brown> > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font</a>>
> > >
> > >
> > > I would be interested to see some other results, here is my old
system:
> > >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66...g</f</a>>
> > >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66...g</f</a>>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wayne ][
> > >
> > > Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
> > > CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
> > > ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
> > > 512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
> > > Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
> > > 240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
> > > Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
> > > 2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
> > > WinXP-PRO-SP1
> > > Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:28 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:brhf60$evj$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Chip" wrote
> > Do me a favour, will you? Download and run the ATTO disk benchmark,
> > "bench32.exe". Set the "Total Length" to 32 MB and then run it. This
is
> > perhaps the most widely used disk benchmark these days.
> >
> > If you haven't got it already, you can download it here (as part of
ATTO's
> > SCSI toolset package):
> >
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.attotech.com/software/files/eptscsi.exe</font" target="_blank">http://www.attotech.com/software/files/eptscsi.exe</font</a>>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I did download that *ATTO ExpressPro-Tools* but I have no idea how to use
> it's *Disk Benchmark*?. There is allot of parameters to configure. Any
> tips?
Sure. Leave everything alone apart from "Total Length", which you typically
set to 32MB. Then hit the start button. Takes perhaps 1 minute to run.
Thanks,
Chip.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 20, 2003
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:53 pm
Post subject: Re: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchmarks? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
HD Tach version 2.70
Drive: PhysicalDrive1 74.3gb
Access time: 7.6ms
CPU utilization: 3.4%
64 zones to be tested (1123120kb zones).
Burst speed: 118.2MB/s
Average read speed: 65
Wayne Youngman wrote:
>
> Greetings Abit and Storage Newsgroup,
>
> I have just had a bit of spare time to finally do some proper tests on my
> SATA RAID-0 set-up. I was hoping that some of you out there would be able
> to run some tests yourself so we can compare results. Doesn't matter what
> disk system you have (ATA/66 or SCSI etc), I just want some real world
> results. . .
>
> I have three results posted using three different programs:
>
> DiskSpeed32 (v3.0.0.4)
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32.jpg</font</a>>
>
> HD Tach v2.7
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7.jpg</font</a>>
>
> SiSoftware Sandra MAX
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/Sandra_Max3.jpg</font</a>>
>
> I would be interested to see some other results, here is my old system:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/DiskSpeed32_ATA66...g</f</a>>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.waynes.spamtrap.btinternet.co.uk/Disktest/HDTach_v2_7_ATA66...g</f</a>>
>
> --
> Wayne ][
>
> Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
> CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
> ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
> 512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
> Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
> 240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
> Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
> 2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
> WinXP-PRO-SP1
> Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: NF7-S SATA RAID-0, WD-SE: Anyone wanna compare disk benchm.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Running Dual Boot with 98SE and XP Pro SP1 - I have a dual boot system on an Abit BD7II-R with 98SE on an old Seagate ATA33 HDD on Primary IDE 1 Master and a Lite-On CD-RW Primary Slave. Secondary IDE 2 Master is a LG GSA-4040B DVD-RAM with NO slave. My WinXP Pro is on Primary IDE 3 & 4 as a RA...
KT7A-RAID: non RAID disk on RAID port - Hello, Is it possible to use the RAID ports as normal IDE port ?? I have no more available IDE ports... Thanks.
KT7A-RAID: XP doesn't boot with a disk on RAID - Hello, I have installed a new disk (Maxtor ATA133 160 GB - 8 Mb cache) on m KT7A-RAID (last BIOS: A9). As I don't have anymore available IDE port, I connected it to a RAID port (ATA100). Since then, I get with WIndows XP a blue screen, telling I should...
Format SATA disk in DOS? - Can you do fdisk, format a SATA hdd in DOS? Thanks for any help. Regards, UKa.
Boot from SATA disk - Hello, what do I have to change in bios, so I can boot only from a sata harddisk. I have a IS7-E mainboard, for the moment I have to disks 1 ATA 100 and 1 SATA. My computer boots everytime from the ATA so than I don't have a problem. The thing is that I... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
