Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Angry_Games

hard drives & raid - benchmark and compare!

Recommended Posts

Would be great to see some benchmarks with matrix raid setup.

As soon as I have my new/used intel build up and going. i'm going to post benchmarks on the 50gig Raid) slice and the Raid10 storage slice.

One thing that I've noticed with all the talk about matrix raid and it's stripe sizes no one has mentioned cluster size.

I'm wondering if ExRoadie's formula for cluster size would apply to the matrix storage arrays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey just wanted to bump this great thread and give my 1 cent.

 

1st I have 2 questions, since I seemed to hear in this thread that the Raid controller is linked to the pci e bus has anyone tried up the pci freq from 100 and see if anything resulted?(I know I read hear a long time ago that it shouldn't be OC'd much because of problems although I've seen some running @105?) Or what about chipset voltage, have anything to do with the raid controller and helping it out? I've allways left mine default b/c raising it never helped me get more clocks, but I'm prob psu limited and my stepping sucks.

 

Any way I have 2 arrays, on 6.70 drivers(been running 2 arays for 2 years on the raid controller so it deff works)

 

1st I want to say that like some others have mentioned, I dont believe the benchmarks are an exact replica of real world performance but may be helpful and also the burst speed may not be realistic(like why dont they show that burst speed on the graph in HD tach if its actually being applied?). They are somewhat inconsistent, I have conflicting results between ATTO and HD Tach v3.0.4.0:mad:

 

1st On the Raptors 32/4(os), they are faster than the Hitachi's obivously but especially at write(they write more than read).

 

I seemed to do better overall with ncq off, 7.9 access times, otherwise 8.4-5 access

 

burst and reads were best w/ only read cache off and this had the smoothest graph(no dips at all just smooth) but 8.5 access and reads looked good, but on ATTO didnt look as good with just ncq off. So what to do?:confused:

 

Can someone please explain to me what ATTO is actually doing with the settings talked about in the thread?

 

The Hitachi's

 

disabling ncq or read cache didnt seem to affect anything except for burst(406max:eek2:)

 

Conclusion: I seem to like ncq off on the Raptors and default(keeping sataII on and spectrum off) on the Hitachi's for now.

 

So basically the tests are back and forth. This is seeming more like the pagefile debate:rolleyes:. So since there is some reasoning behind the 4:1 I will stick with that(an a pagefile also:)). SO 16/4 on the raptors for boot and 64/16 on the hitachi's for video stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct it is TCQ mine are WD740GD FLCO's, I havent messed with these since I installed them 2yrs ago so I'm trying to reinform myself so bare with me as I also forgot what the jumpers were for but found that info here,

http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/ph...ated=1071171477

 

So has anyone with Raptors enabled spread spectrum? I guess I can try it, but afaik all the spectrum stuff in bios and on the HD's is for emi emissions, and basically it makes the equipment work out of sync so its not pulsing/emiting at the same times so emi doesnt spike as high. Basically it should be a good idea for a HTPC or sound editing where emi can affect sound output/processsing.

 

What exactly is the Enable Command queuing for in windows? I read all of this thread and I believe that most of it was talking about turning it off or on, also I believe someone mentioned that it was more for a multiuser environment

Edit: I found a page on microsoft's website and it said basically when on it sends a message to flush the cache so that its safer yet slower for data, then on another OS(forgot which one 2000 I think) there is another option for Power Protection and if you have that on and enable cache it will use the cache on the HD's. I tried with both off and the results sucked on mine especially for writes that were the best numbers with in on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×