hard drives & raid - benchmark and compare!

[txmale36]

i swear everytime ag rg and ex roadie talk in this forum i learn something new each time. no offense to others who i have not mentioned.

[bob332]

Thanks for the input. Sorry to knitpick but using exroadie's 4/1 ratio would 64stripe/16cluster not be theoretically better?QUOTE]

This is why the example is prefaced with...

 

"The performance difference between cluster and stripe levels will change with the file size. If you have nothing but huge multi-megabyte files' date=' it makes sense to go with the larger clusters and stripe size."

 

This covers any size cluster you might need to get the best performance based upon file size.

 

If you have a lot of small 2K files, the 4K cluster would be the one to chose. Remember that a cluster size is the smallest chunk of the file system you can carve. A 2K file takes up one cluster just like a 60K file if you use a 64K cluster. This leads to file system "slack".

 

When you look at the properties of a folder in Windows XP you will see the total size of the files and the size on disk. The difference between the two is "slack" or cluster space not used by data. The folder, Documents and Settings on my computer shows Size:124MB and Size on disk: 130MB. That's 6MB of drive space that is vapor and can't be used at my current cluster size.

 

Choose your cluster size wisely.[/quote']

 

 

if you had to pick the best compromise, what would it be? say a drive/array that has large (GB+) files for video, thousands of jpgs that range in size from 32k-2MB and then the os itself.

[red930]

if you had to pick the best compromise, what would it be? say a drive/array that has large (GB+) files for video, thousands of jpgs that range in size from 32k-2MB and then the os itself.

Partition the drive then adjust each partition to the proper cluster/stripe settings. That's the only way to get it close enough to make a difference.

[Thieutje]

My new 2x320GB WD special edition drives in RAID 0

 

image deleted from server

[Sorrento]

OMG!

 

First let me tell you the whole story. I bought only two of these Hitachi HDD's weeks ago, and I was very happy with their performance in RAID-0 @ 32/32k stripe/cluster size... but when I wanted to buy two more NewEgg.com ran out of them... this made me very sad since I had to order a mobo from them anyway

 

Then when I look at the price list from a local store (distribuitor), btw I am in Monterrey Mexico, I found the PLA380 Hitachi here too... and at a great price, only $55 dlls yet I have to pay an ugly tax of 15%, hehe but who cares!!!

 

I bought two more and completed the installation yesterday, again 32/32k. This are the scores; I configured each for 3.0gb/s and Spread spectrum, also the power and noise stuff... its a mess for two drives, its worse for four.

 

I think it could be faster at 16/16k... but I like 32/32, lol, who knows why :shake:

[red930]

OMG! I think it could be faster at 16/16k... but I like 32/32, lol, who knows why :shake:

You missed a setting in ATTO. In the top right you need to select "neither" then run it again.

[Sorrento]

You missed a setting in ATTO. In the top right you need to select "neither" then run it again.

 

Well nobody sent me any memo on the subject... hehe. The pic was updated to one with the right benchmark, funny but there are diferences yet the last results are very similar.

 

I am still very suprised it reached those numbers.

[red930]

 

Well nobody sent me any memo on the subject... hehe. The pic was updated to one with the right benchmark, funny but there are diferences yet the last results are very similar.

 

I am still very suprised it reached those numbers.

You must have been dropped from the distribution list. :cool:

 

This configuration of ATTO give a much better indication of raw bandwidth. We use it to take the controller to the basic level. It's more reflective of actual performance.

 

The numbers are very good. I'm waiting for the drives to come back in stock at the egg so I can get another pair and try a four drive array.

[red930]

The Hitachi 80GB SATA II drives are back in stock at newegg.com for $64.00USD. They changed the item number and put a limit of 5 drives this time.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16822145082

[Sorrento]

The Hitachi 80GB SATA II drives are back in stock at newegg.com for $64.00USD. They changed the item number and put a limit of 5 drives this time.

 

Ohh my God... does this mean they are cheaper in here??? LOL, in Rancho Leon,,,, errr, Nuevo Leon I mean; I paid $55 dlls + 15% tax, which is still cheaper than the NewEgg's price. The distribuitor, Unicom, suprises me every time... its a shame it only sells Intel products (mobos, cpus), no AMD which is very hard to find around here.

 

$128 dlls for an extra 160 gb storage and around +60 mb/s performance, not bad I say... get your second pair ASAP, before Newegg run out of them yet again

[soundx98]

@ ExRoadie - well you finally convinced me that I need to try a pair of the Hitachi SATA 2s. But the 160G models seem to have a slightly faster 8.5 sec access time.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16822145088

 

do they still get the ExRoadie seal of approval? same type stuff? looks like it.

I feel the need to buy myself an early Father's Day Gift(s) and 2x160 seems like even a better deal than the 80Gers. Spend another $50 and get twice the storage.

 

Give me the "good to go" sign Mike

[red930]

The same exact drives as the originals.

 

The 160GB just has the added platter which reduced the average access time. When you think about it, the actual access time will be exactly the same for any given data location on the platter.

 

If you buy the larger drives for the lower average seek time you will be disappointed.

 

If you buy the larger drives for storage they are a great deal but I never store valuable info on an array. I would rather make copies on two drives as a backup.

 

I'm gonna have to sell some blood to get four more since I already spent this months my fun money on the new CPU. I want to end up with two arrays of three drives. One for Aileen and one for the new nF4-D I modded to SATA II and SLI.

 

I haven't named the new rig yet since it's so tough finding female serial killers and she hasn't developed a personality. I was thinking of Lizzy as in Borden since I've hammered her so much testing memory and drives but only two victims does not a serial killer make.