Show us your hard drive performance

[whs]

On all the HD Tune results, all SSDs show an access time of 0.1 ms. But I suspect the acces time is actually lower than that. HD Tune may only show one position after the comma and is therefore rounding everything to 0.1. I read that the access time on SSDs is typically 0.04 ms.

 

[pparks1]

On all the HD Tune results, all SSDs show an access time of 0.1 ms. But I suspect the acces time is actually lower than that. HD Tune may only show one position after the comma and is therefore rounding everything to 0.1. I read that the access time on SSDs is typically 0.04 ms.

Mine came back at 0.0...but I agree almost everything else that i have seen does indeed say 0.1.

 

[whs]

Now 0.0 is not correct either - how can it be. I think they are playing with the rounding.

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Maybe I've got this wrong but wouldn't this be 1 MS "1.0" and this should be 1/10 of a ms "0.1"


Just curious! :huh:

 

[whs]

Maybe I've got this wrong but wouldn't this be 1 MS "1.0" and this should be 1/10 of a ms "0.1"


Just curious! :huh:

Yes, the 0.1 on the chart is one tenth of a millisecond. But on pparks test it is 0.0 - which, of course, is wrong. There must be some time spent in the Access Time. If they showed 2 digits behind the comma, we would know better.

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

On all the HD Tune results, all SSDs show an access time of 0.1 ms. But I suspect the acces time is actually lower than that. HD Tune may only show one position after the comma and is therefore rounding everything to 0.1. I read that the access time on SSDs is typically 0.04 ms.

Maybe I've got this wrong but wouldn't this be 1 MS "1.0" and this should be 1/10 of a ms "0.1"


Just curious! :huh:

Yes, the 0.1 on the chart is one tenth of a millisecond. But on pparks test it is 0.0 - which, of course, is wrong. There must be some time spent in the Access Time. If they showed 2 digits behind the comma, we would know better.

OK, I re-read what you first wrote, I see what you were saying.

 

[spyknee]

Mine


To me this is good. Sorry not HD TUNE, ATTO is free.


HD Tune was a trial offer, they usually turn off after 30 days. Chose not to bother. Is HD Tune better? or just prettier?
I have as yet "NOT DONE" Tony Trim, maybe I will see that 625/725 speed that was posted if I do?

 

[whs]

Sorry not HD TUNE, ATTO is free

HD Tune is free too. Sorry, but I do not understand the 600MB/sec transfer rate. That would be an unbelievable speed. Even an SSD is only around 200MB/sec and an SSD Raid0 may do 350MB/sec max.

 

[zrtom]

Sorry not HD TUNE, ATTO is free

HD Tune is free too. Sorry, but I do not understand the 600MB/sec transfer rate. That would be an unbelievable speed. Even an SSD is only around 200MB/sec and an SSD Raid0 may do 350MB/sec max.

Looks like he's running three Vertex units in RAID0. Numbers like his are not uncommon over on the OCZ Forums...
Result "Tony Trim" & Benchmarks Comments - RAID 0 Vertex Turbos & Win 7 - OCZ Forum

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Sorry not HD TUNE, ATTO is free

HD Tune is free too. Sorry, but I do not understand the 600MB/sec transfer rate. That would be an unbelievable speed. Even an SSD is only around 200MB/sec and an SSD Raid0 may do 350MB/sec max.

Looks like he's running three Vertex units in RAID0. Numbers like his are not uncommon over on the OCZ Forums...
Result "Tony Trim" & Benchmarks Comments - RAID 0 Vertex Turbos & Win 7 - OCZ Forum

Can't wait to see what's possible when the new SATA 3.0 (6Gb/s) motherboards become widely available.

 

[whs]

zrtom, you may be right. Although I read on the OCZ forum at times, I had not seen that one yet. Thanks for the link. But those guys make a science out of it. The problem is always the write speed, but with the Vertex FM level 1.4, it should get better (at least in Win7 that supports Trim). I am just in the process of upgrading my Vertex. It was still at the stone age level 1199.

 

[Colorancher]

RAID 5 Performance

Here is my RAID 5 performance. I use 4-500 GB Seagate drives. I know the write won't be as high but my biggest use is reading large game maps. I paid about $250 for all of the drives but I am getting performance comparable the the SSDs. Just think how much it would cost for 1.5 TeraBytes of SSD!

 

[whs]

I paid about $250 for all of the drives but I am getting performance comparable the the SSDs. Just think how much it would cost for 1.5 TeraBytes of SSD!

True, but your access time is several hundred times slower than an SSD (compare 13.3 ms to 0.004 ms ). This setup is nice for large amounts of data, but not for installing an OS.

 

[Colorancher]

Yeah, WHS I really wanted to set up with SSB. I think the price is still market based rather than commodity. Apple still controls prices. The worst part is keeeping these magnetic drives cool. And the Intel RAID implementation is not great. I have to rebuild every time there is a glitch in Win 7, which is pretty often. And that takes all day.

 

[whs]

Colorancher, it only shows that we are not yet living in the perfect Geek world - and will we ever? As technology advances, so do our expectations. And they always seem to be ahead of the curve.

 

[spyknee]

Here is my RAID 5 performance. I use 4-500 GB Seagate drives. I know the write won't be as high but my biggest use is reading large game maps. I paid about $250 for all of the drives but I am getting performance comparable the the SSDs. Just think how much it would cost for 1.5 TeraBytes of SSD!

When building this machine only large terabyte drives were readilly available. They were over $300 a piece good ones! I wanted to try a RAID boot drive. OCZ 30GB Vertex SSD's were $110 a piece. Do the math. Set up an 80GB boot drive. I put 3 into RAID 0 and 1 standalone for pagefile/temp internet files. They are quiet as well! 80GB Boot drive $330, 30GB pagefile drive $110, equals
475 write/625 read speeds for $330.

 

[kicker40]

Some new hardware.

System
Intel Core i7-870
ASUS P7P55D-E Premium
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 295
Kingston HyperX 8GB (4 x 2GB)DDR3 2000
AuzenTech X-Fi Forte 7.1
4xOCZ Vertex Series SSD 60 GB in Raid 0
Seagate Barracuda XT SATA 6Gb/s 2TB
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB
HP CD/DVD Burner Model: dvd1140
ZEROtherm CORE92 Socket 1156/1366 HDT Cooler
Power Supply Seventeam ST-750ZAF 750W
Computer Case COOLER MASTER HAF 932

 

[whs]

Unbelievable. What does one do with all that performance. And I thought I am doing well with one SSD.

 

[SMOKKINU]

Windows 7 with 4 OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD's in RAID0

Here are my before and after results... pretty nice!


BEFORE

AFTER

 

[Yanta]

WD5000AADS 32mb SATA II

Here's mine.. Not as good as I would have hoped, for a SATA II drive.

What worries me though is the "Standard" as shown on the info tab. It says active standard is ATA/100.. Say what?? Is this correct?

Do I have my drive set up wrong? Or my bios?

Drive is connected to GA-EX58-UD3R mobo.

thanks