Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Show us your hard drive performance

08 Aug 2009   #271
lie01234

Windows 7 x64 Ultimate
 
 

Areca 1231ML Raid 6 (9x1TB WD1001FALS)
Show us your hard drive performance-hdtune_benchmark_areca___raid6_wd1001fals.png

OnBaord Raid 10 (4x500GB WD5000AAKS)
Show us your hard drive performance-hdtune_benchmark_amd_____2x2_mirror_raid1.png

WD VelociRaptor (WD3000GLFS)
Show us your hard drive performance-hdtune_benchmark_wdc_wd3000glfs-01f8u0.png




My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
09 Aug 2009   #272
BugMeister

Windows10 Pro - 64Bit vs.10547
 
 

it's a squiggly line - but it's fast..


Attached Images
Show us your hard drive performance-hdtest.jpg 
My System SpecsSystem Spec
09 Aug 2009   #273
ciphernemo

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit RTM
 
 

I upgraded my PC recently, using up all of my on-board SATA slots (7 total). I have a completely new layout and some fun benchmarks to share.
  • Four OCZ Vertex 30GB SSDs in one 120GB RAID 0 array on an built-in Intel ICH10R controller (one partition for games & high-demand apps, write-back caching enabled):


    .
  • Two WDC Black 1TB HDDs in one 2TB RAID 0 array on a built-in JMicron JMB363 controller (one 500GB partition for Windows and some programs and one 1.5TB partition for my documents/projects, no write-back caching):

My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

10 Aug 2009   #274
Hotcrazyfruit

Windows 7
 
 
Too bad i dont have my Raid 0 array anymore...

Too bad i dont have my Raid 0 array anymore... i had 4x 250 Gigs in raid 0 and was getting around 230 -250 MB/s reads. never benched the writes.

EDIT: then a drive died
My System SpecsSystem Spec
12 Aug 2009   #275
Notum

Windows 7 Enterprise x64
 
 

I got two tests!
One from Windows 7 Enterprise x64 -another from Windows XP PRO SP3 x86 - testing the same HDD!


Attached Images
Show us your hard drive performance-hdtune_benchmark_st3500418as7777777777.png Show us your hard drive performance-hdtune_benchmark_st3500418as.png 
My System SpecsSystem Spec
12 Aug 2009   #276
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Hotcrazyfruit View Post
Too bad i dont have my Raid 0 array anymore... i had 4x 250 Gigs in raid 0 and was getting around 230 -250 MB/s reads. never benched the writes.

EDIT: then a drive died
Yeah, while performance in benchmarks looks great, the liklihood of failure increases x2,x3,x4 when you have multiple drives. And a majority of the time, the drives are never moving anywhere near the speeds that the RAID provides...so I don't usually feel the increased risk is worth it.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Aug 2009   #277
ciphernemo

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit RTM
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Yeah, while performance in benchmarks looks great, the liklihood of failure increases x2,x3,x4 when you have multiple drives. And a majority of the time, the drives are never moving anywhere near the speeds that the RAID provides...so I don't usually feel the increased risk is worth it.
And your performance loss is my performance gain.

It really depends on what you use your drives for in a RAID array. If you store your own data on there, you'd be more at risk of losing something. As for me, I use my RAID 0 array of four SSDs to install games and high-priority applications only. If one drive fails in that array, no big deal. I just replace the drive (or run on one less drive) and reinstall the games. My own data, projects, and media files goes on other drives and is backed-up monthly.

As for RAID 0 vs. one drive, the risk difference is negligible considering how reliable some manufacturers' drives are these days. If you lose one drive in your RAID array, you (or someone else had you not bought X number of the drives) would have lost the drive anyways in a single drive setup. Only if you run a RAID 1, 5, 10 or such array would you have redundancy and be able to recover from a drive failure.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Aug 2009   #278
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ciphernemo View Post
As for me, I use my RAID 0 array of four SSDs to install games and high-priority applications only.
I'd love to see a stopwatch timing of how much faster these games and applications open up on the 4 drive RAID0 array, versus a single drive SSD. We all know there is a massive cost difference....but is there enough time savings to justify the cost?

Also, a number of people elect to run RAID0's for the OS....and obviously a loss of 1 drive here, means significantly more effort to get things up and running again since this would entail an entire OS reinstall.


Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ciphernemo View Post
As for RAID 0 vs. one drive, the risk difference is negligible considering how reliable some manufacturers' drives are these days.
But in working for large corporations with thousands of desktop...you would be surprised at how many hard drives this very small percentage adds up to.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ciphernemo View Post
if you run a RAID 1, 5, 10 or such array would you have redundancy and be able to recover from a drive failure.
Of course, RAID 1 at home is usually not that great because if you accidentally delete a file or get a virus which deletes files, you lose it on your backup drive immediately. Most home users aren't running RAID 5 or RAID 10 configurations for sheer performance as the parity calc of RAID 5 slows performance and the 50% disk loss in RAID 10 leads to high prices and lower capacities.


I'm not criticizing the use of RAID...especially the redundant configurations....but it's the all out performance versions (RAID 0) with the OS that I just don't think are worth the risk. Most people love 'em till 1 drive goes bad. And I've talked to numerous people that I work with and advice on forums against doing RAID0 who have suffered drive failures and lost stuff who no longer opt for the small edge in performance anymore. Which brings me back to my comment about the % of drives and what it really equates to. And 3 sets of friends were using either Raptors or Velociraptors when they lost a drive...and these are highly regarded as being fantastic drives.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Aug 2009   #279
Muad Dib

XP Pro & Vista Home Premium (x86); Windows Ultimate 7600 x64 Retail
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
I'd love to see a stopwatch timing of how much faster these games and applications open up on the 4 drive RAID0 array, versus a single drive SSD. We all know there is a massive cost difference....but is there enough time savings to justify the cost?

Also, a number of people elect to run RAID0's for the OS....and obviously a loss of 1 drive here, means significantly more effort to get things up and running again since this would entail an entire OS reinstall.


But in working for large corporations with thousands of desktop...you would be surprised at how many hard drives this very small percentage adds up to.

Of course, RAID 1 at home is usually not that great because if you accidentally delete a file or get a virus which deletes files, you lose it on your backup drive immediately. Most home users aren't running RAID 5 or RAID 10 configurations for sheer performance as the parity calc of RAID 5 slows performance and the 50% disk loss in RAID 10 leads to high prices and lower capacities.


I'm not criticizing the use of RAID...especially the redundant configurations....but it's the all out performance versions (RAID 0) with the OS that I just don't think are worth the risk. Most people love 'em till 1 drive goes bad. And I've talked to numerous people that I work with and advice on forums against doing RAID0 who have suffered drive failures and lost stuff who no longer opt for the small edge in performance anymore. Which brings me back to my comment about the % of drives and what it really equates to. And 3 sets of friends were using either Raptors or Velociraptors when they lost a drive...and these are highly regarded as being fantastic drives.

I agree with your points when the discussion pertains to home users in general. And this opinion is based on having worked with a number of RAID 0+1 configurations in the commercial sector. The cost/benefit ratio for the home environment may only be attractive to the serious enthusiast.

But I still love this video on the 24 disk Samsung SSD RAID array!

24 Samsung SSD RAID Array 2 GB/sec | The "Break it Down" Blog
My System SpecsSystem Spec
16 Aug 2009   #280
ciphernemo

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit RTM
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
I'd love to see a stopwatch timing of how much faster these games and applications open up on the 4 drive RAID0 array, versus a single drive SSD. We all know there is a massive cost difference....but is there enough time savings to justify the cost?
The gains are there and significant, otherwise people wouldn't bother with it at all. For RAID 0 of HDDs the gains trail off after 3 drives are linked. For SSDs, there is no trail off at all, but the processing demand gets higher unless you have a dedicated RAID controller card. But any RAID array of 4 or less drives on a built-in RAID controller isn't much processing overhead.

If you look at my performance graph, you will see an almost straight line (compared to single drives) of 588 to 638MB/sec transfer speeds with a sustained average of 613MB/sec. The benchmarks don't lie, as they test file sizes of all different types. My RAID 0 array of SSDs will transfer data 8 times faster than a single performance HDD like a Raptor. And it will transfer data 4x faster than top-notch SSDs. Here's the price to performance comparison:
Do the math. RAID 0 and RAID 10 of top-dog SSDs give you more of a performance ratio for the money than a single top-dog HDD. And if you want redundancy? Change it to a RAID 10 and half the performance, which is still 4x faster for 3x the money. Then you'll have performance and redundancy, but be 60GB instead of 120GB. Still good for a second drive system to install games and other apps.

I still run my OS on HDDs (WDC Black) to overcome the SSD stuttering issues. If I was to use only HDDs, I'd still use a different HDD (or RAID array of them) to run my applications and games.

By comparison, from my original, single WD Black 1TB vs. my new RAID 0 array of four OCZ Vertex 30GB drives, my game loading screens (going from one area to another) went from 3-5+ seconds to virtually no time.

More importantly, I wasn't able to smoothly run high-res textures in a couple of games since I game at 3840x1024 (three 19" 5:4 monitors). Turning around with high-res textures on a normal, single drive would cause stuttering. With my RAID array of SSDs, it's buttery smooth.

If you're running a single monitor and regular resolutions (ie: 1920x1200 or less), you probably won't notice a difference for most games. The higher the resolution, the more pixels, and the more the pixels, the more the demand on the PC for loading textures. For large textures, the performance bottleneck is typically the storage system, not the video card, and not system memory.

Don't be jealous of RAID 0. If people really wanted the performance of RAID 0 with redundancy, there is always RAID 10. RAID 5 works well too, but not as high-performing as RAID 0 or RAID 10. RAID 5 also requires more processing power, hence necessitating a dedicated RAID processor (ie: RAID controller card). Of course, all of this is more expensive, but if you can afford it and are a hardware enthusiast, it's more than worth it. If you're not, they why debate it? ... it's obviously not for you.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
I'm not criticizing the use of RAID...especially the redundant configurations....but it's the all out performance versions (RAID 0) with the OS that I just don't think are worth the risk. Most people love 'em till 1 drive goes bad. And I've talked to numerous people that I work with and advice on forums against doing RAID0 who have suffered drive failures and lost stuff who no longer opt for the small edge in performance anymore. Which brings me back to my comment about the % of drives and what it really equates to. And 3 sets of friends were using either Raptors or Velociraptors when they lost a drive...and these are highly regarded as being fantastic drives.
And you have no personal experience with RAID 0 from the looks of it? All of that is what you've heard? Rumors are a dime a dozen. I've had no issues with my RAID 0 array for months. And I do backups of the entire volume on a separate, external drive. If I do lose a drive, I just clone the partition back. No worries at all.

If you really don't see the value in RAID 0 or RAID 10 performance for your storage system (the worst bottleneck on a PC), then you really have never experienced it for yourself or you just don't care? Whatever it is, your loss.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Show us your hard drive performance




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
What Is Best Performance WHen Adding New Hard Drive?
I want to add another hard drive to my PC, and I was wondering is their any certain kind of hard drive to add when adding a new one as far as: SPEED/PERFORMANCE? Also, witch is better, a Internal, or external hard drive? My PC Specs: Motherboard:Chipset-AMD 780 ...
Hardware & Devices
Comparing Hard Drive Performance
Is there a site, much like the video card comparisons, that lets you compare two specific hard drives, in terms of performance? For example, if I wanted to find out which drive offered better performance, a Seagate 7200.12 1 TB drive, or a 500 GB Western Digital Green drive. I have a pile...
Hardware & Devices
can an external dvd drive be made to show as hard drive?
I'm new to these forums; forgive me if this is a stupid question. I just purchased a digital media player, one of those little solid-state boxes with usb and SD inputs. It plays any video format from any storage device I plug into it, a wonderful thing. However, when I plug my little...
Music, Pictures & Video
Best Hard drive for performance upgrade
Hi All, My PC's Windows Experience index rating is currently at 5.9 due to my HDD. It's a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB. Which HDD should I look at to get more performance out of the rig? All the other fields are in the 7.0 to 7.6 range. Thanks!
Hardware & Devices
Ext hard drive ??? & pc performance recomd'd settings???
Vista 32 bit Home basic, bios; 2 TOPIC QUESTION Performance Options ?? what is the recommended best choice for PC Visual effects settings for appearance/performance of windows? 1. let windows choose whats best 2. adjust for best appearance 3. adjust for best performance
General Discussion
Hard Drive Partitioning Performance Issues
The current hardware is available: 1 x 120GB 1 x 250GB 1 x 1TB 1 x 1TB I intend to store my data on all of the HDDs but as the 1TBs are newer than the other smaller ones, their performance is also much better. So if I partition lets say one of the 1 TB HDDs like: Partition 1 60GB - OS
Hardware & Devices


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App