Show us your hard drive performance

Page 28 of 77 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

  1. Posts : 8
    Windows 7 x64 Ultimate
       #271

    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
    Last edited by lie01234; 08 Aug 2009 at 20:47.
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 3,822
    Windows10 Pro - 64Bit vs.10547
       #272

    it's a squiggly line - but it's fast..
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Show us your hard drive performance-hdtest.jpg  
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 242
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit RTM
       #273

    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 Computer


  4. Posts : 16
    Windows 7
       #274

    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
    Last edited by Hotcrazyfruit; 10 Aug 2009 at 00:17. Reason: forgot something
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 8
    Windows 7 Enterprise x64
       #275

    I got two tests!
    One from Windows 7 Enterprise x64 -another from Windows XP PRO SP3 x86 - testing the same HDD!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Show us your hard drive performance-hdtune_benchmark_st3500418as7777777777.png   Show us your hard drive performance-hdtune_benchmark_st3500418as.png  
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 7,878
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #276

    Hotcrazyfruit said:
    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 Computer


  7. Posts : 242
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit RTM
       #277

    pparks1 said:
    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 Computer


  8. Posts : 7,878
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #278

    ciphernemo said:
    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.


    ciphernemo said:
    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.

    ciphernemo said:
    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 Computer


  9. Posts : 716
    XP Pro & Vista Home Premium (x86); Windows Ultimate 7600 x64 Retail
       #279

    pparks1 said:
    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 Computer


  10. Posts : 242
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit RTM
       #280

    pparks1 said:
    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.

    pparks1 said:
    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 Computer


 
Page 28 of 77 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About 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 07:23.
Find Us