View Full Version : Single 150gig VelociRaptor Benchmarks!
Joeteck
11-11-09, 03:08 PM
Take a look at these pics!
Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have seen this coming!
Imagine two in RAID 0...??
Short stroke them, 30 gig each.. you would have yourself a smokin' RAID 0 setup.
visbits
11-11-09, 04:08 PM
Take a look at these pics!
Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have seen this coming!
Imagine two in RAID 0...??
Short stroke them, 30 gig each.. you would have yourself a smokin' RAID 0 setup.
That's not really that impressive... The seek times are low but for the same price you can buy 2x 36gb sas and a controller for raid 0 hardware.
The 1TB have that same or slightly less sustained reads.
Joeteck
11-11-09, 04:16 PM
That's not really that impressive... The seek times are low but for the same price you can buy 2x 36gb sas and a controller for raid 0 hardware.
The 1TB have that same or slightly less sustained reads.
However, SAS controller and SAS drives cost alot more than $179...
This is very impressive.
visbits
11-11-09, 04:21 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/FUJITSU-36GB-15K-3-5IN-SAS-3-0GB-S-MAX3036RC_W0QQitemZ300364355801QQcmdZViewItemQQptZ PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal?hash=item45ef1c58d9
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dell-Perc-5-IR-PCI-e-SAS-Raid-Card-w-Cables-UN939-GU186_W0QQitemZ370282511143QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCOMP _EN_Networking_Components?hash=item56368ebb27
You were saying?
:P
Joeteck
11-11-09, 04:24 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/FUJITSU-36GB-15K-3-5IN-SAS-3-0GB-S-MAX3036RC_W0QQitemZ300364355801QQcmdZViewItemQQptZ PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal?hash=item45ef1c58d9
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dell-Perc-5-IR-PCI-e-SAS-Raid-Card-w-Cables-UN939-GU186_W0QQitemZ370282511143QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCOMP _EN_Networking_Components?hash=item56368ebb27
You were saying?
:P
LOL, I would never buy used hard drives and or controllers from ebay... No warranty
:P
uberwoot
11-11-09, 04:25 PM
LOL, I would never buy used hard drives and or controllers from ebay... No warranty
:P
I second that.
Here's 2 of my raptor 150's in raid 0
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8679/hdtunebenchmarkintelrai.png (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/hdtunebenchmarkintelrai.png/)
neonblingbling
11-11-09, 04:47 PM
LOL, I would never buy used hard drives and or controllers from ebay... No warranty
:P
Does it count that I got a PERC 5i off the classifieds here for $100? There were also 36Gb 10k Fujitsu SAS 2.5" hard drives for $20 a pop. Same seller too, so you could probably get 8 drives and the controller for $180. :beer:
visbits
11-11-09, 04:54 PM
No warranty? Uhhh those drives have 5 years on them from fujitsu... Most of The dell percs are covered till 2011 to.
And besides at 20-40$ each for 15k why not run 4 in raid 50?
Destory those wanna be enterprise grade raptors. :beer:
Or just roll with these..
http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/b462cf0917fae935a723aa73a67fbb9c.jpg
No warranty? Uhhh those drives have 5 years on them from fujitsu... Most of The dell percs are covered till 2011 to.
And besides at 20-40$ each for 15k why not run 4 in raid 50?
Destory those wanna be enterprise grade raptors. :beer:
Or just roll with these..
http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/b462cf0917fae935a723aa73a67fbb9c.jpg
what drives are these, scsi?
visbits
11-11-09, 05:17 PM
lul, I wish scsi offered .1ms seek. Check my sig ;)
gigabit
11-11-09, 05:20 PM
Here is my two 300GB VelociRaptor's in Raid 0 with all kinds of ap's opened.And yes i still use MSN.I dont care its easy to use and im just used to it
what block sizes did u use in these benchmarks?
visbits
11-11-09, 05:37 PM
Stripe is 128 block on the bench is 512, any thing over 128 will show the same.
tuskenraider
11-11-09, 08:20 PM
I loved my VRaps in RAID0, with all the babysitting SSD's need, I have an underlying hatred for my Vertex. 80 gigger VR's are the best, but any VR is still a great drive.....:burn:
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~onyschuk/vraptorraid0.JPG
Joeteck
11-11-09, 08:21 PM
Here are two VelociRaptor in RAID 0. Short stroked, 80gig partition.. Now that's FAST!
tuskenraider
11-11-09, 08:26 PM
Here are two VelociRaptor in RAID 0. Short stroked, 80gig partition.. Now that's FAST! Seems quite low for the drives and setup actually........
Joeteck
11-11-09, 08:34 PM
Seems quite low for the drives and setup actually........
Look at the latency... Not bad for mechanical.
Well actually, its not two VR's. One is a 160gig Raptor SATA 2.0 and the other is a VR... ;)
Waiting for my other VR drive...
EarthDog
11-11-09, 08:37 PM
I would have imagined more out of that Raid setup as well personally... look at Tusken's results compared to yours. He is hitting 222.xxMB average, you are at 155 on a SS setup.
Latency is spot on from its 7ms claims and the SS you have going on... Those are no doubt median scores for Velo's (aside from the read speeds where Tusken is 33% faster.). ;)
What stripe size are those?
Run HDtach like he did for a direct comparison.
EDIT: LOL yeah needed that info up front that they werent both Velos!!!! :)
tuskenraider
11-11-09, 08:43 PM
Well actually, its not two VR's. One is a 160gig Raptor SATA 2.0 and the other is a VR... ;)
Waiting for my other VR drive...Well that was a critical peice of info to be left out, lol. I can recall my two 36GB ADFD Raptors could average 151MB/s, 8.0ms.
visbits
11-11-09, 09:14 PM
I loved my VRaps in RAID0, with all the babysitting SSD's need, I have an underlying hatred for my Vertex. 80 gigger VR's are the best, but any VR is still a great drive.....:burn:
Baby sitting?? I don't understand. The performance degradation is at most 30% over several MILLION operations on the drive. How many of us don't reload our OS every 9 months to a year??
It annoys me how everyone hates on SSD and yet even a poorly performing SSD spanks the crap out of all platter media.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x259/alastair_hm/facepalmbq8dj7.jpg
tuskenraider
11-11-09, 09:33 PM
Baby sitting?? I don't understand. The performance degradation is at most 30% over several MILLION operations on the drive. How many of us don't reload our OS every 9 months to a year??
It annoys me how everyone hates on SSD and yet even a poorly performing SSD spanks the crap out of all platter media.
I've seen threads galore of degradation shown from users over weeks and sometimes days in OCZ's forums. I find that almost unacceptable. And yeah, in a benchmark they can look great, but they are not some great improvement in every day usage in my experience from my VR's in RAID0. I was excited to upgrade what is pretty much the slowest sub-system of a PC after reading the praises by people like you, only to be dissappointed. After taking a gulp, I don't really like the SSD kool-aid, and if you don't like my opinion, oh well. And please don't waste bandwidth with some stupid pic trying to be cute and witty, it's annoying. Take care.
freeagent
11-11-09, 10:19 PM
I would have imagined more out of that Raid setup as well personally... look at Tusken's results compared to yours. He is hitting 222.xxMB average, you are at 155 on a SS setup.
Latency is spot on from its 7ms claims and the SS you have going on... Those are no doubt median scores for Velo's (aside from the read speeds where Tusken is 33% faster.). ;)
What stripe size are those?
:)
Whats holding him back is the ADFD drive hes got paired up with the Velo.
His results are similar to my 2 ADFD's shortstroked. I get average reads of 257mb/s with a third in the mix, tho latency gets a bump to 7ms :( Its running in my secondary machine temporarily.
Current setup:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3447/12482404.jpg (http://img504.imageshack.us/i/12482404.jpg/)
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/189/42244191.jpg (http://img413.imageshack.us/i/42244191.jpg/)
And here is my array with 2 ADFD's and a Raptor X:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/827/hdtachcdrive.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/hdtachcdrive.jpg/)
Joeteck
11-11-09, 11:22 PM
Whats holding him back is the ADFD drive hes got paired up with the Velo.
His results are similar to my 2 ADFD's shortstroked. I get average reads of 257mb/s with a third in the mix, tho latency gets a bump to 7ms :( Its running in my secondary machine temporarily.
Current setup:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3447/12482404.jpg (http://img504.imageshack.us/i/12482404.jpg/)
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/189/42244191.jpg (http://img413.imageshack.us/i/42244191.jpg/)
And here is my array with 2 ADFD's and a Raptor X:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/827/hdtachcdrive.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/hdtachcdrive.jpg/)
It woks fine... Both are SATA 2, and 16MB cache, so its not that bad... I'm waiting for my other VR to get here.
visbits
11-12-09, 07:24 AM
I've seen threads galore of degradation shown from users over weeks and sometimes days in OCZ's forums. I find that almost unacceptable. And yeah, in a benchmark they can look great, but they are not some great improvement in every day usage in my experience from my VR's in RAID0. I was excited to upgrade what is pretty much the slowest sub-system of a PC after reading the praises by people like you, only to be dissappointed. After taking a gulp, I don't really like the SSD kool-aid, and if you don't like my opinion, oh well. And please don't waste bandwidth with some stupid pic trying to be cute and witty, it's annoying. Take care.
What SSD were you using? And I personally have not seen the threads you speak of talking about how bad the degradation was after only a week. I've used SAS, SCSI and SATA drives of all speeds in all raid configurations, nothing even competes with my ssds. Maybe you're drive was defective? :bang head
Joeteck
11-12-09, 07:34 AM
What SSD were you using? And I personally have not seen the threads you speak of talking about how bad the degradation was after only a week. I've used SAS, SCSI and SATA drives of all speeds in all raid configurations, nothing even competes with my ssds. Maybe you're drive was defective? :bang head
This is a known fact...
Take a look here (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=ssd+performance+degradation&aq=2&oq=SSD+perf&aqi=g10)
You can read any article you wish on SSD degradation.
tuskenraider
11-12-09, 04:30 PM
What SSD were you using? And I personally have not seen the threads you speak of talking about how bad the degradation was after only a week. I've used SAS, SCSI and SATA drives of all speeds in all raid configurations, nothing even competes with my ssds. Maybe you're drive was defective? :bang headThanks for the concern. I keep my sig up to date........ My drive benchmarks comparable to other owners of the drive. I noted degradation as one of the potential drawbacks that has happened to many others, not that I've expeerienced it yet. I've done multiple Win7 installs with it in the two months I've owned it so no slowdowns for me and since I use imaging software religiously, I won't be worrying about slowdowns with a stale install.
visbits
11-12-09, 05:32 PM
This is a known fact...
Take a look here (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=ssd+performance+degradation&aq=2&oq=SSD+perf&aqi=g10)
You can read any article you wish on SSD degradation.
I browsed through some of those, over extended periods of use they slow down 20-30MB/s in read performance but the seek times are still zip.
I'd be happy at 60MB/s with 1ms seek, you dont feel read speed you feel seek time.
Thanks for the concern. I keep my sig up to date........ My drive benchmarks comparable to other owners of the drive. I noted degradation as one of the potential drawbacks that has happened to many others, not that I've expeerienced it yet. I've done multiple Win7 installs with it in the two months I've owned it so no slowdowns for me and since I use imaging software religiously, I won't be worrying about slowdowns with a stale install.
Me and DD have a good relationship, well until yesterday when it imaged over a drive I was trying to copy to a fresh one.. /facepalm myself for that lol
I'd be happy at 60MB/s with 1ms seek, you dont feel read speed you feel seek time.
This isn't exactly true. Degraded read speed is almost always accompanied with degraded write speed and you can definitely feel that. Degraded drives and first generation slower speed drives feel noticeably less snappier compared to today's fresh performance drives. And drives that are degraded far enough can feel worse than regular hard drives due to occasional stuttering (see tom10167's recent thread (http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=623977)). That's why having a solution like HDDErase, GC or TRIM is critical.
tuskenraider
11-12-09, 06:53 PM
I'd be happy at 60MB/s with 1ms seek, you dont feel read speed you feel seek time.
Considering almost every 7200 rpm drive still has the same average read(seek is only 1/2 of the equation but I know what you're saying) time of drives made 8+ years ago(12-15ms or so), the only thing that has increased really increased performance is sequential read time. Put any 7200rpm drive from 2002 against any made in 2009 and let me know if you can't feel the difference. Or, why were there so many Raptor haters looking for a 7200rpm drive with big seq read, such as the first Seagate perps, and claiming how "competitive" they were?
visbits
11-12-09, 07:46 PM
Both valid points, but I don't spend my day writing files bigger than 60~ MB constantly every second. I'm more concerned about how fast my 60,000 fonts and 500 brushes in photoshop can load. That stuff requires raw seek performance to make the startup fast, You could read and write at 500TB a second and that would not help. SSD are the way of the future, I could never go back to a platter for my OS drive.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.