-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Who says that two raptors arent better than one? Part 2
- Thread starter dominick32
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Location
- Harrisonburg, VA
That's ridiculously fast. I've seen some scores that say the same about the Raptor 150GB hdd's too.
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Location
- New York
- Thread Starter
- #83
Sean_Best said:
My latest Intel Matrix configuration with 2 X 150 Raptors completely put my original setup to shame. Read more here:
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=476776
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
Fridge said:The key is in the acronym: Redundant Array of INEXPENSIVE Disks.
Raptors therefore, may not be used in RAID by definition
Those that violate this holy commandment of RAID shall pay...through the nose! Whatever makes you happy... It is kind of ironic to see 2 stickies right next to each other, one claiming RAID0 on raptors is pointless, one saying its great.
It seems to me that the other thread uses a more 'real' situation (game loading) rather than the synthetic benchies used to prove the point here. Undoubtedly, RAID0 with raptors has its adavntages as you have shown, but do we really need it?
Nor is raid0 redundant
Now, the real reason for this post...
How is it that some of your tests yield more than double performance? I think something is wrong here...
{ace of spades}
Disabled
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Location
- London
Im a little lost by your second thread, are you saying a 150GB raptor is faster than a 74GB raptor? If so, is this as a single, two in raid0, or both.
If a 150GB is faster, im wondering if i should buy 2x 74GB's or 1x 150GB for fast boot times.
If a 150GB is faster, im wondering if i should buy 2x 74GB's or 1x 150GB for fast boot times.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
All the new 16MB(ADFD models) cache drives perform the same. The 74's tested were older 8MB(GD models) cache drives. Yes, the 150 would perform better, since it was a new improved model. 74 and 36GB ADFD drives came after the 150 so most tests on the newer drives were on that size. Besides the forums, I don't think any site has tested the new 36GB drive since many feel it's too small for the general public. Tests in various forums show the 36GB drive performs just as well as it's bigger brothers. So buy the size you need without worry.
Spade
Disabled
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
all i need to know is that in raid0 the windows xp bar (blue) takes one pass, vs. 5-8 in a single HD setup, both exact same drives ( - secondary drive for raid0).
also, HD tach shows 76MB burst time (non raid) vs 200MB burst time.
lastly, bioshock loads MUCH faster (i have an older pixel shader 2.0 card)
using raid vs. not using raid.
'nuff said.
thats all the "real world" i need.
also, HD tach shows 76MB burst time (non raid) vs 200MB burst time.
lastly, bioshock loads MUCH faster (i have an older pixel shader 2.0 card)
using raid vs. not using raid.
'nuff said.
thats all the "real world" i need.
What he didn't seem to cover is the very low access times these things produce go to make the system feel more snappy and responsive as well. I got dual 150's in my system and doing large copies of small files, it can move up 300-400 files a second, with the horribly inefficient update MFT, write file, repeat that the file system does, that's a lot of transactions and seeks per second.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
for the life of me i can't get the windows xp bar to not pass a few times... with my raptor single, 2xRaptors raid0, and now 3x320gb seagate perps sliced 30gb raid0.... to this day i don't know which was fastest... i feel like my 320gb hitachi t7k500 320gb hdd in my OLD secondary rig booted up and shutdown the fastest of any setup... must be some software thing i can't figure out.
I had this problem before too. Goes quickest for me when I do full format not the quick one and then immediately do like five defrags in a row.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
full format!! they're slow!!! i guess... =/
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
I just finished the install on my two Raptors. Decided to not be lazy and get RAID-0 set up.
Sorry, I don't have any single drive benches.
Sorry, I don't have any single drive benches.
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Location
- New York
- Thread Starter
- #94
I just finished the install on my two Raptors. Decided to not be lazy and get RAID-0 set up.
Sorry, I don't have any single drive benches.
Are these the older 8mb Raptors? Because your sustained read seems slow. Your access time is also a tad higher than it should be. Do you have write back caching enabled through the Matrix Storage Mananger? What stripe size did you choose when creating the array?
I think you have the older revision raptors, let me know so I can stop shooting questions at you. hehe
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
speaking of 8mb... are the 16megs considerably faster? i'm thinking of going back to a raptor setup (i sold my 2x74s a few months back)... don't wanna waste money on the 16mb if it's not enough of a leap. also, i still can't figure out why they're not sataIIs yet and still on sataI... the read speeds aren't as fast as perpendiculars and it must be b/c they're not sataII, no?
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
Yep, these are the older drives. My dad bought them quite some time ago and never really used them, so I took care of that. I do have write back caching enabled. For these being the older 8mb drives, do the numbers look right?
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Location
- New York
- Thread Starter
- #98
Gman, and Ink,
To answer some of the previous questions:
-One single 74 gig Raptor (older 8mb model) = 65 MB/s sustained read 7.7ms access time.
-One single 74 gig Raptor (brand new 16mb model) = 84 MB/s sustained read 7.7ms access time.
-One single 7200.10 Seagate Perp = 66 MB/s sustained read 13.2ms access time.
PS- Ink, your numbers do look a tad on the slow slide compared to what 8mb drives should be performing at but your access time is nominal.
To answer some of the previous questions:
-One single 74 gig Raptor (older 8mb model) = 65 MB/s sustained read 7.7ms access time.
-One single 74 gig Raptor (brand new 16mb model) = 84 MB/s sustained read 7.7ms access time.
-One single 7200.10 Seagate Perp = 66 MB/s sustained read 13.2ms access time.
PS- Ink, your numbers do look a tad on the slow slide compared to what 8mb drives should be performing at but your access time is nominal.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
what the.... 13.2ms access time for a single perp????? wow...
so for REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE, which is the most important? i'm basically just referring to:
-Windows Boot Time and Games Boot Times
-Program Installation Times (I guess file copying goes here too)
-Ripping/Burning DVDs
Those are what I do... and I'm trying to weight out WHICH IS BEST for my liking, ya know? I have tried these setups:
Single 74gb 8mb Raptor
Raid0 2x74gb 8mb Raptors
Single 320GB 7200.10
Raid0 3x320GB 7200.10 intel matrix 30gb slice
Single 320GB Hitachi T7K500
I just could never tell differences between any of these setups... and I think the Hitachi felt like it booted the quickest, which leads me to believe I probably have some sort of user error with regards to software setup of some sort...
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
Does a single 150gig Raptor (brand new 16mb model) also have 84MB/s sustained read and 7.7ms access time? Or does it having 2 platters effect either of them?
