Werid RAID 0 hdtune results.

J

jgv115

Member

​

Joined

Jun 15, 2009

Location

Australia

• Sep 30, 2009

• #1

Have a look at this:



My specs are in my sig. I was wondering why there is that inconsistency in the graph. And yes, this was taken when the HDD's were idle.

 

nd4spdbh2

Member

​

Joined

Nov 15, 2005

Location

Camarillo, CA!

• Sep 30, 2009

• #2

stripe size?

i had a pair of 7200.8 80gb hds that did something very similar... i forget what stripe size fixed it.

 

OP

J

jgv115

Member

​

Joined

Jun 15, 2009

Location

Australia

• Sep 30, 2009

• Thread Starter
• #3

So what stripe size should I use? I doubt that has anything to do with it....

 

HDCHOPPER

Member

​

Joined

Mar 6, 2008

• Sep 30, 2009

• #4

I had pretty good luck with 512k & 1024k ...

If your using onboard raid the largest you can get normally is 128k IIRC hopefully 256K

 

OP

J

jgv115

Member

​

Joined

Jun 15, 2009

Location

Australia

• Oct 1, 2009

• Thread Starter
• #5

I think on this RAID array I am using 64k. I heard that if you don't work with big files then use something smaller.

Will I see a performance decrease if I do 128k or even 256k?

 

freeagent

Member

​

Joined

Sep 15, 2004

Location

Winnipeg!

• Oct 1, 2009

• #6

Looks like your windows slice might be too small

Sounds weird I know..

 

OP

J

jgv115

Member

​

Joined

Jun 15, 2009

Location

Australia

• Oct 1, 2009

• Thread Starter
• #7

Alright, I've done some more testing:

128k stripe:



32k stripe:



Now I'm going to test my 64k and 32k again with Write back cache

 

OP

J

jgv115

Member

​

Joined

Jun 15, 2009

Location

Australia

• Oct 1, 2009

• Thread Starter
• #8

HOLY!!!! Check these graphs out:

System drive (64k stripe) with WBC:



that bit I circled probably doesn't really belong in the graph. A program was probably using the drive

32k with WBC



This graph IMO is a good example of what the "slower 2/3" of the HDD should look like.

Looks like write back cache fixed the inconsistencies in my HDDs. I never knew it had such an impact. The improvements are massive!! My drives are faster than a Single WD black

note: all the benchmarks besides the 64k one was testing using the slower part of my HDD

 

HDCHOPPER

Member

​

Joined

Mar 6, 2008

• Oct 2, 2009

• #9

learn something good everyday , lower stripe size for HDD and larger stripe for SDD
tried every stripe from 32k and up to 2048k on ssd & larger to 512k & 1024K worked best

And ya write back cache is a boost , best to have an UPS with that option..

your OS looks to be vista or W7 default install with both = aligned partition
XP default is unaligned partition , that is to say anyone using XP.... aligning your partition before install of XP really helps the IO's

 

hitokiri_808

Member

​

Joined

Jan 23, 2005

Location

Hawaii

• Oct 2, 2009

• #10

Change the block size in HD Tune. If the Stripe size is larger than the test block, it alters the results.

ATTO would show the best all round performance for different test sizes.

 

OP

J

jgv115

Member

​

Joined

Jun 15, 2009

Location

Australia

• Oct 2, 2009

• Thread Starter
• #11

I've done that. The 64k test is done with my 64k stripe etc.

ATTO results (can someone compare theirs to mine?):

 

Wolverine690

Member

​

Joined

Jun 7, 2006

Location

Idaho

• Jun 12, 2010

• #12

So what's better then for HDD RAIDs? I'm currently using 32K or 64k I can't recall which... but I'm working on reloading a few pc's with raids & may want to change if bigger is better...