- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
These are first generation 36GB raptors, aren't they?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Enter The Matrix: Slice out and get the best part from your hard drives
- Thread starter bing
- Start date
Vista's kickin' your a$$. I'm in dual boot config now w/ the 2 74ADFD's. Here's a comparison of HD Tach and HD Tune on XP using 2x74GB ADFD's in a 70GB stripe:fritzman said:
HD Tune v2.52
HD Tach v3.0.1.4
Unfortunately, the versions of those 2 are different than what you're running. Also, what version of ATTO is that? The one I downloaded has a limit of 32MB total length/1024KB transfer size. I can run these in Vista if you'd like to see the comparo. Also, those tests were run on faster 1/2 of the 74GB drives w/ cache on. Yeah, the burst's crazy, but it def helps w/ avg read in the benches. Probably best to use a test file and copy, hehe. Or even better, a Bioshock level load!
Newer raps I believe. ADFD in the HD Tach shot should mean 16MB Cache, single platter.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2002
To answer the first question... they are Sata1 16Mb cache, which I think is the current latest model.
Hi bing... I was expecting really quick boot times actually. I had a quick look for the piece of paper last night that I wrote boot times on, and couldn't find it, but from memory (This is from pushing the power button to the music starting as it's entering windows, timed with my stopwatch) a single drive was like 47.5 seconds, the 2 drive 52 seconds and the 3 drive 52, then with write back cache on, I think it dropped to like 42 or something). It was really strange... for the same build, done fresh each time, in exactly the same way, I expected decreasing times, but they actually went up.
I installed Vista from the DVD, then did the auto driver install from the motherboard CD, set a fixed swap-file size, rebooted then did the test (no internet connection, no antivirus, etc.)
By the time I realised that write back cache was not enabled ( didn't pay too much attention to the results of the tests, just took the screenshots and moved on), I had installed Norton Internet Security 2007 and connected to the net, so the very last set might be a fraction off, but in reality... I am thinking I should simply had waited for the 500Gb drives with the 32Mb cache I've mentioned earlier.
Interested in the thioughts of others though, just in case I have missed something. It's snappy and all, just I expected way quicker boot times (from what I have read) and it just didn't happen.
Thanks Jod... If you wouldn't mind doing some Vista runs mate, that would be appreciated. That's just the version I d/l some time back. I could send it to you via skype if you want. LMK
Hi bing... I was expecting really quick boot times actually. I had a quick look for the piece of paper last night that I wrote boot times on, and couldn't find it, but from memory (This is from pushing the power button to the music starting as it's entering windows, timed with my stopwatch) a single drive was like 47.5 seconds, the 2 drive 52 seconds and the 3 drive 52, then with write back cache on, I think it dropped to like 42 or something). It was really strange... for the same build, done fresh each time, in exactly the same way, I expected decreasing times, but they actually went up.
I installed Vista from the DVD, then did the auto driver install from the motherboard CD, set a fixed swap-file size, rebooted then did the test (no internet connection, no antivirus, etc.)
By the time I realised that write back cache was not enabled ( didn't pay too much attention to the results of the tests, just took the screenshots and moved on), I had installed Norton Internet Security 2007 and connected to the net, so the very last set might be a fraction off, but in reality... I am thinking I should simply had waited for the 500Gb drives with the 32Mb cache I've mentioned earlier.
Interested in the thioughts of others though, just in case I have missed something. It's snappy and all, just I expected way quicker boot times (from what I have read) and it just didn't happen.
Thanks Jod... If you wouldn't mind doing some Vista runs mate, that would be appreciated. That's just the version I d/l some time back. I could send it to you via skype if you want. LMK
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #925
Well, those raided raptors have really good seek time and low cpu imo ! 
But I guess from your sounding, you expect "a lot more" compared to your old raided seagate drived ? Am I correct ?
Sound's like your next drives will be the killer iRAM in Raid !
But I guess from your sounding, you expect "a lot more" compared to your old raided seagate drived ? Am I correct ?
Sound's like your next drives will be the killer iRAM in Raid !
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
3805 raid controller
This might not be the right thread, but I put in the 3805 raid controller yesterday. I built a raid 6 array with 6 250GB drives. With this setup I need 3 drives to fail before I lose my data. Before I did much of anything I flashed the controller bios with the latest firmware from windows.
I picked a 64K stripe size, although I don't have any performance data at all to make that choice. I decided to go with raid 6 (2 drives of parity) instead of raid 5 and a hot spare. Raid 6 will be slower than raid 5, but I'm more interested in data security than data performance. As long as I can stream high def video from the array without any issues then I'll be happy.
While running an overnight memory test using orthos, one of the power connectors feeding two of the drives broke (cheap junk, I guess), and windows crashed. The reboot woke me up because the controller was generating a pretty loud alarm. I booted to windows and the array was degraded but not failed. I figured out the hw issue, replaced the power connector, and now the controller is doing a rebuild. The performance seems fine even during a rebuild. I can't tell any difference.
I don't have the battery backup on the on-board controller memory, but I have a USP anyway.
I've used adaptec scsi raid controllers in the past, and the storage manager running in windows looks about the same to me.
This might not be the right thread, but I put in the 3805 raid controller yesterday. I built a raid 6 array with 6 250GB drives. With this setup I need 3 drives to fail before I lose my data. Before I did much of anything I flashed the controller bios with the latest firmware from windows.
I picked a 64K stripe size, although I don't have any performance data at all to make that choice. I decided to go with raid 6 (2 drives of parity) instead of raid 5 and a hot spare. Raid 6 will be slower than raid 5, but I'm more interested in data security than data performance. As long as I can stream high def video from the array without any issues then I'll be happy.
While running an overnight memory test using orthos, one of the power connectors feeding two of the drives broke (cheap junk, I guess), and windows crashed. The reboot woke me up because the controller was generating a pretty loud alarm. I booted to windows and the array was degraded but not failed. I figured out the hw issue, replaced the power connector, and now the controller is doing a rebuild. The performance seems fine even during a rebuild. I can't tell any difference.
I don't have the battery backup on the on-board controller memory, but I have a USP anyway.
I've used adaptec scsi raid controllers in the past, and the storage manager running in windows looks about the same to me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2002
Well, those raided raptors have really good seek time and low cpu imo !
But I guess from your sounding, you expect "a lot more" compared to your old raided seagate drived ? Am I correct ?
Sound's like your next drives will be the killer iRAM in Raid !
Thanks for your thoughts mate... I think you might be right. I might have a play with stripe size a bit and see if that makes any difference, and I don't know whether it will change much, but the X3220 chip (G0 step) goes in on Monday.
Then it's just the wait for the 500's to arrive!
- Thread Starter
- #928
Not trying to lure you back to ICHxR raid
, just curious, could that problem was causing your ICHxR raid failure ? Although this is thread is solely for ICHxR raid, mind share some benchies result from that dedicated controller ?
Never mind even it is offtopic !
Yeah, I'm really curious to see those new 500's result here more than raptors honestly !
OT, X3220 chip (G0 step) , yummy !
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
Not trying to lure you back to ICHxR raid
possible. The power connector might have been going out for a while.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
adaptec 3805 raid controller tests
Here is the raid 6 results from the adaptec 3805 hardware raid controller. This is with a 64K stripe size.
Riad 6 requires 2 separate parity calculations (2 drives of parity) so it's slower than raid 5, but you can lose 3 drives before you're data is toast.
Here is the raid 6 results from the adaptec 3805 hardware raid controller. This is with a 64K stripe size.
Riad 6 requires 2 separate parity calculations (2 drives of parity) so it's slower than raid 5, but you can lose 3 drives before you're data is toast.
Attachments
- Thread Starter
- #935
Thanks for sharing, your CPU utilizations is really good and on raid 5 too, I'd say its on lower side from the average which is good !
Dunno why, I just can speculate cause if you compare your rig with that quad with older benchmarks which are mostly on dual cores, it seems like Intel ICHxR just love many cores cpu ?
What model of that Seagate of yours and firmware ? Have you check this thread HERE ?
Migrating from ICH8R to ICH9R should be no problem, and yes just plug them at new mobo, many had done it !
Of course the OS in that Raid 0 will experience some problem since its on different mobo with different chipset, I bet you must aware of it right ?
And every thing in the Raid 5 volume should be ok and safe. Just a suggestion, backup all important stuff to an external backup if you have it before doing this migration is recommended and the best bet.
Dunno why, I just can speculate cause if you compare your rig with that quad with older benchmarks which are mostly on dual cores, it seems like Intel ICHxR just love many cores cpu ?
What model of that Seagate of yours and firmware ? Have you check this thread HERE ?
Migrating from ICH8R to ICH9R should be no problem, and yes just plug them at new mobo, many had done it !
Of course the OS in that Raid 0 will experience some problem since its on different mobo with different chipset, I bet you must aware of it right ?
And every thing in the Raid 5 volume should be ok and safe. Just a suggestion, backup all important stuff to an external backup if you have it before doing this migration is recommended and the best bet.
Last edited:
Weird RAID 0/5 Results?!
Hi All,
Long time lurker, first time poster! Just finished building my system: IP35 Pro, Q6600, 4XPerps (STE325410AS). I'm getting what appears to be erratic HD Tune and HD Tach results for my RAID 0/5 arrays. They're not stable like the ones in this thread especially the RAID 0 results. I've attached the specs below. Do these look 'normal'? Thanks a lot!
Hi All,
Long time lurker, first time poster! Just finished building my system: IP35 Pro, Q6600, 4XPerps (STE325410AS). I'm getting what appears to be erratic HD Tune and HD Tach results for my RAID 0/5 arrays. They're not stable like the ones in this thread especially the RAID 0 results. I've attached the specs below. Do these look 'normal'? Thanks a lot!
Attachments
- Thread Starter
- #938
Wellcome to OcF, Yasha ! 
Those both benchies look fine to me ! Dunno, what do you mean by erratic ?
Btw, I assume you've pulled those tiny jumper at those drives right ?
And also what is your Raid 5 strip size ? The best so far is at 64 K while for Raid 0 is 128 K !
Thanks for sharing it here !
.
Those both benchies look fine to me ! Dunno, what do you mean by erratic ?
Btw, I assume you've pulled those tiny jumper at those drives right ?
And also what is your Raid 5 strip size ? The best so far is at 64 K while for Raid 0 is 128 K !
Thanks for sharing it here !
.
Hello,
I have a mysterious problem.
It looks like this fellows graphs.
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=4662441&postcount=110
The problem is that I have to enable volume-write-back-cache to significantly improve my overall speed. I made the entire array Raid 0.
I am using an Abit IP35 Pro with Intel Raid. The drives are two Seagate 7200.10 320GB drives.
My question is why do I have to enable the feature while other don't in order to have fast arrays. (I don't mean the people who set up a Matrix array. I know where their speed comes from. ) Is VWBC bad for the system at all?
Great thread you guys. Keep it up.
I have a mysterious problem.
It looks like this fellows graphs.
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=4662441&postcount=110
The problem is that I have to enable volume-write-back-cache to significantly improve my overall speed. I made the entire array Raid 0.
I am using an Abit IP35 Pro with Intel Raid. The drives are two Seagate 7200.10 320GB drives.
My question is why do I have to enable the feature while other don't in order to have fast arrays. (I don't mean the people who set up a Matrix array.
I know where their speed comes from. ) Is VWBC bad for the system at all?Great thread you guys. Keep it up.
Hi Bing,
I appreciate the welcome. I have certainly enjoyed your discussions here regarding Matrix Raid! The Raid 0 benchmark seems like it's not so stable...ie. large fluctuations from 290MB/s to 400 MB/s. I've looked at other Raid 0 benchmarks in this thread and many appear to be more 'flat'. My Raid 5 does seem ok. Here are the HD Tach results. Again, the Raid 0 is not smooth like others have seen. But if you think it's ok, then I have no argument against that
I appreciate the welcome. I have certainly enjoyed your discussions here regarding Matrix Raid! The Raid 0 benchmark seems like it's not so stable...ie. large fluctuations from 290MB/s to 400 MB/s. I've looked at other Raid 0 benchmarks in this thread and many appear to be more 'flat'. My Raid 5 does seem ok. Here are the HD Tach results. Again, the Raid 0 is not smooth like others have seen. But if you think it's ok, then I have no argument against that
Attachments
Similar threads
