Enter The Matrix: Slice out and get the best part from your hard drives

[JDany3D]

Raid system: Caviar RE2 or Seagate 7200.10?

Hello,

i've just got my subscription to this excellent thread!

I have to buy a new workstation Quad Core (Q6600) with a P35-ICH9R MB (GA-P35-DS4) and the dilemma is: 4xSeagate 7200.10 500GB or 4xWD Caviar 4/500GB RE2?
Obviously, all configured in the intel matrix storage.
I read a lot of rewiews and forums and seem WD RE2 are better than Seagate stated above.
What really scared me is the result in term of multithreading access to the Seagate disk.
Here you can find the complete review and on page 14 you'll find what i'm talking about.

Here it is another review with similar results.

Let me report to you some percentual result from the first review.
SG = Seagate 500GB 7200.10 SataII
WD = Caviar 500GB RE2 SataII (WD5000YS)

Intel IOMeter
Read: SG 2.8% faster
Write: WD 29.2% faster

Intel IOMeter
File server overall: WD 18.5% faster
Web server overall: WD 10.7% faster
Workstation overall: SG 2.0% faster
Workstation 32GB overall: SG 1.1% faster

Multithreaded Read
1 Thread: SG 4.4% faster
2 Thread: WD 746.9% faster (YES, this is 7.46 times faster )
3 Thread: WD 613.9% faster
4 Thread: WD 541.6% faster
(The seagate is so bad, not the WD so good)

Multithreaded Write
1 Thread: SG 4.4% faster
2 Thread: SG 10.8% faster
3 Thread: SG 11.5% faster
4 Thread: SG 8.8% faster

WinBech99
Disk Access Time: SG 4.3% faster

Disk Transfer Rate
Beginning: SG 4.6% faster
End: SG 1.9% faster

WinBech99 NTFS-32GB
High-End Disk WinMark: WD 19.9% faster
Business Disk WinMark: SG 10.8% faster

WinBech99 FAT32-32GB
High-End Disk WinMark: WD 17.7% faster
Business Disk WinMark: SG 5.3% faster

Performance in FileCopy Test 1.0
NTFS
Create (write), Install: WD 5.7% faster
Create (write), ISO: SG 3.2% faster
Create (write), MP3: WD 4.6% faster
Create (write), Programs: WD 15.2% faster
Create (write), Windows: WD 22.7% faster

Read, Install: WD 0.8% faster
Read, ISO: SG 8.5% faster
Read, MP3: WD 18.2% faster
Read, Programs: WD 12.7% faster
Read, Windows: WD 10.0% faster

Copy near, Install: SG 3.1% faster
Copy near, ISO: SG 31.0% faster
Copy near, MP3: WD 0.2% faster
Copy near, Programs: SG 4.6% faster
Copy near, Windows: WD 2.4% faster

Copy far, Install: SG 5.2% faster
Copy far, ISO: SG 41.4% faster
Copy far, MP3: SG 7.7% faster
Copy far, Programs: SG 5.9% faster
Copy far, Windows: SG 2.4% faster

PCMark04
Overall Score: WD 16.9% faster
XP Startup: WD 5.8% faster
App. Loading: WD 15.4% faster
File Coping: SG 7.6% faster
General Usage: WD 21.6% faster

PCMark05
Overall Score: WD 2.4% faster
XP Startup: WD 11.8% faster
App. Loading: WD 15.5% faster
General Usage: WD 21.7% faster
Virus Scan: SG 28.3% faster
File Write: SG 9.0% faster

Looking at the tests above i should admit WD RE2 are better than Seagate 7200.10 in most fields (19 bold resutl for WD vs 6 bold result for SG)
What i'm really interested is to know how the seagates perform in a raid 0+5 when multiple request are done to different zones of drive.
With a 7MB/s in the 2-3-4 thread reading test, the seagate showed a big issue in managing multiple request at the same time.

I know most of you have those HDD, so why don't you make a similar test with the same tools used in the review on the raid volumes?

I'm considering having more or less you same configuration (S.O. + swap + temp on raid 0, and projects data on raid 5, both in matrix on 4 drives) but i would be really disapponted to know the seagate has a very poor performance in a real-world usage (S.O writing on his partition, some other app reading from raid 5 and so on).

In Italy, the WD costs more or less 45-50% more than the Seagate.
Here you can find some useful info about the WD drive (designed for raid systems).

Hyperasus, in your bottom-firm i can read you have 4 500GB RE2, but some time ago i remember you bought 4 perps Seagate, didn't you?. Is your firm wrong?
Anyone has WD RE2 drives here?

Please, help me. I'm very confused!

Last question:
I read some issues between ICHxR and Caviar RE2, like HD Tach giving strange results.
Could you tell me if there is any problem using raid with those two components?

Thanks all.
This thread was very useful for me.

Bye and have a nice day

 

[g0dM@n]

wow the multi-threaded is insane...
so that's useful when ur say burning a dvd while trying to play a game, right?

i've noticed that my buffer drops like CRAZY on a dvd burn if i'm ripping a dvd with my other dvd drive...

 

[fritzman]

As I understand it, everyone is heading for the new Seagate 7200.11 drives talked about here ...

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=512211

I think that would be a better comparison if it's around.

 

[JDany3D]

wow the multi-threaded is insane...
so that's useful when ur say burning a dvd while trying to play a game, right?

i've noticed that my buffer drops like CRAZY on a dvd burn if i'm ripping a dvd with my other dvd drive...

Hi, g0dM@n.

Yes, it's just what i'm afraid of!
That's why i'm looking for a better solution like Caviar RE for raid.
If Seagate will correct that issue in the next release of firmware or drive model, maybe it could be one of the best drive to buy (cheap and fast).

Anyone could be so kind to post some multithreaded bench about those drives in raid 0+5 or 0+1 accessing both raid volumes at the same time?

Another question is: is it better to configure 2 full drives in raid 0 (O.S. + swap + temp) and 3 more full drive in raid 5 (projects data) NOT in matrix or put all 5 drives in matrix splitting the space between raid 0 and 5?
IMHO
1st method: faster access time with more threads, slower maximum STR on both volumes.
2nd method: slower access time with more threads, faster maximum STR for single thread.
The point is: in the real world applications, how much the multiple access on 2nd solution would affect global STR of drives?

Thanks guys.
Bye.
JDany3D

 

[bing]

Wellcome to OcF JDany3D ! Glad this thread pull you out from your lurk mode !

Wow, that is quite a compilation you've made there, thanks !

I guess most of the benchies you've seen around here on Seagate drive because it has the best bang for the buck, thats all. Oh yeah, also it has an advantage on it's STR.

Agree, WD's overall performance will beat Seagate, if money is no concern just jump on it and don't forget to share your result here.

Another question is: is it better to configure 2 full drives in raid 0 (O.S. + swap + temp) and 3 more full drive in raid 5 (projects data) NOT in matrix or put all 5 drives in matrix splitting the space between raid 0 and 5?
IMHO
1st method: faster access time with more threads, slower maximum STR on both volumes.
2nd method: slower access time with more threads, faster maximum STR for single thread.
The point is: in the real world applications, how much the multiple access on 2nd solution would affect global STR of drives?

It depends really on what you called "real world applications".

I believe method 1 will be the best or what you called "better global STR throughout all drives" if your routinely run applications that access the separated raid 0 and raid 5 volume "simultaneously" and "oftenly".

While on 2nd method using Matrix Raid, as expected, you'll get the best STR since they scale linearly on drive count, but it is suitable only for casual users who want fast OS/Apps/Booting on the Raid 0 slice, while rarely access the protected volume raid 1/5/10 slice at the same time.

Again, the keyword here is "simultaneously" and "oftenly" access both volumes, if you do that on your daily computing task, then I suggest method 1 is the best.

Btw, currently I haven't seen any one had ever use your proposed raid topology (2 x Raid 0 and 3 x Raid 5), not really sure if the ICH9R can even do that. Only you can try it for us !

 

[ffzen]

Great thread.
I've been gradually reading it the last 3 days.
I was wondering..(and for most i guess it would be ridiculous or borderline insanity)
..but Is it possible to use more than 4 hard drives in Matrix raid 0?
Does the law of diminishing returns take effect?

 

[dudleycpa]

Great thread.
I've been gradually reading it the last 3 days.
I was wondering..(and for most i guess it would be ridiculous or borderline insanity)
..but Is it possible to use more than 4 hard drives in Matrix raid 0?
Does the law of diminishing returns take effect?

According to post #813 above it should work.

 

[Jod]

I'm not too familiar w/ ATTO and most of the screenies of late show 3 or 5 drive arrays. How does this look for 2 74GB ADFD raps in a 69GB stripe on Vista x86?

 

[sjvarley]

I'm not too familiar w/ ATTO and most of the screenies of late show 3 or 5 drive arrays. How does this look for 2 74GB ADFD raps in a 69GB stripe on Vista x86?

Here is some old test data I ran on 2 drives

 

[JDany3D]

Wellcome to OcF JDany3D ! Glad this thread pull you out from your lurk mode !

Hi bing,
hehehe, this is a great thread but i took a lot of time to read it!

Wow, that is quite a compilation you've made there, thanks !

yes, half an hour sticked on calc.exe
I'm happy you apreciated that work.

I guess most of the benchies you've seen around here on Seagate drive because it has the best bang for the buck, thats all. Oh yeah, also it has an advantage on it's STR.

Yes, i know it and that's true.
Btw, i saw here very few tests done with PCMark or other tool taking into account the daily usage of a drive, whatever desktop or server.
Would be interesting to see how a raid made on those drives (WD or Seagate) behaves.

Agree, WD's overall performance will beat Seagate, if money is no concern just jump on it and don't forget to share your result here.

OK, i'll share my benches as soon as the whole workstation is up and running, it's a promise!

It depends really on what you called "real world applications".

I believe method 1 will be the best or what you called "better global STR throughout all drives" if your routinely run applications that access the separated raid 0 and raid 5 volume "simultaneously" and "oftenly".

While on 2nd method using Matrix Raid, as expected, you'll get the best STR since they scale linearly on drive count, but it is suitable only for casual users who want fast OS/Apps/Booting on the Raid 0 slice, while rarely access the protected volume raid 1/5/10 slice at the same time.

Again, the keyword here is "simultaneously" and "oftenly" access both volumes, if you do that on your daily computing task, then I suggest method 1 is the best.

Thanks bing, this is a very interesting advice.
I think i will follow the 1st solution because i'll use raid 5 to store and work on audio/video editing projects and 3D graphics very often.
Probably i will buy 2 Seagate for raid 0 and 3 WD for raid 5.
WD Drives (RE2 500) are very difficult to find.
Most online shops don't have them and, the others, I DO NOT trust !

Btw, currently I haven't seen any one had ever use your proposed raid topology (2 x Raid 0 and 3 x Raid 5), not really sure if the ICH9R can even do that. Only you can try it for us !

I think, but it's only a thinking, the most complex configuration is splitting horizontally 4 drive into 2 raid volumes and not taking 2 separate raid on separate disks.
Have to try....

So, thanks you all.
Bye
JD
PS: sorry about my late answer: a lot of work to do....

 

[Jod]

Here is some old test data I ran on 2 drives

How much does the total length size matter in ATTO? Also, there's def a decent size drop from Vista-->XP in HDTach/HDTune/ATTO. And it's quite noticeable in large xfers/unzipping too. Now the indexing and overall ease of use favor M$'s newest os for sure!

 

[asusradeon]

looks quite nifty, wouldnt you loose everthing if one drive fails out of the two ?

 

[bing]

looks quite nifty, wouldnt you loose everthing if one drive fails out of the two ?

No, not everything and that is the beauty of matrix raid especially on cheap 2 drives configuration.

On minimum 2 drives configuration using Raid 0 and 1 like mine, the OS,boot and programs are placed in that fast Raid 0 volume while all other important stuffs in Raid 1 volume.

One crucial thing is I did save the drive image from the Raid 0 volume into the Raid 1, so when one drive failed and assuming it is already replaced with new one, all I need is to boot up with bootable CD and restore the Raid 0 volume from the saved image which resides in the Raid 1 and re-synch the raid 1 volume.
Example of my saved drive images collections from Raid 0 here which I keep in the Raid 1 volume, just watch the attached screen shot.

Heck, even I didn't save any drive image from the raid 0, all I need is to reinstall the OS and all programs and its no big deal while all important stuffs are still safe in the raid 1 volume.

Btw, the bootable CD could be using BartPE + DriveImageXML (freeware) or other more advance proggy like Acronis and this is even more powerfull since it can be configured using bootable USB stick instead of the CD.

One thing to remember though, Raid is not a replacement for a decent external backup.

 

[cbodom]

great thread guys, ill be joining in with q6600 and 3x 320gb 7200.10's
GIGABYTE GA-P35C-DS3R
ich9r

raid0- 128k stripe
raid5- 64k stripe

thinking
c:- 3x15
d:-whatever

 

[bing]

Hey Cbodom ! Wellcome to OcF !

Glad you like it, share your results both on Raid volumes once you finished configure it will you ?

OT, since you got Q6600, you got PM !

 

[fritzman]

Now ain't that the wierdest thing...

I get an e-mail notifying a new post in this thread, by Leftheaded stating "Should I install Vista 64bit first, or configure RAID first... on brand new everything. I just got all my parts, but I've been reading on this thread for weeks now

2 x 150GB raptors
Asus P5K

i'm sure i've missed it and i'm searching, but haven't found anything directly answers that question."

and can't find the post??? Wierd.

Anyways Leftheaded... Set up your raid array fully 1st, then install Vista mate.

 

[bing]

LOL fritzman !

Hey Leftheaded, don't be shy get out from lurking around, just pop out your question here, I believe many others will help you !

 

[fritzman]

Cheers bing... he must have deleted his post? Perhaps he solved his own question... I thought I was going crazy mate... did all sorts of searches trying to find his post, but no avail.

OT... just about to start playing with a P5K-Premium & an E4400. Will start with a single drive, but ultimately, move everything over.

 

[bing]

OT... just about to start playing with a P5K-Premium & an E4400. Will start with a single drive, but ultimately, move everything over.

Wait !! E4400 ??? OT, read this thread ! Hopefully you got new stepping !

 

[leftheaded]

haha yes, i deleted that question. I decided to setup the RAID, but that has led to many pains for me

i started this thread, but my issues is resolved now