Seagate 7200.12 ST3500418AS RAID0 HD Tune

irangama

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
8
0
18,510
0
This is my test.
2 x Seagate 7200.12 ST3500418AS RAID0
500GB 16MB BUFFER

Minimum: 131.9 MB/sec
Maximum: 251.6 MB/sec
Average: 204.8 MB/sec

Access time: 14.2 ms
Burst rate: 1528.2 MB/sec :bounce: :pt1cable: :D
CPU usage: -1.0%

do you think that is good?
 
negative 1.0 for CPU usage with onboard raid; don't think it is valid. Something like the elusive negative resitance. Probably a software problem. Are you using onboard raid or a dedicated PCI card. Your Min/max/avg are very close to mine (2 x 640 WD blacks).
My Access time is lower (9.5 ms), but my burst rate is much lower - only 137.5
 

cjl

Splendid
Looks like the integrated Intel RAID controller with the write back cache enabled.

Oh, and WD Blacks shouldn't get 9.5ms access times - how are yours set up? That sounds significantly faster than any tests I've seen.
 
cjl
I setup two raid0 volumes, first one 400 gigs 64K stripe, default cluster size for Win 7.
The 2nd volume the remainer of drive, 128K stripe, 1/2 of the drive with default cluster size and the 2nd 1/2 with 32 K cluster size ( for large files like 1 gig video files and Pictures. Also I ran HD Tune from vista on a older seagate 320 gig (2 x in raid0)

Burst seams low as it shows up as lower than max ?????

In HD Tune it shows up as two seperate drives vs Striping the whole volume

HD tune 2.55 Stats
..............400 Gig.....800 gig
Min ....... 185.0 ...... 95.9
Max ...... 227.2 ...... 206.5
Avg ....... 209.7....... 168.6
Access ..... 9.5 ........ 11.4
Burst...... 137.5 ...... 137.4
CPU ........ 10.2 ........ 6.3

Re-ran it on 400 gig volume same results give or take a percent

Tried to edit to get column alignment - but not working
 
cjl
Rebooted to win7rc. run on Win7system (400 gig) volume (2 x WD 640 Black)
HD Tune: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 166.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 230.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 217.3 MB/sec
Access Time : 9.7 ms
Burst Rate : 1611.6 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 8.4%

Lower Min, Higher Burst. Access time still 9.x
 
You can give this a try:
Delete your raid0. Recreate Raid0 strip But ONLY select 200 - 300 gigs (believe they refer to this as short stroking) for operating system and programs. Keeps the Progams and operating system on outer 15% of platter. Select a strip smaller strip size say 64 K. This increases the probability that a file will be placed in to two strips - If the file fits into one strip Raid0 provides no benifit. Then select the remainder of the drive for a 2n Raid0 strip. This is somewhat similar to partitioning a drive.

Also you might try increasing cluster size. I think default is 4 K. Maybe try 8K cluster. This increases waste on very small files, any file less than 8 K will still take 8K disk space, but the advantage is that on all files greater than 4 K the number of clusters read is reduced by 1/2.

Note on my setup access time is reduced to 9.x mSec verse 11 -12 mSec.

Added: I'm NO expert on this, I've been using Raid0 for about 8 -> 6 yrs, but always just taken defaults - Maybe a expert can verify, or tell me I'm all wet.
 

cjl

Splendid

That explains the fast access time. You're basically short stroking your drives. If you were using the full volume, it'd probably be 12-13ms or so.
 

irangama

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
8
0
18,510
0
negative 1.0 for CPU usage with onboard raid; don't think it is valid. Something like the elusive negative resitance. Probably a software problem. Are you using onboard raid or a dedicated PCI card. Your Min/max/avg are very close to mine (2 x 640 WD blacks).
My Access time is lower (9.5 ms), but my burst rate is much lower - only 137.5
my system test is:
core i7 920
evga x58 sli (ICHR10)
corsaiar 3x1gb 1600 cl8

Looks like the integrated Intel RAID controller with the write back cache enabled.
yes. It enabled.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS