Post your HDTach 3 Results!

Discussion in 'Overclocking, Benching & Modding' started by Judas, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,049
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    138
    You know the name of the game, lets see what you've got.

    The program is DAMN small and spywareless... so no worries. ;)

    Just got HERE~> http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach

    Click the Download button and download the ity bitty program and run the LONG test (32mb).

    Take a snapshot and post it. Use a site like www.imageshack.us for easy quick uploading and posting.

    And please, Post JPEGs, bmps are bloated and unnessary. ;)

    I'll start.... someone please beat me!

    [​IMG]
     
  2. MythicaL

    MythicaL I like computers.

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,390
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh man Judas, I totally pwned yours :w00t::

    [​IMG]
     
  3. mkk

    mkk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,334
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    73
    An old test of my striped Samsung P80's. Will separate them when I switch motherboard as the benefit is not so great after all. Then again the efficiency might be slightly lower because of the aged VIA raid chip on this Socket-A mobo.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2006
  4. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,049
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    138
    hey... nothing wrong with nearly 100MB/s sustained read..... that's roughly twice as fast as my samsung 80gb sata 2 drive here.....
     
  5. grog

    grog Roxy Music

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The drives.

    * Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3300622AS 300GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s x 2 (total 600GB) RAID-0
    * Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3160812A 160GB 7200 RPM IDE Ultra ATA100

    [​IMG]
     
  6. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Judas, do you have ULi SATA RAID results on the RAID0 with 2 Maxtor hard drives?
    i'm now running a repair installation for adding RAID drivers on one system, i set up Windows using the same image that i use with other system that uses IDE mode on SATA controller, should be able to run the HDTach in about 20 mins. so i like to see your result of a 2 drives RAID0 setup, and see if i can beat you?
     
  7. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Heres's mine 2X hitchi deskstar T7K250 250GB SATA2

    [​IMG]


    WTF?? you've somthing running in the background, or?
    or useing a strage stripe size? the controler funny?

    wierd...... any one explain that one? I always see a basic curve
    Raid or no raid....

    I'd suspct the controller your useing is "maybe" lacking.... strage you almost flat out
    yet the curve is there in the back ground

    what stripe sizes you all useing? Wierd results....

    well, hurry up! i'm going to bed soon...
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2006
  8. GNetX

    GNetX New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's mine... :)

    The drives are 2 Samsung Spinpoint SP2004C drives in R0 through an Intel ICH7R.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lol neon go to bed i don't want to beat you i thought JD still around...

    about your comments on how the HDTach's curve...
    the curve of sequentail read speed on the HDTach window just came out like that on some systems, just as long as the average read's readouts still decent (not too low), i think the RAID setups are okay...
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2006
  10. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seagate ST3808110AS RAID0 (2 hard drives),
    2 RAID volumes were created during the firmware RAID set up.

    real-time AV scan is on, all Windows and other services (except Remote Registry, System Restore, Automatic Updates, Windows Time and UPnP Device Host) are using default settings.

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    Two Windows OSes (XP Pro and XP x64 Pro) were installed by using a partition images restoring in mode DOS (Paragon Drive Backup) followed by Windows repair installation to add RAID drivers and then after that the Windows's have been reupdated. and then create a new backup image (Paragon Drive Backup Server edition). some of these partition image will go to my friend who asks me to create them, he also wants me to test the server edition of Paragon Drive Backup program.

    anyway, i'll probably check with Seagate to see if they have any suggestion or can help improve the RAID performance, they might be able to help improving those curved shapes abit.
     
  11. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    3xSeagate ST3808110AS firmware 3.AAE (P/N xxxx-303) in RAID0, 223.6 GB.

    Vol_0 size = 32 GB (2 primary partitions for 2 Windows XP's),
    Vol_1 size = 191.6 GB.
    >[​IMG]

    HD Tach... for Vol_0...
    >[​IMG]



    HD Tach... for Vol_1...
    >[​IMG]



    and here is HD Tach... for 1x Seagate ST3808110AS 80 GB (firmware 2AAA P/N xxxx-301) under SATA controller in IDE mode.
    >[​IMG]
     
  12. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,049
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    138
    i think i've got 2 of these maxtors in raid 0 and 3 in raid 0 as well ....somewhere.... benchmarks i mean..

    but HDTach i've noticed so far favors lower blocks sizes

    However i'm a bit confused on how your setting up the volumes and getting HDTach to see it like that.

    If they are indeed raid..... should it combine it into a single large hardrive....

    When i load up HDTach, it sees only one available drive.

    Course i miss my HighPoint Tech controller, with IDE ATA100 drives, i was getting nearly 1/2 of what i'm getting now... and they were 2mb cache 7200rpm.. generic maxtor (only 2 of them)....
     
  13. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    that's the "Intel Matrix RAID", under ICH7R, RAID0 and RAID1 or RAID5 (Parity) can be combined. suppose to be RAID10 also...

    about the RAID subsystem, in some cases... it has to do with hard drives's firmware, not just the controller.
    if you want to have the best SATA RAID preformance you might want to consult and work with the hard drives tach supports.
     
  14. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Judas, have a look here... http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=22435&hl=firmware
    the link is not working atm, but check it out later. you would see that hard drive's firmware help correcting a 4x 500GB RAID5 performance problem.

    anyway, i think i beat your results a little already. you might think i did cheat you a little, since the RAID0 volume size was only 32 GB?

     
  15. nicnik

    nicnik In the Land of Snow

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so what strip size are u guys with raid-0 using, im using 16k and obtaining 105mb average read, seagate 7200.8 x2 raid-0 (too lazy to post screen hehe)
    I do believe strip size makes a difference in hdtach
     
  16. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i've noticed that too. 16K strip size gives best benchmark results,
    in many cases, 16K is good for sequential transfer under real-world performance.
    the benchmark results can also give indication of real-world performance.

    how about when you try a larger strip size like 128K, the benchmark results came out very poor,
    so what about the real-world performance?
     
  17. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    73
    good ole ATA 100...


    160GB 8mb cache...
    [​IMG]

    EDit- oops here's the long test..
    [​IMG]




    old 40BG 2mb cache...
    [​IMG]

    Still fast enough for me. :uhoh:
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  18. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    here's a better HD Tach benchmark results for 3xSeagate ST3808110AS RAID0, 223.6 GB

    Vol_0 = 32 GB, strip size = 16 KB
    Vol_1 = 191.6 GB, , strip size = 16 KB


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    i took about 10 minutes to delete/rebuild RAID array using RAID BIOS utility, and restore a Windows partition via mode DOS...
    Judas, i like to see the results of your 2x or 3x, can you find them?
     
  19. nicnik

    nicnik In the Land of Snow

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    raid 16k makes a difference when i load games and levels. Though i havent tried 64k (which most recommend) to see the differences.
    So what strip size are u using judus ?
     
  20. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,049
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    138
    i'm using 64k atm.. it's the largest ULi raid controller supports atm
    Running nero Speed test or PcPitstop's HD tests (uncached/cached).. it says i've sustained anywhere from 200-300Mb/s reads..

    Still fiddling..

    but i know some more recent HD benchmarks that use much much larger files to write/read from, seem really show an accurate result. Benifitting the larger block sizes.


    With Raid on my Highpoint tech with 2x 160gb 8mb cache WD hardrives with 2MB block size, transfering videos and recording high def videos was REALLY benificial, 64kb and lower (even 128kb block size) wasn't able to keep up.

    HD tach showed good results.. nothing amazing.. but sandras large 1gb file transfering and test should excellent results.

    Still fiddling here, but i'm guessing that the intel raid controller and those drives giving hdtach exactly what they need.... and i don't doubt that the raid controller is most likely a fair bit better.
     

Share This Page

visited