Post your HDTach 3 Results!

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

  1. nicnik

    nicnik In the Land of Snow

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i guess the strip size depends on what u do. I'll maybe give 64k size a go some day, but right now raid-0 16k strip size is giving me increased speed in most of the things i use my hd for.
     
  2. Retarp

    Retarp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2x WD2500YD 250Gig 16M cache western digital caviar re RAID 0 32k strip


    I think they should go faster, probably just the raid controler is lousy.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,220
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    138
    yeah i think the uli isn't bad.. but it's not top preforming....

    I'd still like to see Abit or other company get ahold of HighPoint Technologies chipsets... they are the fastest i've ever seen.
     
  4. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    8K/16K stripe sizes work best with benchmarking tools, but it might be misleading.
    the benchmark results could be just the hard drive's and controller's raw performance capabilites,
    but a poor indication of real-world system performance.

    128K or 64K strip sizes for RAID0 is usually recommended or set as default on the onboard controllers,
    but anyway, the best strip size for each system is really based on and depends on the panned drive usage.

    best benchmark results, but poor real-world system performance.
    [/img]http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/4907/4xr0poorperformance4kc.png[/img]
     
  5. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i just finished setup RAID0 and Windows's on another machine and i just found that with the new Intel Matrix Storage Manager Console 5.7 and RAID AHCI Software 5.7.0.1011 (both 32-bit/64-bit versions) i can enable "Volume Write Back Cache" under RAID0.

    according to the help file (see below) i can only enable this option in RAID5 only,
    so i don't know what's going to be because this is my first time using the option on RAID0.

    but i noticed quite an improvement in both the real-world applications test and HD Tach figures (for some reason it shows a very high burst speed, but i've never seen this high score when using the largest available stripe size before).

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Long bench
    [​IMG]

    Quick bench
    [/img]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9164/2006052623fc.png[/img]

    Intel Matrix Storage Manager Help (\Program Files\Intel\Intel Matrix Storage Manager\Shell_ENU.html)

    Glossary

    Volume Write Back Cache: This is used with RAID 5 only. The Write-Back Cache feature is supported by the Intel Matrix Storage Manager driver to enhance read/write performance of a RAID 5 array.

    Multiple I/O requests from the host are grouped into fewer requests and written from the cache to the volumes at defined intervals. The Write Back Cache can be enabled or disabled at any time without the need to reboot the system.

    Hard Drive Write Cache: A cache memory within a hard drive, which temporarily stores data before that data is copied to non-volatile storage.
     
  6. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,220
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    138
    that's one hell of a burst speed rotfl...
     
  7. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    3x 80 GB RAID0 gets about same burst speed results. applications test very responsive, but a bit high CPU utilization on some tasks...

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    that was a 128K stripe size results... the graph looks just like a single hard drive.

    3 drives RAID0 on the Intel onboard SATA raid controller works just great (2x RAID0 is quite fast already)
    i think all the Intel ICH7R/DH has 4 SATA ports (631xESB/632xESB supports 6 SATA ports), so leave the last port for a backup drive.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2006
  8. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,220
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    138
    or throw in another 80gb for even faster results? ;)

    seriously nice results

    can you set a stripe size larger then 128k?
     
  9. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    nope. as of now 128K is the limit on the Intel RAID OROM and driver for the onboard controller, i think.
     
  10. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    here's 4x RAID0 128K stripe size...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2006
  11. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,220
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    138
    yah ahahaa..

    now that's a steller disk preformance..


    just to bad that nearing the ned.. it realy starts to drop off.
     
  12. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well i think that was the best i can do with this onboard Intel firmware/hardware raid controller, it's just a cheap raid solution, no addition cost just some hard drives. i'm sure i should see a big improvement in real-world raid performance with these seagate low-cost drives under a good SATA raid card that have its own onboard CPU and memory.
     
  13. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,220
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    138
    imo, aside from the cpu usage being roughly 10%.... i still think those are excellent results reguardless of a dedicated raid controller or not.. (isn't it using the southbridge which includes the raid controller?)

    IMO Panging, i still think the best raid controller is the Highpoint tech.
     
  14. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the Intel onboard SATA raid controller is not a hardware raid, it's a firmware raid, well it's more like partly software-based and partly hardware-based raid solutions.
    but i really don't need to have a real good raid performance, just wanted to add some disk performance to all the systems that i have.
    the idea was began after a friend of mine have asked me to make some OS image files for him. as i see that i can get these drives at a very low price, so i just add 1 or 2 more hard drives to set up a raid volume on the systems that already have an onboard SATA raid motherboards, i plan to use just maybe one or two systems that still use AHCI with no raid, since these two systems have been set up from the beginning without a complete raid-ready but AHCI only.

    about the Highpoint tech, you did not tell me what model?
    Areca Technology ARC-12xx, AMCC/3ware 9500S/9550SX, HighPoint RocketRAID 23xx...
    these are a good ones but it cost a lot more just one of this raid card alone...
     
  15. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,220
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    138
    well i'm really used to the IDE ones actually. But i've seen some pretty steller results from the Highpoint SATA raid controllers..

    I just miss having the highpoints onboard raid controllers..

    It sat aside byitself on the motherboards with all the little components (example would be the Abit boards that were not only the first to feature raid but ATA100 spec and ATA133 via the Highpoint tech controllers)

    Such boards include the very first HT360 ATA100 Abit KA7-100 and following some of the athlon and intel socket boards from ATI that were considered "more high end" that included the via/intel/sis ide solutions and also the 2 extra IDE channels from highpoint... (up to 8 IDE devices per board, which i ran quite a setup at the time)

    I've email Abit and several other board makers about the chipsets that highpoint have produces and asked if they had ever considered them and what they figure needs attention before they would consider using them. Abit responded stating that they had been in talks with highpoint with there sata controllers... but never got any further then that, Asus however hadn't really heard much about them and thanked me for providing links and information on them (which i find highly unlikely or untrue).

    I just remember with 2 30gb maxtor 2mb cache 7200rpm drives that were poor performers (cheap though) pulled of one hell of a steller result... with sub 1% cpu usage with the onboard Highpoint. (which was unheard of) and sustained very excellent bursts and high read/write results.
     
  16. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i think those highpoint raid card was also a firmware raid. i used to use and have many PCI raid cards in the past years.

    as for SATA raid, the better SATA raid the ones that is consider as a real hardware-based SATA raid must have its own CPU and memeory.
    a good hardware-based SATA raid is supposed to give you the overall system performance, not just disk performance but sometimes you still see the system is lacking in some tasks...
     
  17. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,220
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    138
    i'm waiting on a true PCI-ex set of cards to be released (sound/network/raid/various others) as the PCI bus just is to damn slow imo.
     
  18. zanzabae

    zanzabae New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    u guys need to run the long test so u cant cheat with small blocks and get results closser to real use
     
  19. deathman20

    deathman20 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Had sign up and post my results after seeing this thread.

    [​IMG]

    Top Imaged are without Write-Back Cache Enabled and the bottome 2 Images are with it enabled. The smaller voulme of couse is my OS/Apps and the larger is my data storage.

    Gotta love 3x 320Gig Perp drives.
     
  20. Teme

    Teme Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Nice :drool: :drool: :drool:
     

Share This Page

visited