Post your HDTach 3 Results!

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

  1. Ferret_Style

    Ferret_Style Bouncing off the Walls

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not sure how mine stacks up but using the intel based raid with 2 x 80gb SATA2 Seagate drives.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Ultrasonic2

    Ultrasonic2 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    after some testing i have decided that HD tach and h2benchw aren't good benchmarks for raid configs. at all ! As the best setup for the benchmarks ( 4-8k stripe size ) produced the worst real life performance. PCMark05 and MS bootvis seems to give a better real life measurement.

    MS Bootvis records my boot to the desktop time of 4.65 seconds ( at 128k stripe size ) at the moment
    PCMark05 xp startup is 16 mb ish

    i however get 253mb average with 4 seagate 7200.9 80gb drives .but to get that i have to turn off the cache, NCQ and have a stripe size of 4-8 k.. where as with bootvis, pcmark and battlefield 2 load times are best to have the cache and NCQ on with a stripe size of 128k . i might point out that the pc is faster in windows ( opening and close apps ) in this mode too
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2006
  3. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,591
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    138
    can you select 256kb striple size? that should produce even better results.

    ATM i'm still looking at getting a new motherboard and hoping to hell that perhaps 6 drives in raid 0 will be support with stripe sizes of at LEAST 256kb if not 1mb.
     
  4. Ultrasonic2

    Ultrasonic2 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no the largest i can use is 128k on my Asus A8N-SLI SE i also want to go to a AM2 cpu so i can use the 570 chipset on a Asus M2N-E board to run 6 disks . i dont know if i'll know notice much difference in performance over 4 disks though . ive looked into it and it doesn't look like i can run a larger than 128k stripe size on the M2N-E board

    i have considered buying an after maket raid controller which i think would produce better performce but it's alot more money i could buy three Asus M2N-E boards for the price of the RocketRAID 2320 though that would give you 8 disks

    im not sure increasing the strip size would make to much difference. i could have tested this on my old raid setup but not now with the largest size being 128k . the stripe size ( 4-128 ) does seem to make a bigger difference to performance with the more disks you have. i would love to see some PCmark xp startup with a bigger strip size though.


    i must say my disks are so quite and cool it's exellent

    i found this interesting, though it's only on 2 disks which doesn't make it relevant. as i also found with 2 disk the stripe sizes didn't make to much difference
    http://www.overclockers.com/articles1063/index02.asp
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2006
  5. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,591
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Well the more disks you throw into the mix, the larger your bandwidth increase substaially.

    It would also make more differences more obvious.
     
  6. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if what deathman20 has posted on #39 is also using a 128K stripe size, then this is the 2nd best example of a Intel onboard RAID's striped set that using a 128K with all of RAID array member drives were working evenly together and across the array which meets the basic idea of setting up a striped set. the more higher score that i can easily get it from this controller and drives all means nothing... when comparing to this value,
    and as far as i am concern this is the best striped set setups i can have from my existing hardwares/softwares which i find it's working and serving me quite well in the real-world applications and their performances.
    however, thing is i can only get this from using 4 drives which i'll have to leave a lot of free drive space that i'll ever need to use it, so as of now i reduce the member drives to 3 and will also checking with only 2 drives and may be with other hard drives models or firmwares when i have more free time to try it.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Ultrasonic2

    Ultrasonic2 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PangingJr when I also test my 4 disk arry with a 128k stripe size I get about half what I should in HD tach.with a 4k strip i get a 243mb average
    At the end of the day it’s a bad test it doesn’t read files on file system . Which is obvious as it can do a read test of the disk that has no data on it. Well that’s my opinion

    I have been looking into what the cluster size of the disk makes to performance.

    Ok this is my understanding of how strip / cluster size on 4 disks works.

    If the strip size is 128k that means that the total strip size of all disks is 512 ( 128 x512 ) not that this matters till we include the below
    Windows default cluster size is 512
    Any file smaller than 512k will take up one cluster of 512

    If we accept the above statements that means if we were to create a disk based on the above .
    And read a 1k file it would take up 512k on the disk(s) and therefore access all disk to retrieve the data .

    Where as if we used a cluster size of 64k ( 128 isn’t available ) when reading the 1k file it would only access one disk which would slightly decrease the access time and freeing up the other 3 disk for other i/o’s


    I haven’t tested small cluster sizes. has anyone else ?
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2006
  8. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,591
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    138
    every test i've ran with modified Windows NTFS cluster size variances has proven zero impact on the transfer rate or on raid systems mostly.

    Now Stripe(block) size while setting up the raid array is what we are looking at..

    i beleive i explained this above, but

    4 drives, Stripe size of 128kb, = 512kb of data across all 4 drives = 128kb block size per drive.

    256kb file = first 2 drives blocks filled, 2 other drives not, bandwidth used is 1/2 of it's potential, and leaving extra space on the other 2 drives (this is mostly fact + theory).

    1mb file = all 4 drives get 2 sets of 128kb blocks filled, full drive potential forfilled.

    The larger the file, the better, the larger the block/stripe size set (say 2mb vs 128kb) for large files, the better (as far as my tests have gone).

    Basically, the moment the block size is larger then the file being read/writen across all the drives correctly, that's when the performance gets seriously cut down.

    And being that we live in a world in which not all files are nice even 128kb/512kb/6mb files, the majority of the file will be evenly processed, while the last bits will leave voids in the raids drive setup.

    Plus this makes a HUGE impact if your raid controller doesn't handle things the most efficent way.
     
  9. Ultrasonic2

    Ultrasonic2 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    actually may last post was kind of wrong the default size is 512 bytes not 512k which means more than one cluster should fit in the stripe size .

    thanks for your posts
     
  10. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,591
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    138
    sorry i ment that as well.... i just leave windows to auto/default, i've just learnt to leave it the hell alone lol ;)
     
  11. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ultrasonic2,
    file system driver accesses files by their cluster number and is therefore unaware of any other information about the physical drive.
    file system is a different layer from physical drive access. increase NTFS cluster size... may affect (but not necessary increasing) "file system" performance and data accessibility at the operating system level, Not at the RAID controller's and physical hard drive device's drivers level.

    That said. and it sounds like the RAID stripe size and file system cluster size could hardly be matched.
    however, i'd say they will never be matched. i suggest you don't waste the time trying to match them,
    and just set your RAID's stripe size to controller's default/recommended value setting, leave file system's cluster size at the Windows default.
    Hopefully all systems will work at their optimum, try that, and i hope this helps.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2006
  12. Ultrasonic2

    Ultrasonic2 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PC Mark05

    These tests were done with PCMark05. Each stripe size was tested multiple times. The drives are Seagate 80 7200.9 SATA2 drive on a Asus A8N-SLI –SE ( Nvida Raid )

    4 DRIVES

    128k
    Score 7411
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 16.917234MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 6.744542MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 7.417566MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 72.196426MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 150.519882MB/s

    64k
    Score 7299
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 15.316092MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 6.382443MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 6.926970MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 72.399605MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 173.936325MB/s

    32k
    Score 4687
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 13.641394MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 5.688534MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 6.260658MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 10.369295MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 184.745605MB/s

    16k
    Score 7808
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 11.991607MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 5.822765MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 5.870546MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 129.009308MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 225.797699MB/s

    8k
    Score 7555
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 10.950196MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 5.872395MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 5.423572MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 128.713074MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 225.606461MB/s

    4k
    Score 7368
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 10.121690MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 5.795400MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 5.176408MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 135.871506MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 216.524231MB/s

    Windows software raid
    Score 7515
    HDD - XP Startup: 17.463575MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 6.236611MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 6.940607MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 84.266342MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 154.892548MB/s

    2 DRIVES

    128k
    Score 6357
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 11.625346MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 6.822273MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 6.300878MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 81.015060MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 105.548340MB/s

    16k
    Score 6480
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 9.711584MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 6.084504MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 5.423079MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 129.852493MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 113.021835MB/s

    4k
    Score 6419
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 8.877170MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 6.233236MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 5.121596MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 139.451736MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 113.449753MB/s

    1 Disk

    Score 5615
    Test set: HDD - XP Startup
    HDD - XP Startup: 9.030895MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Application Loading
    HDD - Application Loading: 6.645724MB/s
    Test set: HDD - General Usage
    HDD - General Usage: 5.169858MB/s
    Test set: HDD - Virus Scan
    HDD - Virus Scan: 103.591942MB/s
    Test set: HDD - File Write
    HDD - File Write: 71.458069MB/s


    it's a shame 128k is the max size as id love to test larger sizes
    Michael Dixon
     
  13. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    try some large and some of small files transfer, if your hardware can create more than 1 arrays... then copy files - 10-20GB of around 5-8 large files between RAID arrays or volumes. otherwish, if you can create only one array, then try copying files over partitions, but i'm not sure you'll be able to see the different more clearly. and then, about 10GB or so of a mixed small to mid-size files...
    also compress a number of files into a large file. and while doing that try using a timer program or something to time the tasks... on each and every processes. and different stripe size / number of arrays member drives...
     
  14. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,591
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    138
    it's kinda interesting to see that 128kb shows a good results, 64kb shows a not bad results and then 32kb shows a horrid result. And then 16kb showing insanely good results.... kinda messed up..
     
  15. bobbytomorow

    bobbytomorow Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still using a IDE Maxtor 7200rpm 8mb HDD. I know I need to upgrade =(

    [​IMG]

    edit: got a Barracuda 320gb 16mb NCQ sata2 HDD today:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2006
  16. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Got this new 500GB drive...

    WD 500GB SATA2 300MB/sec 7200RPM 16mb cache -WD5000KS Caviar SE16
    http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/wd-500s/index.x?pg=9

    [​IMG]





    Judas didn't you say you have like 4 or 5 Nforce4 Asus A8N-E mobos and you couldn't get 300MB/s SATA to work because of corruption or something? Or did you install the SATA drivers or something?

    With that burst speed doesn't that pretty much mean 300MB/sec is working? Everything seems to be working-- no Nvidia IDE or SATA drivers installed
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2006
  17. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,591
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    138
    check these out... not much different then the 4x 160gb 8mb cache sata 2 maxtor drives i had..

    [​IMG]
     
  18. The Byter

    The Byter New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi

    I use Intel badaxe with ICH7R and I have a little problem with my raid0, I use WD80JD SATA2 8MB.

    1x80JD = 53MB/sec~
    2x80JD = 100MB/sec~
    3x80JD = 123MB/sec~
    4x80JD = 160MB/sec~

    128KB strip.

    what gives ?

    btw same numbers with hitachi drives and ICH8...

    I want 200MB/sec~ from raid0 !
     
  19. The Byter

    The Byter New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    16K stripe

    [​IMG]
     
  20. PangingJr

    PangingJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    6 X Seagate 80 GB hard drives in RAID 0 (128K strip size).

    Motherboard Gigabyte P35-DS4 Intel P35 + ICH9R chipsets, comes with Intel Matrix Storage Manager Option ROM version 7.5.0.1017 with RAID 5,
    System processor E6300, System memory DDR2-1066, both processor and memory at default clock speed and timings (BIOS settings for AUTO detection mode).

    Vista is installed by using a partition image that was created from a 965P+ICH8R installation, i has already included in the image, both Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility 8.3.0.1013 and Intel Matrix Storage Manager 7.5.0.1017 which are both made for supporting the new Intel P35 + ICH9R chipsets.


    Volume Write-Back Cache: Enabled
    [​IMG]

    Volume Write-Back Cache: Disabled
    [​IMG]

    ============================================

    and these results were from the first time that i tried to play with the new Intel Matrix Storage Manager OROM 7.5.0.1017,
    2 RAID volumes was created, the below was from the first volume which is used only 65 GB of the space available,
    Windows XP, also installed from an old partition image that was created from a 965P+ICH8R installation...

    Volume Write-Back Cache: Enabled
    [​IMG]

    Volume Write-Back Cache: Disabled
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2007

Share This Page

visited