your HD tune results?

[DataMatrix]

RAID 5 with write-through cache setting.

[Supershanks]

That looks 8~10mb./sec faster than your earlier result is that the quick or long bench??

[DataMatrix]

That looks 8~10mb./sec faster than your earlier result is that the quick or long bench??

Quick, I'll do the long one now.

[DataMatrix]

Here is the long one.

[Supershanks]

Here is the long one.

Better yet 117.5Mb/S to 133.9Mb/S

[Magnets]

My HDtach results for my old WD drive, and my current seagate 320gb, 7200.10


HDtune for the seagate.

[Magnets]

Here's my two seagete 7200.10's in raid 0:

writeback cache off

and raid1

[Supershanks]

Nice results Magnets,
Interesting comparing your single 320 v your raid1 results. You have farly closely the same performance but with the added surety of the raid1 redundancy/backup. Nice

Does it feel more responsive??

[Magnets]

Nice results Magnets,
Interesting comparing your single 320 v your raid1 results. You have farly closely the same performance but with the added surety of the raid1 redundancy/backup. Nice

Does it feel more responsive??

I upgraded my whole PC (from athlon 3000, 512 RAM) to an e6420 and 2GB of DDR25400.

So i can't really say that raid 1 is faster/slower, but knowing that if one HDD dies i won't be up the creek is nice.

I will re-run the test on raid1 in a bit, and see if it's much different.

edit:
about the same

[Supershanks]

I upgraded my whole PC (from athlon 3000, 512 RAM) to an e6420 and 2GB of DDR25400

Sorry hadn't realised

but knowing that if one HDD dies i won't be up the creek is nice.

Sure but i'd be inclined to test recovery so that you have some reassurance it works, before changing your backup strategy. Nothing worse than getting a few months down the line & something goes wrong & you find that it doesn't work.

[Clunk]

Any idea why HDTach and HDTune show very different results?

[DataMatrix]

Any idea why HDTach and HDTune show very different results?

WOW! Nice results, I'm not too sure about the RAID 0 array though...

[Supershanks]

My Bench comparison
Access time & cpu load asre close but average read is 236.2 v 204.1 Mb/S HDTunes Max Read of 222.8 is still below the average for HDTach. So I guess HD Tach may be suspect.

[Clunk]

WOW! Nice results, I'm not too sure about the RAID 0 array though...

It will be RAID 5 when its done, I just wanted to see what it could do, and why the programs were showing such different speeds.

My Bench comparison
Access time & cpu load asre close but average read is 236.2 v 204.1 Mb/S HDTunes Max Read of 222.8 is still below the average for HDTach. So I guess HD Tach may be suspect.

How come yours is showing 3185mb/sec for burst speed? How many drives is that with?

[Supershanks]

4x80gb raid0 1st volume 72gb.
burst rate is a controversial figure. intel have been acciused of cooking it. It does seem to be seriously distorted by write back cache.

[Clunk]

Theres a newer version of hdtach than we are using, so that might be worth a look.

Results are identical on the long test for me.