Here ya go... Ignore CPU usasge since the RAID0 test was done with a stock E7200 and the RAID5 test was done with a 3.6ghz quad...
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8386/hdtachzg7.png
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4290/r5pj8.jpg
Printable View
Here ya go... Ignore CPU usasge since the RAID0 test was done with a stock E7200 and the RAID5 test was done with a 3.6ghz quad...
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8386/hdtachzg7.png
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4290/r5pj8.jpg
Are you kidding?
With those speeds, I'd RAID5 a HTPC build I'm looking at putting together soon but the problem is that the case I'm looking at only has 2 HDD bays, the external 5 1/4 bays will all be used up so that's a no-go at the moment.
Nice speeds, hey?
Very nice, how many hard drives & what hard drives were used?
I'm presuming SIM used 3 HDD's, these being either the Samsung 1Tb F1's or the Samsung 320Gb F1's. Well that's what he's been buying recently if you look in some of his threads. He'll be along soon to correct me if I'm wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig321
gee thats quick! i was going to just re-raid0 my 2x 200gb 7200.10's when i upgrade my pc but the performance is nowhere near that level... maybe its hdd upgrade time too :(
They are single platter 320gb F1s :)
what raid card / controller are you using?
Something not right with the RAID 5 results as three 320GB in that RAID should be 640GB.
When testing RAID 5 write speed is more important.
If you write more than read yes...but most of the time your reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lourdes
Using onboard intel matrix raid... Hardware raid would be much more impressive...
I only made the array 200gb big, but there are 3x320gb there...
Were you using your computer at the time?.. there's some inconsistencies with throughput. Or Vista indexing perhaps.
I was not using computer... If I re-run the test I do get a the dips in different places... so I guess its VistaQuote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt