TechNet

Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TechNet

  • Rank
    Member
  1. 1. For the things that RAID 0 helps with, i.e. STR heavy tasks, then yes, 4 drives are better than two (though often limited by the bandwidth to the SATA controller. As seen above, this STR advantage can easily be matched or exceeded by using a drive with better firmware or a bigger cache when it comes to real world applications. Some benchmarks give too much importance to STR in the overall scheme of performance. STR benchmarks are the obvious example, giving no consideration to cache, access time or firmware optimisations. That's why SR benchmarks drives using recorded (and thus repeatable) traces of real applications. As you can see from Eugene's results, if you increase STR while keeping everything else constant, you (usually) get an improvement. By using a single drive with lower STR, similar access times but with major improvements in firmware and cache, the improvement by increasing STR alone is surpassed. That should give you some perspective on the relative importance of STR - it helps, but not that much. 2. The maximum STR of an individual Raptor 150 GB is under 100 MB/s. Since each SATA drive has its own dedicated link to the controller, and that link has a bandwidth of 150 MB/s, the link to the drive will never be a bottleneck no matter how many drives you have. (As long as you're not using port multipliers to run several drives off one connection to the controller. But you'd know if you were.) With SATA, it's the bandwidth to the SATA controller that will limit STR from a RAID 0 array - anything not integrated into the chipset itself will be limited to the bandwidth of the PCI bus, usually about 120-130 MB/s. You were probably thinking of PATA, where two drives might share the same cable (channel), so if you didn't have enough PATA channels free to give each drive its own cable (channel), then two drives had to share the bandwidth of one channel (up to 133 MB/s for ATA133). So, basically, I stand with Eugene on this one. But I'm glad you challenged him - it's important to question any authority if you suspect that it is misleading you. I hope we've reinforced your trust in SR's benchmarks and opinions, but even if not, thanks for giving us the opportunity to try.* * I should point out that I don't represent Eugene or SR at all. That last sentence was a bit ambiguous, and I don't want to give the wrong impression. Hi Spod It wasn't me who challenged Eugene. Some other guy on here who was comparing his review to one in GamePC. My comments were almost off topic to be honest and was a discussion on benchmarking with JLN.
  2. JLN I reckon the extra drive in my RAID0 array makes a big difference also, which is apparent in Eugene's benchmarks when he tested the WD1500. Can't work out why WDC restricted the controller interface to just 1.5Gb/s instead of 3.0Gb/s as it does make a difference when the drives are RAID'd
  3. I have 3 x Seagate 7200.9 160Gb drives in a RAID0 hanging off a standard Intel ICH7R controller in a Shuttle SD31P. Drives are full SATAII with 3.0Gb/s interfaces, 8Mb cache and NCQ. These are dirt cheap £60 drives which have 1 x 160Gb platter in each unit which I chose due to their low temperature characteristics, which suit a Shuttle PC. Using the same SiSandra version as you have my benchmarks are in a different league I'm afraid which either indicates that SiSandra is rubbish for becnhmarks or platter size makes a difference. SiSoftware Sandra Benchmark Results Drive Index : 159 MB/s Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better. Performance Test Status Run ID : SHUTTLE on 16 January 2006 at 19:57:29 SMP Test : No Total Test Threads : 1 SMT Test : No Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No Processor Affinity : No Operating System Disk Cache Used : No Use Overlapped I/O : Yes IO Queue Depth : 4 request(s) Test File Size : 2GB File Fragments : 1 Block Size : 1MB File Server Optimised : No Benchmark Breakdown Buffered Read : 428 MB/s Sequential Read : 210 MB/s Random Read : 88 MB/s Buffered Write : 306 MB/s Sequential Write : 196 MB/s Random Write : 90 MB/s Average Access Time : 7 ms (estimated)
  4. I have an ongoing support/pre-sales call with WD regarding this drive and the WD4000YR and they are saying these is no such utility to disable/enable TLER. Very confused now!!
  5. Good post mate. Furthermore I have just checked trade prices in the UK for the 1500 and they are only 60% more than the 740 coming in around £167+vat. Was hoping in an earlier post you could shed some light on this TLER utility for me
  6. Great review Eugene. In the review you mentioned :- "This time around, thankfully, TLER ships disabled by default and may be enabled via a utility for installations that would benefit from the feature." How much do you know about this utility, where is can be downloaded from, can it be used to disable TLER on the RE2 drive etc. etc. Any help would be much appreciated as I have some RE2 drives I would like to turn TLER off.
  7. Eugene I did ask earlier but you may have missed it. How did you turn off NCQ on the drive? Was it a specific utility you have?
  8. Hi What tool did you turn off NCQ on these drives with? Cheers Paul