Guest Eugene

Western Digital Raptor WD1500

Recommended Posts

That last graph deals with I/O of the drives, but what about transfer speeds of those setups. Has there been any testing on that?

Edited by statepkt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! I asked WD about the differences of the two versions and i'm not sure what it means that they said to me. Maybe there really is some difference, or they are not saying the truth.

Q: "I'm interested in the new Raptor drives, and would like to know if there is any difference between the two models (except for the look). I mean is the Raptor X better optimised for deskop computers or is there no difference in the firmware?"

A: "Both the new 150 gig raptors have 16 MB of cache, NCQ, 1.5 Gigabits/ Second transfer rate, and a 4.6 ms seek time, and the same firmware. But the WD1500ADFD is the Enterprise version of the new Raptor, for use in RAID, servers, workstations and enterprise storage. It is optimized for use 24/7 and includes the RAFF technology. The Raptor X, clear cover, Gamer version is the other one. It does not have RAFF and is for use in desktops for fast performance. It is the WD1500AHFD."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this new 150GB 10K Raptor 16MB cache drive being installed today in a new Hypersonic Fusion XGL workstation as the boot drive along with a pair of 500GB Seagate Sata-II NCQ 16GB cache drives (Raid 1). The builder advises the NCQ cannot be switched off. As a single desktop user I agree with your position in the article. How do I turn of the NCQ?

Great article!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just wondering whether the new raptors will differ in firmware like the older raptors do(i.e. 00FLA1 & 00FLC0)??

i have a 36gig raptor w/00FLC0, does that mean it performes better than the older version(00FNA1)??

it'd be nice if you could include the 36gig raptor w/00FLC0 in the future for comparisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That last graph deals with I/O of the drives, but what about transfer speeds of those setups. Has there been any testing on that?

Transfer rates are not particularly relevant to performance. The most use a transfer rate test can offer is as a tool for distinguishing platter sizes between capacity revisions of a drive line.

just wondering whether the new raptors will differ in firmware like the older raptors do(i.e. 00FLA1 & 00FLC0)??

i have a 36gig raptor w/00FLC0, does that mean it performes better than the older version(00FNA1)??

it'd be nice if you could include the 36gig raptor w/00FLC0 in the future for comparisons.

Over the lifetime of the drive it is a certainty that the firmware will be modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with Sil3112 and two WD740GD in RAID-0. I want to get a single WD1500 instead. This is because the perfomance will be comparable for my usage pattern, and to allow my daily Norton Ghost backups to be restorable to any other single drive. Do you think the performance of the drive will be significantly different with a newer controller (like Sil3124 or NVRAID) on a newer motherboard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I turn off the NCQ? Workstation builder says it can't be turned off.

Mine is being installed in a new Hypersonic Fusion GXL workstation now.

Edited by GBelter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, :)

Maximum transfer rate of about 81MB/s not much high for me actually! It probably can give upto 60MB/s average read. If we assume that, there is no possibility of RAID for desktop systems, it might be the fastest drive for 'Single Drive' systems for a good fortune of money. But, a basic PATA RAID system by two 80GB 2MB cache 7200 drive, (by Seagate, WDC, Maxtor, Hitachi or Samsung no matter, currently available drives sold at the market!) gives upto 115MB/s maximum and 80MB/s average read for a budget & bargain system. You can get a little more space, with 1,33 faster average read, but half the price of a single 150GB WDC, compared with 2x80GB 2MB cache drives (as I have mentioned, HDD brand is not much important here!) including RAID 133 Card (by Promise, High Point or Silicon Intgrated Systems PCI cards from PATA connection or SATA as well etc.)

:lol: I mean, it is not so much fast, 4x expensive, not the only solution for a fast desktop. It is a good development with it's shiney window that I must say. (But I prefer mixed color of flashing led's inside the drive! Why not like ordinary 8, 9 or 12cm fans... hopefully guite sooner!)

;) If you really deserve it, it is logical to use them with SATA 300 system with RAID configuration. At that time it may reach maximum transfer rate of over 150MB/s, and average 120MB/s compared with RAID SATA 150 tranfer rate. But, using 2x150GB WDC may probably give maximum %10 performance gain over using it on a RAID SATA 150 system. For some, %10 is very important as you know! Another good thing is MTBF 1.2 Million hours.

B) Actually I have a PATA RAID system on a Digitus PCI RAID Card with Silicon Integrated Systems chip with 2xWDC 2500SB on a PCI bus with MTBF 1 Million hours. I have about 125MB/s maximum transfer rate with 90MB/s average read. NEW drive with RAID configuration is 1,33 faster than my current RAID system, but 0,6/1 of my total capacity with 2x expensive price! I do not want to critize the capacity and the price, everyone knows them. Results are obviously clear. Although, the current speeds are not too big, there is very little time left for PATA drives, SATA 300 is on the New Autoban. Of course sooner or later, it will achieve better results with more speedy future drive units. I think, Windows Vista will really deserve RAID configurations to run marginally between 2006 to 2010 period. I like to see the achievement of HDD units, as well as new software. Hope you all a happy new year with Windows Vista soon.... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
snip

I think you fail to realize how little STR matters in APPLICATION-LEVEL performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading reactions to the reivew around the net has been quite interesting.

...

Twice the price of a 74GB? For that much money I could get 2 WD740GDs and RAID them for much better performance!!

Wrong. Here's a look at how two RAIDed configurations of the WD740GD on a basic RAID controller compare vs. a single WD1500ADFD:

WD1500VsWD740RAID.png

These figures were drawn from a large database of results compiled in perparation for a future article that will examine the performance of the WD740GD, the Seagate NL35, and the WD4000YR in multidrive configurations operating off of three separate RAID controllers. As demonstrated above, even a four-drive RAID0 array matches the WD1500 in only one out of five cases.

Eugene,

How do you respond to GamePC.com's recent Raptor 150 review, where they show that a dual, triple, or quad RAID0 array of WD740GD's beats a single Raptor. They used the highly respected Areca 1220 PCIexpress card. I assume you used a Silicon Image SATA card? How do you think the nForce4 RAID would fare?

rev-raptor150raid-iometerws.gif

Thanks,

shoek

Edited by shoek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,

Some people have wanted to know the performance of the WD1500ADFD (enterprise version as tested by Storage Review) in a RAID 0 configuration, and understandably so. I was curious, too. So I bought two of them and hooked them up. After reading Eugene's excellent and thorough review, I was darn sure going to buy at least one to give me higher performance running professional flight-simulation and media-editing software. I built the array using my motherboard's built-in nvraid controller.

The platform is built around an Asus A8N-SLI Rev. 1.02 motherboard (the vanilla version) with an AMD 64 3800+ Venice core processor, overclocked to 215MHz X 12 (2.58 GHz over 2.4 standard, and very stable.)

2 gigs of Corsair XMS Twinx-3200C2PT DDR400 RAM @ CAS 2.5, 3-2-3-8, 1T

EVGA 7800GTX 512 card in the PCIe-X16 slot, no SLI, no tweaking

Two WD1500ADFDs in RAID 0 with 128KB data-block size and NCQ (formatted in NTFS to 279GB).

Single WD2500JS 250GB SATA II as backup drive

Enermax Noisetaker 600-watt power supply

Windows XP Home SP2 (yeah, I know ... but I'm waiting for Vista!)

All drivers (chipset, video, nvraid) are latest non-beta versions from nvidia.

I tested several times using Sisoft Sandra Lite 2005 SR.3 free version and got remarkably similar results each time. SiSoft Sandra uses a 2GB file for benchmarking. Block size is 1MB and I/O que depth is 4 requests. While this is nowhere near as good for benchmarking as Storage Review's tools, and the results are not comparable as they don't include I/O benchmark sets, it should give some idea what this drive is capable of. All results include NCQ. I don't yet know how to disable it. And I honestly don't know if TLER is enabled. I'm assuming not, based on Storage Review's article.

Here we go:

Overall score: 128 MB/Second

Buffered read: 260 MB/S

Sequential read: 170 MB/S

Random read: 59 MB/S

Buffered write: 176 MB/S

Sequential write: 168 MB/S

Random write: 89 MB/S

Average access time: 11ms

Other observations: The only SATA configuration faster for overall score in SiSoft's database is four 36GB Raptors in RAID 0.

These drives are, as reported, extremely quiet. I have a high-quality all-aluminum case, but it doesn't have any special noise-reduction features for the drives, such as rubber mount grommets, etc. The drives are mounted in the front drive cage, where they're cooled by a 120mm fan an inch away, using good ol' metal screws. I can barely hear them even when they're being benchmarked. In fact, that's about the only time I can hear them at all, and my case is about 2.5 feet away, next to my computer desk. They have to really crunch to be heard over the video card and processor cooling systems, and my computer overall is nearly silent.

They have been running constantly for two days without a hiccup.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Anyone who uses the nvraid controller might run into the same problem I did, namely that the nvraid service can conflict with Windows XP. I simply disabled nvraid service using msconfig. (Plenty of tools are still available, such as nvidia Raid Manager, etc.) I observed no deterioration in performance.

Honestly, doing what I've done is overkill for most people. Just one of these drives coupled with a large backup drive would be more than sufficient. But if you're using applications that load huge files frequently, they may just be worth your money. I found these readily available at my favorite online store for $289 each, OEM.

And let me add this: I would probably have been quite happy buying two additional WD2500JS SATA IIs for less than $200 total and configuring them in RAID 0 with the third as a backup. The performance would certainly have been good enough, and for $400 less! (For my money, the new JS is a fantastic drive. Highly recommended.) Still, I like to have the best performance possible within a certain price curve (I'm not shelling out $790 for an dual-core 4800+, much as I'd like one), so I'm deliriously happy with the two Raptors, and I don't find the price objectionable given the performance gains in massive applications.

Hope this post satisfies some curiosity. The bottom line is that the WD1500ADFD appears to be an excellent, surprisingly quiet and stable drive. If I have problems, I'll report them here.

Happy hunting!

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks JLN for the posting. We need some comparisons with different controllers, like the popular NVRAID, Sil3124, and Sil3112. I've read reviews of other drives where the controller made a big difference. While you're at it, why don't you post the Sandra benchmark of the single WD2500JS 250GB SATA II backup drive too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're quite welcome.

I'll be happy to benchmark and post the scores for the single WD2500. I can tell you, though, at $100, it's a steal.

John

Thanks JLN for the posting. We need some comparisons with different controllers, like the popular NVRAID, Sil3124, and Sil3112. I've read reviews of other drives where the controller made a big difference. While you're at it, why don't you post the Sandra benchmark of the single WD2500JS 250GB SATA II backup drive too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow! I'm not sure what to make of that. We could have different options in the modules, or perhaps you just have a much faster system overall. Or MAYBE disabling the nvraid service made a huge difference, benchmark-wise, that I can't detect in real-world use.

It also could be that your RAID controller is faster/better than nvraid. I do believe that platter size makes a difference, btw.

At any rate, those are some impressive numbers.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
Eugene,

How do you respond to GamePC.com's recent Raptor 150 review, where they show that a dual, triple, or quad RAID0 array of WD740GD's beats a single Raptor. They used the highly respected Areca 1220 PCIexpress card. I assume you used a Silicon Image SATA card? How do you think the nForce4 RAID would fare?

You've linked to IOMeter (a multi-user benchmark) results found at GamePC and imply that they somehow contradict the SR DriveMarks (a single-user benchmark).

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but IOMeter results are not representative of non-server performance. I highly suggest rereading the sidebar found at the bottom of this page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by TechNet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've linked to IOMeter (a multi-user benchmark) results found at GamePC and imply that they somehow contradict the SR DriveMarks (a single-user benchmark).

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but IOMeter results are not representative of non-server performance. I highly suggest rereading the sidebar found at the bottom of this page.

If IOMeter's workstation pattern doesn't float your boat, pick any of the other benchmarks in the GamePC review, such as DiskBench or HDTach.

Regardless of the benchmark, their conclusion is the same... 2+ Raptor 74's beat a single Raptor 150. The original question still stands... why do you think these benchmarks seem to contradict those of SR? Attribute it to the high-end controller? Blame it on the benchmarks or methodology not being as sound as those that SR uses?

Thanks in advance for answering my question.

shoek

PS: a tangent.. why do they call it the "workstation" pattern in IOMeter if it should only be used to measure "server" performance? A machine that heavily multitasks on, say, software development for the FEA application market, is not representative of the "workstation" that IOMeter attempts to model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
If IOMeter's workstation pattern doesn't float your boat, pick any of the other benchmarks in the GamePC review, such as DiskBench or HDTach.

These benchmarks are lower-level. As warned by the sidebar at the end of this page, one should not assume that low-level diagnostics equal application benchmarks.

PS: a tangent.. why do they call it the "workstation" pattern in IOMeter if it should only be used to measure "server" performance? A machine that heavily multitasks on, say, software development for the FEA application market, is not representative of the "workstation" that IOMeter attempts to model?

Have you any idea who "they" really is when it comes to the IOMeter "Workstation" pattern? As outlined here, I invented the IOMeter workstation pattern back in March of 2000. It was not and is not a formal pattern defined either by Intel or the current Sourceforge IOMeter project maintainers. It was, unfortunately, a flawed and ill-fated attempt to try and shoehorn IOMeter into measuring something that by definition it can not. I formally recanted and admitted this error in November of 2001. Unfortunately, many sites still use this flawed pattern despite my retraction and explanation.

Thanks in advance for answering my question.

So, once again:

1) The creator of the IOMeter Workstation pattern has publicly admitted that it does not measure single-user performance.

2) DiskBench and HDTach measure low-level performance, not application-level performance.

Does this answer your question? The sidebars on page three and page six were written to address readers with concerns such as yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, <_<

I have a typing problem for the Sil0680ACL144 chip. The chip I have on Digitus PATA RAID controller is not from 'Silicon Integrated Systems', it is by 'Silicon Image!' Sorry, for that! :huh:

I know the therotical limits of both PATA 133 and SATA 150 and Sata 300. For high bandwith, SATA is good to use on 9xx chipsets by Intel. With 8xx chipset, SATA has NO significant advantage!

I have given a comparison with 1xWDC 1500 Raptor and 2xWDC2500SB by saying 2x expensive but 1,5 times slower!

And also, 1xWDC 1500 Raptor is not faster compared with a basic RAID system with 2x80GB 2x2MB cache by any kind of current market drive, but 4x expensive including the RAID card!

Another problem of so called 10000rpm drives by any kind of manutacturer(s) including SCSI ones, is the diameter of the 'inside disc' problem. WDC1500 Raptor's discs are SMALLER than 7200rpm desktop drive disks! That makes, run over exterior disk surface 'speed on pass' problem, which means, 10000 / 7200 = 1,38 - lower disk diameter = about 1,2 times maximum only actual rotational difference! It causes storage decrease + 1 head more for same storage cost by the manufacturer, (so we are paying for the extra cost!). Why not making them by same 7200rpm disks? are a technical problem. This makes 10000rpm drives roughly 8600rpm drive. Do not forget! Read process starts by the outer side of the disk(s)! ;)

We have reached to the end of PATA interface on 133MB's. NEWER drives can not give SO MUCH Brilliant performance because eventually there is no higer transfer rate than the actual limit of 120MB's by ATA133 controller and this effects average read performance negatively!

I want to add one more thing, WDC1500 Raptor is designed for desktops but NOT for 7/24 critical NEARLINE usage. One can make a RAID chain by WDC1500 Raptor, but the 7/24 drives has bios support for every 7 seconds write check. SB and JB drives has not much phisycal difference actually. I have examined one WDC1200JB with WDC2500SB and only seen, 1 single capacitor extra, on C39 place near the biggest WD70C26 controller chip. So the dependancy work is done by SOFTWARE, rather than the HARDWARE! Probably adding a capacitor to that C39 place and firmware flashing can make a JB, SB drive! :rolleyes:

Good luck for all, enjoy spinning drives for speed! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't me who challenged Eugene. Some other guy on here who was comparing his review to one in GamePC.

I hope I didn't come across as challenging Eugene. I respect the work that he's done over the years here at SR, and I was curious to know how he'd respond to another review of this drive where the results seemed to contradict his (specifically in the area of multiple Raptor 74's in RAID0 versus a single Raptor 150). He does appear from his responses to be a bit intolerant of questions like these (or at the very least exasperated by them), so I may be wary to post similar questions in the future...

To summarize, his response was that the benchmarks used in that review are too low-level to draw conclusions about preceived performance, and the benchmarks SR uses model that better so the results are not necessarily contradictory. One drive or array can have higher low-level benchmarks than another, but perceived performance running "real world" applications may actually be lower.

Like most of us here, I have an interest in storage devices and their performance but it is not my full time job and of course I don't have a web site dedicated to it. I try to read as much possible here but missed the saga of IOMeter and Eugene's history with that benchmark. I must have been distracted in November of 2001 to have missed that...

Cheers!

shoek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eugene (or other folks with knowledge),

Do you think it would be advantageous for me to build my RAID array on smaller data-block sizes than 128KB? Maybe 64?

This would be for single-user performance, working primarily with large files but also using a lot of Office applications.

JLN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JLN: check out SR's stripe size FAQ.

More generally, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with challenging Eugene. Other review sites ought to know better than to use IOMeter for workstation results, and I think that's possibly what may have exasperated Eugene, not the fact that shoek was asking about it. It's in the FAQ list, but most people won't look in the FAQs unless they expect the answer to be there.

It helps to raise the issue now and again, because maybe then some more of the sites that misuse it will see the error of their ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now