6_6_6

NCQ: Best Upgrade For a Power User!

Recommended Posts

For what? Did you read this topic at all? It doesnt matter in linux. All perform equally. I concluded 1 year ago on 2nd page that it does not matter and i will not test any drives on linux.

I spent almost ONE FULL DAY to test 4 drives for EVERYBODY. I didn't do this for my own. I am using this system and I know how each drive is performing for me. And now you are confusing everybody.

6_6_6 =>

I don't have any Windows installation. And as I said, I trust your results. The only thing I was asking was experiences of Barracuda 7200.12 and Caviar Black in this topic.

Okay, an old (4+ years i believe) 320GB WD Caviar:

Windows:

63 MB/s: 1 instance

28 MB/s: 2 instances (both at 0% position)

9 MB/s: 2 instances (0% position and 90% position)

15 MB/s: 10 instances (10% gap between each)

Linux:

63 MB/s: 1 instance

63 MB/s: 2 instances (both at 0% position)

45 MB/s: 2 instances (0% position and 90% position)

48 MB/s: 10 instances (10% gap between each)

Linux, stock install of Fedora 9 x64 (2.4.25 kernel).

Linux commands issued:

dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=256K skip=200K (skip was incremented by 200K each instance which corresponds to about 50GB forward in this 320GB drive)

all dd invocations started at the same time (batch).

throughput measured with:

iostat -m 1 /dev/sdb (m shows in megabytes, 1 is the update interval of graph every second)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have teh exact configuration (still have, on 1st post reference) like you do -- only diff 2008 Server x64. How is the experience? Forget the benchmarks. Can you do multiple operations on the system without problem with any of these drives?

How good that I found this thread, I am really puzzled about my drives multithreaded performance! I have a new Seagate 7200.12 1TB and an old Samsung HD501LJ. The Seagate has amazing single threaded performance, the Samsung a little less, but when I try just 2 reading threads they almost die. I mean both of them get an average of 7.8 mb/s (or 15.6 mb/s if you say double) and they really lock up your system when you write to the system drive.

I am on a X38 chipset based motherboard with ICH9R. I tried all different Intel RAID and AHCI drivers but it's exactly the same. OS is XP 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what?

You ask everybody on this forum, how does he use information he obtain here? Good luck :D

Did you read this topic at all? It doesn't matter in Linux. All perform equally. I concluded 1 year ago on 2nd page that it does not matter and i will not test any drives on linux.

I don't think I asked anything about "Linux". ;)

I spent almost ONE FULL DAY to test 4 drives for EVERYBODY. I didn't do this for my own. I am using this system and I know how each drive is performing for me. And now you are confusing everybody.

AFAIK you can find variety of tests on the web using task1+task2+task3+.... simultaneously to measure the performance of the drive. Guess what? Seagate fail in comparison with competition. Non of these test are made on Linux.

In addition, It was not me complaining here, that my Seagate and Samsung drives die when multitasking. I only answered on that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added the WD just so that you asked by the way.

If there is something you don't agree, post your results and don't clutter the topic with whose thing is bigger than whose thing according to so and so site.

Otherwise, I have spent almost an entire day testing these 4 drives, I can't deal with you. So happy fellow off with your linux and what you are doing with it.

AFAIK you can find variety of tests on the web using task1+task2+task3+.... simultaneously to measure the performance of the drive. Guess what? Seagate fail in comparison with competition. Non of these test are made on Linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6_6_6

All right. I finish here. Maybe you had a bad day. Maybe my English is so wrong that you answer me on questions I have never asked. That's OK. Calm down and relax :P

I ask my question about NCQ (Windows), Caviar Black and 7200.12 somewhere else. Because this topic is obviously for people speaking Chinese. Have a nice day.

zsero @ Jul 23 2009, 12:56 AM) >>

How good that I found this thread, I am really puzzled about my drives multithreaded performance! I have a new Seagate 7200.12 1TB and an old Samsung HD501LJ.

The Seagate has amazing single threaded performance, the Samsung a little less, but when I try just 2 reading threads they almost die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen these are all your quotes.

You claim that all WDs are faring better than Seagates and yet you HAVE NOT RUN A SINGLE TEST IN WINDOWS. And you are bragging about how WD does better or Seagate is doing worse... According to your experience on linux or according to how some benchmarks are posted somewhere.

YET YOU HAVENT DONE ANYTHING IN WINDOWS AND THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT WINDOWS since I already mentioned at the very beginning of this topic with tests that: IN LINUX, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Now... Seagate is not my dad's company. I have used any drive from any manufacturer when i saw fit. I am paying money to use their drives -- they are not paying me to use their drives. Aren't you getting the difference? I bought Seagate 7200.11 1TB to replace 750GB of the same model based on the performance of the previous capacity... And as you can see, I am already discarding Seagate 1TB because it did not perform well for me. I need a bigger capacity drive... and I am not able to find any to match the performance of 7200.11 750GB for me. I am open to suggestions.

So either run some tests on Windows for any of the drives you are bragging about... Or take your toilet ramblings elsewhere.

You must learn to be fair to appreciate the time I put into this and not counter me with irrelevant drives performing irrelevantly on irrelevant OSes.

I have made myself similar comparison among Seagate 7200.11 ST3640323AS, WD6400AAKS and WD6401AALS. All have 640GB, 2 platters, 7200RPM. I used Linux and Ext3 filesystem. The result of WD drives were similar, but both kicked Seagate's ass with more than 20% advantage in time.
I did it many times, but because of this conversation, I have tried it once again:

WD6401AALS drive, Opensuse 11.1 64bit, Ext3 filesystem:

- 3 simultanous instances of tar+gzip compression +/- 11GB of files each.

- copying large amount of files

- playing video in SMPLayer

- seaching file on the disk

No problem at all. System does not hang up, video is smooth, all of these task proceed and i can do more and more.

In my experience, trying this with Baracuda 7200.11 640GB resulted in to slower environment, occasionally hanging up, and tasks completed noticeably later.

I don't have any Windows installation.
Edited by 6_6_6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen these are all your quotes.

You claim that all WDs are faring better than Seagates and yet you HAVE NOT RUN A SINGLE TEST IN WINDOWS. And you are bragging about how WD does better or Seagate is doing worse... According to your experience on linux or according to how some benchmarks are posted somewhere.

It looks like stale-mate here. I don't have Windows, and it seems you don't acknowledge any test "posted somewhere". In addition, your way of communication discourage me from any discussion :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation is futile. It takes 30 mins to install Windows. But as evident by most posters, nobody wants to do any work -- they just like to bitch and let others do the work for them. End of the story.

Listen these are all your quotes.

You claim that all WDs are faring better than Seagates and yet you HAVE NOT RUN A SINGLE TEST IN WINDOWS. And you are bragging about how WD does better or Seagate is doing worse... According to your experience on linux or according to how some benchmarks are posted somewhere.

It looks like stale-mate here. I don't have Windows, and it seems you don't acknowledge any test "posted somewhere". In addition, your way of communication discourage me from any discussion :unsure:

I am bumping this up... Open to suggestions from SSD crowd.

Now, forget about benchmarks, MBs, etc. I will time a common operation i do regularly on command line and see who completes the task faster.

I used timeit.exe from 2003 Server Res Kit. Free download from MS.

TASK (about 30GB read)

2 runs of MD5 sum on a total of mixed 15GB [1800 files] data (COMMAND: md5.exe /R /T:R)

1 run of Clam Antivirus on a total of mixed 5GB [4000 files] data (COMMAND: clamscan.exe -d D:\ProgramData\.clamwin\db -r --quiet)

2 runs of winzip on a total of mixed 5GB [4000 files] data (COMMAND: wzip -en -p -r -bE:\SPEED_TEST\DIR4\ dir4.zip *)

1 run of copy single 5GB file (COMMAND: copy d:\5GB .)

NOTES:

1. System has been rebooted before every test run.

2. Zip, etc all use the same drive for temp files.

3. Single file has been copied from SSD, and in case of SSD, from another drive.

4. Intel x25-M always boot drive, system has no disk activity.

5. Data at teh beginning of the drive in all drives except SEAGATE 1TB where it is at the end (sorry, cannot move around 1TB now)

SUBTASK (same but just read performance)

2 runs of md5 sum

1 run of Clam Antivirus

CONTENDERS

INTEL X25-M 80GB (SSDSA2MH080G1GC Fw:8820)

SEAGATE 7200.11 750GB (ST3750330AS Fw:SD15)

SEAGATE 7200.11 1TB (ST31000333AS Fw:CC1H)

WD GREEN 1TB (WDEADS-00L5B1 Fw:01.01A01)

RESULTS

1 . When all tasks run sequentially one after the other, all drives took almost the same time to finish: 9 Mins

2. When READONLY portion of tests is run simultaneously [3 threads](Best first):

1:24 Intel

4:50 Seagate 750GB

9:56 WD

21:23 Seagate 1TB

3. When ALL tasks run simultaneously [6 threads](Best first):

7:42 Seagate 750GB

7:55 Intel

10:26 WD

23:45 Seagate 1TB

CONCLUSION

Gentelmen, I am not talking about 1 or 2 percent difference in sustained transfer rates, access times and fvck-knows what . WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 5 MINUTES DIFFERENCE IN A 10 MINUTES RUN OF SOMETHING I FREQUENTLY DO!!!

Seagate 1TB has awful results but that is understandable. It was almost full and data was at the end of the drive. Nonetheless, I tested that drive when i bought it first and it was crap. I dont find it necessary to test it again just to enter the numbers. I assume it is somewhere near WD.

Intel SSD is a bigger piece of crap. Yeah it hits 250MB/s constant even when you read 10 threads from it but so what? I guess it is only good for Linux LiveCDs! It locks the system when there is big (4-5GB) read or write to it. This lock/freeze issue has been with every drive except Seagate 750GB. You can't run a movie without stuttering in any of these drives (except 750GB) while there is any sort of disk access.

This issue is also not an NCQ matter as the topic wrongly titled... It is more AHCI matter (the very same Seagate 750GB sucked without AHCI).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really start to think it is not about hard drives performance, what we are talking about is how buggy Intel SATA controllers are when handling multiple simulateous operation.

I have just tried the read test on a $20 Sil3114 PCI controller card and it didn't slow down more than 5-10%! It was with a Samsung HD103UJ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this 1TB F1? I remember testing it about few months ago and it was not good.

Could you please be so kind to run 2 instances of HDSpeed on that Sil and post the results? Testing methodology at the first post. You might be able to englighten us all.

I really start to think it is not about hard drives performance, what we are talking about is how buggy Intel SATA controllers are when handling multiple simulateous operation.

I have just tried the read test on a $20 Sil3114 PCI controller card and it didn't slow down more than 5-10%! It was with a Samsung HD103UJ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this 1TB F1? I remember testing it about few months ago and it was not good.

Could you please be so kind to run 2 instances of HDSpeed on that Sil and post the results? Testing methodology at the first post. You might be able to englighten us all.

I really start to think it is not about hard drives performance, what we are talking about is how buggy Intel SATA controllers are when handling multiple simulateous operation.

I have just tried the read test on a $20 Sil3114 PCI controller card and it didn't slow down more than 5-10%! It was with a Samsung HD103UJ!

I couldn't manage to screen shot from a remote desktop server, but beleive me, it's 84.7 MB/s single instance and 2x37=74 MB/s with two instances. It has a PCI bottleneck of course, but I could not reproduce any of these performance results under any Intel SATA controller.

BTW, I have just tried Win7 on the Intel SATA and it was the same (total 14 MB/s) as XP 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

update: I have tested the same Samsung hard drive in both Sil3114 and ICH9R. Operation system was different, but as I have seen, all Windows OS-es have the same performance for this test.

Results

Samsung Spinpont F1 1TB (HD103UJ)

Sil3114 PCI card, Win2003:

1 instance: 87 MB/s

2 instance: 74 MB/s total

3 instance: 23.8 MB/s total

4 instance: 14 MB/s total

Intel ICH9R AHCI mode, WinXP 64-bit:

1 instance: 112 MB/s

2 instance: 15.6 MB/s total

4 instance: 14 MB/s total

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zsero, thanks a lot.

Interesting find. I had the same F1 tested, I just checked my databse (fw: 1AA01109) and it performed like yours on ICH9R. Hence i did not even keep the results.

But as you can see, this is still not giving conclusive answers. At 4 instances, you are dropping 10-fold on Sil, while Seagate 750GB on my system drops %30 even with 10 instances -- doing 80-90 MB/s. Yet, same Seagate with 1TB does not perform at all.

So I dont know what to say. I guess I will try to hunt for the same mobo and 750GB for my next machine :)

I think we can say many factors inluding the OS, controller, MOBO, drive, driver, etc... need to be taken into equation.

update: I have tested the same Samsung hard drive in both Sil3114 and ICH9R. Operation system was different, but as I have seen, all Windows OS-es have the same performance for this test.

Results

Samsung Spinpont F1 1TB (HD103UJ)

Sil3114 PCI card, Win2003:

1 instance: 87 MB/s

2 instance: 74 MB/s total

3 instance: 23.8 MB/s total

4 instance: 14 MB/s total

Intel ICH9R AHCI mode, WinXP 64-bit:

1 instance: 112 MB/s

2 instance: 15.6 MB/s total

4 instance: 14 MB/s total

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually to say something positive, I have just tried Win7 for this particular reason, and in experience it was much smoother during intensive write-read tasks on the OS disk, than using XP 64. Using HD Speed it produced the same results, BTW.

My actual problem is that under XP 64 my computer freezes for moments or seconds when I do a huge data copy from one hard drive to another. With big files it could get over 110 MB/s in Total Commander, and during this copy my computer is unusable! It freezes the mouse for seconds sometimes! That's why I all started finding why is that happening. Actually I tried a simple seek rate test during these copy operations and it became 1200 ms average, with 2500-3000 ms peeks! On XP 32-bit it was about 25-35 which is normal I think for heavy file copy, but not 2-3 seconds as on XP 64!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had the same problem with all hard drives / OSes. And that includes Intel X25-M too. The only one that works for me is Seagate 750GB.

And to tell you the truth, I have not seen anybody who can do few drive-related tasks at the same time and not have their systems stall. I am so happy with this 750GB.

Can you imagine someone having Intel X25-M and not using it? Yeah, that is me. Nothing wrong with it -- performs all benchmarks as advertised. It just does not cut it for me.

My actual problem is that under XP 64 my computer freezes for moments or seconds when I do a huge data copy from one hard drive to another. With big files it could get over 110 MB/s in Total Commander, and during this copy my computer is unusable! It freezes the mouse for seconds sometimes! That's why I all started finding why is that happening. Actually I tried a simple seek rate test during these copy operations and it became 1200 ms average, with 2500-3000 ms peeks! On XP 32-bit it was about 25-35 which is normal I think for heavy file copy, but not 2-3 seconds as on XP 64!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen these are all your quotes.

You claim that all WDs are faring better than Seagates and yet you HAVE NOT RUN A SINGLE TEST IN WINDOWS. And you are bragging about how WD does better or Seagate is doing worse... According to your experience on linux or according to how some benchmarks are posted somewhere.

It looks like stale-mate here. I don't have Windows, and it seems you don't acknowledge any test "posted somewhere". In addition, your way of communication discourage me from any discussion :unsure:

You can get ANY drive in linux to work well.

Just fiddle with the "readahead" value for your block device.

See

/sbin/blockdev --setra

try perhaps, 2048 blocks (1MB) for the readahead, you'll see that concurrent separate sequential reads work very well.

Fiddling with the linux device scheduler can also tune the system to favor sequential or random access more (search google for 'deadline cfq linux').

Windows though, doesn't do enough OS level sequential read detection or do speculative readahead, so the drive firmware has to instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had the same problem with all hard drives / OSes. And that includes Intel X25-M too. The only one that works for me is Seagate 750GB.

And to tell you the truth, I have not seen anybody who can do few drive-related tasks at the same time and not have their systems stall. I am so happy with this 750GB.

Can you imagine someone having Intel X25-M and not using it? Yeah, that is me. Nothing wrong with it -- performs all benchmarks as advertised. It just does not cut it for me.

My actual problem is that under XP 64 my computer freezes for moments or seconds when I do a huge data copy from one hard drive to another. With big files it could get over 110 MB/s in Total Commander, and during this copy my computer is unusable! It freezes the mouse for seconds sometimes! That's why I all started finding why is that happening. Actually I tried a simple seek rate test during these copy operations and it became 1200 ms average, with 2500-3000 ms peeks! On XP 32-bit it was about 25-35 which is normal I think for heavy file copy, but not 2-3 seconds as on XP 64!

But isn't there an actual test for this? I mean all the windows file servers usually do only 1 thing, which is to access multiple files at the same time. I think it must be on our side where we have the problem. And isn't there an actual test instead of this manual HD Speed x multiple instances? I mean there should be a file-server test that just does that.

I have had the same problem with all hard drives / OSes. And that includes Intel X25-M too. The only one that works for me is Seagate 750GB.

And to tell you the truth, I have not seen anybody who can do few drive-related tasks at the same time and not have their systems stall. I am so happy with this 750GB.

Can you imagine someone having Intel X25-M and not using it? Yeah, that is me. Nothing wrong with it -- performs all benchmarks as advertised. It just does not cut it for me.

My actual problem is that under XP 64 my computer freezes for moments or seconds when I do a huge data copy from one hard drive to another. With big files it could get over 110 MB/s in Total Commander, and during this copy my computer is unusable! It freezes the mouse for seconds sometimes! That's why I all started finding why is that happening. Actually I tried a simple seek rate test during these copy operations and it became 1200 ms average, with 2500-3000 ms peeks! On XP 32-bit it was about 25-35 which is normal I think for heavy file copy, but not 2-3 seconds as on XP 64!

But isn't there an actual test for this? I mean all the windows file servers usually do only 1 thing, which is to access multiple files at the same time. I think it must be on our side where we have the problem. And isn't there an actual test instead of this manual HD Speed x multiple instances? I mean there should be a file-server test that just does that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

666 I'm going to have to totally disagree with your assessment of the Intel X25-M, I sold my Gen 1 in preparation for the Gen 2 and using a standard Seagate 7200.12 is like pulling teeth compared to the SSD.

I'm getting a head ache just thinking about how annoyingly slow (responsiveness) my system is now in comparison.

Granted that Seagate have now brain deaded NCQ on the 7200.12 and new firmwared 7200.11 (f#cking toss bags! way to ruin a perfectly good product! I'd seriously like to punch the fwit in the teeth responsible for that monumental cock up!) my FTP and DC server is back to it's pre working NCQ days (damn useless!)

Edited by czr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diving into this topic with both feet - hopefully avoid the bee hive. I've followed this thread for a long time now - and believe the performance gain of the 7200.11 drives. I can feel it.

My testing just got screwed up by a firmware upgrade. I have a single drive ST3500320AS with the SD15 firmware. This is the version that supposedly self destruct. I should have left it alone!!! I upgraded to SD1A - no problems - drive comes up fine - all data intact.

The only problem is I lost the NCQ performance !!!! Crapola!!

Previous test with HD_Speed - Windows 7 - Asus P5B MB - ICH8 Raid controller - latest Matrix drivers, 256k block size test.

One instance 113MB/sec - 9 instances 88MB/sec. Pretty good performance.

My other WD drive is much worse. One instance 82MB/sec - after 7+ drops to only 25MB/sec.

Then after my SD1A firmware upgrade - the Seagate will only do 25MB/sec after two instances. YIKES!!!! Can't believe the firmware changed the NCQ performance that much. Once instance is still at 113MB/sec - so no performance increase - HD_Tune has the exact same results as before the firmware change.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am gonna bring this topic back from dead... It has been 2 years since it is started. And I still don't have a replacement for my aging Seagate 750GB.

To illustrate you what I mean, here is a 2 mins video example. Quality is not that good, so much from a webcam... But you can see clearly.

Here are the contentenders:

Seagate 750GB (the same drive that made me start the topic)

Intel X25-M 80GB

WD 1TB (Green/Black/Blue? don't remember)

Test notes:

- All drives are connected as secondary drives. They are not booted from.

- All drives are empty, clean, perform at the speeds they advertise.

- Clean booted system. Task manager shows at all times CPU usage is less than 20% on all cores.

- Same movie is played. Same files are copied.

- First run is done on Seagate (so you wouldnt tell me it is cached, memoried, blah blah). 2nd on Intel, 3rd on WD (WD not shown to make file size smaller, but it is the same as Intel performance)

Here is what I did:

1. Copy 10GB file from the test drive onto test drive (no difference in results if it was copied to another drive)

2. While copy is in progress, start a 5GB 720p movie on WMP11/VLC... And try to seek through it.

RESULT:

Seagate is fluid and instant. When you press the slider, you get immediate response. No stuttering, no pausing, no nothing. They way things are supposed to be.

Intel/WD on the other hand... Sometimes you have 4 second pauses! Movie stutters, then frames rush to catch up... Overall... Impossible to watch it.

Now... Is it to much to ask the capability to watch a movie when the drive is doing anything else like a simple file copy operation?

So folks... Test the same on your hard drive and tell me if there is any other drive that would not stutter doing this. Because I haven't come across one except this Seagate 7200.11 750GB (even 7200.11 1TB wouldn't do it).

Seagate-Intel Video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting tests.

I actually do this frequently on one of my older drives. the main difference is instead of copying a file, im extracting archives. I found if the archive is big (several GB) or im uncompressing many at the same time (30+) then movie playback and seeks will slowdown and/or stall out - but takes some effort on my part.

the drive? ..is this thing:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200104/20010426ST1181677LWV_1.html

not bad for 10yr old hardware.

I dont have a SSD (yet) but when my new system arrives, i can try the same stuff on an intel x-25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kittle: maybe your unpacking is bottlenecked by the CPU?

@Topic & continuation from here: I did the same HD_Speed test as you did on your Seagate, 666, on my WD 640 Blue. That means read test with 256 kB block size, one instance starting at 0% and the other at 50% drive capacity. I also get spikes, not a smooth line. However, the time between spikes is an estimated 3 seconds. That means each I/O stream gets full performance for 3s, then nothing until the other is done with its 3s.

So it seems like if one of these streams happens to be my video player, I'll have to wait 3s in the worst case for the HDD to do anything for this data request. No wonder it's not snappy! The time between spikes seems to be much shorter for your Seagate, judging from the image.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't belong to Intel, so I am moving it here.

MrSpadge' date='22 May 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1274526952' post='261894']

@video: the Intel SSD behaviour is exactly how it looks like for me with a different HDD (AHCI enabled)

It is pretty much the same with every hard drive except Seagate 750GB 7200.11 SD15. This is not an Intel thing, Intel is just like any other hard drive.

I will give you some examples below. After this, I think it would be more apt to move this conversation to its appropriate thread for Seagate if you agree:

Let me give you some notes and graphs:

1) The only sureproof way for me to quantify this was to run 2 instances of HDD Speed at positions 0% and 50%. Seagate drive has alternating spikes in the graph hitting 0% and 100% at times... All the other drives have a uniform graph.

Here is a run of 2 instances of HDD Speed. Seagate on the left side (left up and left bottom), Intel at right side (right up and right bottom).

NOTE: I have encryption turned on Intel drive right now, that is why I have 170MB/s total. I just grabbed its graph to show you a comparison. Normally it hits 250MB/s with 2 instances but graph lines are the same. Video and all other tests on this drive was made with no encryption.

seagate-intel.jpg

Here is the same story with a 1TB WD SomeColor (dont remember which). WD 1TB behaves same was as Intel.

seagate-wd.jpg

2) AHCI: Seagate 750GB 7200.11 SD15 behaves exactly like the right side above as with both Intel/WD when AHCI is turned off.

3) Firmware: One user noted that he lost the responsiveness of his system when he flashed Seagate 750GB 7200.11 SD15 with a newer firmware.

4) Video: I choose the video example above for the following reasons: a) It is a very simple and common task (a file copy and watching a movie) B) It is easily reproducible at any system. c) It presents user with quantifiable experience.

You can substitute this with anything you do on your system that would require simultaneous hard disk activity like doing a virus scan, encoding a video, zipping or anything. The results are the same. Seagate is ALWAYS responsive, other drives stall.

5) Model: Same line of Seagate 7200.11 with 1TB capacity is not good either. I have Seagate 1TB ST31000333AS with CC1H firmware. Not good. And I am not even talking about a different model of Seagate.

6) Speed drop: All the drives I tested have sharp speed drops on 2 operations. Most drives fall from 100 MB/s single operation to 20 MB/s in 2 instances of HDD Speed. However, Intel does not drop at all just like Seagate! It is always the same at 250 MB/s no matter how many instances of HDD speed I run. But nonetheless, Intel does not perform even though there is no speed decrease.

7) Whenever I have access to any system, I just do this simple file copy / video operation. I have tried in a whole lotta system and NONE of them are like Seagate. All stall.

Since the Intel SSD easily has the access time to make the video searching fluid, even in the presence of the heavy file copy, and the Seagate hardware should be much less suited to the task we've apparently got a software problem. I think the problem is I/O priorization. It's not that the Intel couldn't make the video search more fluent. It's probably that it's trying too hard to get that file copy done. It doesn't know what's important to the user. And how should it ever know this? I have no idea how Seagate is managing to do it right on your 750 GB 7200.11 (and not in later models, as you said).

See #5 above. It is not even a different model!

I am exactly thinking like you do. I think you are right about I/O prioritization. I think this is a firmware issue... and it works when AHCI is activated on Seagate 750GB. Item #6 above would verify your observation about Intel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is no on on the entire forum that can watch a movie (and skip through it) while there is a file copy operation going on?

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