Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Tom's hardware] The New WD Raptor is a Bird of Prey
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Tom's hardware] The New WD Raptor is a Bird of Prey - Page 8

post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by thlnk3r View Post
Duckie, thanks for the benchmarks. Nice to know they are almost hitting 1000 I/Os



Ronin, I'm curious. Mind sharing?
Damn, you called me out on it... I remember leaving them in a thread about the Samsung F1's. Of course I cannot find that thread now... It's been a few weeks.

Bottom line: When I partitioned off ~150GB from each of my 750's I had access times of ~10ms, and sustained rates ~160MB/s. The averages for the whole volume were significantly different >14ms seek.

EDIT!

News flash: OCN search fails no more!

http://www.overclock.net/online-deal...ml#post3610956
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5645 Asus Rampage II Gene eVGA GTX460 SSC 3x4GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial C300 64GB Seagate Momentus XT 750 Western Digital GP 2TB EARS Windows 7 Premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VE278Q DSI SMK-88 Seasonic X-660 Lian Li U6B 2011 SE 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G500 KAI.g3 HIEN - HARD 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5645 Asus Rampage II Gene eVGA GTX460 SSC 3x4GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial C300 64GB Seagate Momentus XT 750 Western Digital GP 2TB EARS Windows 7 Premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VE278Q DSI SMK-88 Seasonic X-660 Lian Li U6B 2011 SE 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G500 KAI.g3 HIEN - HARD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #72 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonindeBeatrice View Post
Damn, you called me out on it... I remember leaving them in a thread about the Samsung F1's. Of course I cannot find that thread now... It's been a few weeks.

Bottom line: When I partitioned off ~150GB from each of my 750's I had access times of ~10ms, and sustained rates ~160MB/s. The averages for the whole volume were significantly different >14ms seek, barely 100Mb/s sustained.
Ronin, sorry I was seriously just curious

So what your saying is that you saw better seek rates with 2 partitions as oppose to a single partition?
Workstation
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 620 Asus M4A785-M Asus 5770 G.Skill 8GB DDR2-800 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
WD3200AAJS Windows 7 Pro Acer AL2216W, Samsung P2770 Corsair 550VX 
Case
Tagan Black Pearl 
  hide details  
Reply
Workstation
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 620 Asus M4A785-M Asus 5770 G.Skill 8GB DDR2-800 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
WD3200AAJS Windows 7 Pro Acer AL2216W, Samsung P2770 Corsair 550VX 
Case
Tagan Black Pearl 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by thlnk3r View Post
So what your saying is that you saw better seek rates with 2 partitions as oppose to a single partition?
Yup, that is correct. When you create a partition, it reduces the area that the head has to cover. So when searching for data in partition, the data isn't so scattered.

It's faster for the head to move around a 100GB partition than around a 500GB partition.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Yup, that is correct. When you create a partition, it reduces the area that the head has to cover. So when searching for data in partition, the data isn't so scattered.

It's faster for the head to move around a 100GB partition than around a 500GB partition.
which helps in real life, but benchmarks like HD Tach test the whole HDD regardless of how many partitions there are on the disk.
post #75 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by {core2duo}werd View Post
which helps in real life, but benchmarks like HD Tach test the whole HDD regardless of how many partitions there are on the disk.
Nope, see above.

HDTach only saw my two partitions.

For the lazy


    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5645 Asus Rampage II Gene eVGA GTX460 SSC 3x4GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial C300 64GB Seagate Momentus XT 750 Western Digital GP 2TB EARS Windows 7 Premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VE278Q DSI SMK-88 Seasonic X-660 Lian Li U6B 2011 SE 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G500 KAI.g3 HIEN - HARD 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5645 Asus Rampage II Gene eVGA GTX460 SSC 3x4GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial C300 64GB Seagate Momentus XT 750 Western Digital GP 2TB EARS Windows 7 Premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VE278Q DSI SMK-88 Seasonic X-660 Lian Li U6B 2011 SE 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G500 KAI.g3 HIEN - HARD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonindeBeatrice View Post
Nope, see above.

HDTach only saw my two partitions.

For the lazy


what controller did you use? for some reason it lumps all my partitions together as one drive and tests the whole raid instead of each partition.
post #77 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by {core2duo}werd View Post
what controller did you use? for some reason it lumps all my partitions together as one drive and tests the whole raid instead of each partition.
Did you setup the partitions inside the RAID controller (done directly after post), or did you let windows do it?

That's on my Asus P5K Deluxe, so ICH9 I think.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5645 Asus Rampage II Gene eVGA GTX460 SSC 3x4GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial C300 64GB Seagate Momentus XT 750 Western Digital GP 2TB EARS Windows 7 Premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VE278Q DSI SMK-88 Seasonic X-660 Lian Li U6B 2011 SE 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G500 KAI.g3 HIEN - HARD 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5645 Asus Rampage II Gene eVGA GTX460 SSC 3x4GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial C300 64GB Seagate Momentus XT 750 Western Digital GP 2TB EARS Windows 7 Premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VE278Q DSI SMK-88 Seasonic X-660 Lian Li U6B 2011 SE 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G500 KAI.g3 HIEN - HARD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 103
@RonindeBeatrice

That is no argument against my statement.

I just said you can't control the position of your partition on the hardware layer.
So the first Partition wont be automatically faster than the rest as you said ;o)
Compu15
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon X3230 @ 3200 abit AB9 Quad GT Club3D HD4870 1024 OC 8GB - (2x G.Skill DDR2 F2-6400CL5D-4GBPQ) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x [WD Raptor 74GB] + 2x [Samsung 640GB] Samsung SH-S183A Windows Vista Business 64 2x Benq FP71E 17" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Noname (<10€) + Sharkoon Rush Pad Cooler Master iGreen 600W Cooler Master Centurion 534 (black + window) Logitech MX518 
Mouse Pad
Sharkoon 1337 Gaming Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
Compu15
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon X3230 @ 3200 abit AB9 Quad GT Club3D HD4870 1024 OC 8GB - (2x G.Skill DDR2 F2-6400CL5D-4GBPQ) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x [WD Raptor 74GB] + 2x [Samsung 640GB] Samsung SH-S183A Windows Vista Business 64 2x Benq FP71E 17" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Noname (<10€) + Sharkoon Rush Pad Cooler Master iGreen 600W Cooler Master Centurion 534 (black + window) Logitech MX518 
Mouse Pad
Sharkoon 1337 Gaming Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #79 of 103
i don't think nvidia raid controllers let you set up partitions, you have to use the windows partition manager, or some software. That might be the difference, a windows created partition may not be able to choose where on the platters it begins.
post #80 of 103
is the release defiantly May cause you can pre-order in uk at http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...tid=14&subcat= for £211.49
Shrunk ....
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 B3 @ 3.2 GHz Asus P5E-VM HDMI EVGA GTX280 SSC OCZ Reaper 8GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ Core V2 Raid 0 & WD 500GB Samsung DVD-RW Windows 7 64bit Dell ST2410 24" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Filco Majestouch (Cherry Black) Antec TruePower Quattro 850W Antec P180 Mini Razer Mamba 
  hide details  
Reply
Shrunk ....
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 B3 @ 3.2 GHz Asus P5E-VM HDMI EVGA GTX280 SSC OCZ Reaper 8GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ Core V2 Raid 0 & WD 500GB Samsung DVD-RW Windows 7 64bit Dell ST2410 24" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Filco Majestouch (Cherry Black) Antec TruePower Quattro 850W Antec P180 Mini Razer Mamba 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Tom's hardware] The New WD Raptor is a Bird of Prey