These ATTO scores...

TheSmJTheSmJ
edited January 2004 in Hardware
What do you guys think of mine? This is on a WD 80 Gig SE (WD800JB).

I really dont know how to read these scores, and have no one to compair them with.

I really, really want to learn how to though! What are good scores (with RAID 0, vanilla IDE, etc), bad scores, and so on.

Comments

  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited December 2003
    Seem low to me; you can see my 800JB's scores in this thread:
    http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7718

    For the record, my RAID array does over 100MB/s both reading & writing
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited December 2003
    TheSmJ wrote:
    What do you guys think of mine? This is on a WD 80 Gig SE (WD800JB).

    I really dont know how to read these scores, and have no one to compair them with.

    I really, really want to learn how to though! What are good scores (with RAID 0, vanilla IDE, etc), bad scores, and so on.

    That drive, benched near the rim, (its slower the farther in you go) should hit 50,000 to 55,000 maybe. Its fastest on the outside and slows the farther in you go. Or the fuller the drive gets if you follow me. So the score might be perfect depending on how full it is etc..

    tex
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited December 2003
    TheSmJ wrote:
    I really, really want to learn how to though! What are good scores (with RAID 0, vanilla IDE, etc), bad scores, and so on.

    here is a pretty good raid-0 to compare to.

    Tex
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited December 2003
    How about this ATTO on my new P4 rig? It's an 80 gig JB using a Abit serillel adapter on the southbridge SATA ports on my IC7-G. I just defragged with diskeeper before this run also.
  • SputnikSputnik Worcester, MA
    edited December 2003
    pretty good tex? multi disk scsi? looks too slow to be ram....
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited December 2003
    muddocktor wrote:
    How about this ATTO on my new P4 rig? It's an 80 gig JB using a Abit serillel adapter on the southbridge SATA ports on my IC7-G. I just defragged with diskeeper before this run also.

    Right on the money. Defragging before atto isnt critical as the test is so smal but Sandra.... Any fragmentation just kills your scores cause the test file is so huge and they use every teeny piece of open space from the rim on in.

    Tex
  • ishiiiishiii Cold lake, AB, CA
    edited December 2003
    Well here is my atto, also on a WD800JB.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    TheSmJ

    It looks like you didn't turn off your folding client prior to the test. Folding hits the shorter end real hard. ishiii's score looks more representative of a single WD SE drive, although a bit low.
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited December 2003
    Tex wrote:
    That drive, benched near the rim, (its slower the farther in you go) should hit 50,000 to 55,000 maybe. Its fastest on the outside and slows the farther in you go. Or the fuller the drive gets if you follow me. So the score might be perfect depending on how full it is etc..

    tex


    Well, it's about half full. I wonder what it is I could do to speed it up...

    It's already in UDMA mode 5, and IDE busmastering (I think thats what it's called) is enabled in the BIOS.

    I'm using the standard Microsoft IDE drivers, because the latest SW IDE drivers from nVidia has given me many problems with burning CDs. What IDE drivers are you using on your NF7-S Geeky?
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited December 2003
    If its half full its not that bad a score.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Here's my WD1200JB, fully defragged, 3/4 full.

    Any good?
    atto.jpg 156.6K
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited December 2003
    For 3/4 full its probably fine. The key was that it was 3/4 full which changes things a bunch.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    I figured that would make the biggest change.

    Thanks Tex. :)
  • gcstadergcstader
    edited January 2004
    I just bought two WD raptors a couple days ago and installed them in a RAID 0 array. My Sandra 2004 scores range from 65000 to 80000. They are using the 64k stripe. Are these comparable to other raptors in a RAID config?
    If not, what am I doing wrong? I'm using an Abit IC7-MAX3 motherboard and the on-chip RAID controller. I haven't updated the BIOS for the mobo yet (don't know if this would affect anything or not).
    Also, I have an 80 gig WD hard drive from my previous computer that I'd like to hook up. The raptors are on SATA1 and SATA2, while the 80 gig is IDE. When I plugged the 80 gig hard drive into the IDE slot, the RAID controller that shows up after POSTing didn't recognize it as a "non-RAID disk". Is there something I have to change in the BIOS?

    Thanks,
    Greg
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited January 2004
    65,000 to 80,000 in in general with sandra is a very nice score with two raptors. We need to be careful comparin g sandra scores in general as there are several versions of sandra floating around and scores can only really be compared with teh identical sandra version.

    Tex
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    My writes are just slightly higher than Thraxs reads, and just slightly lower than Thraxs writes (using a 8MB Cache 80GB WD). Plus it scores 41.88MBps in Linux's HDParm.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited January 2004
    A wd with 8mb cache should hit around 55,000 on reads and writes on the rim or when empty etc.. A good one will get closer to 60,000. My maxtor 8mb cache hit 60,000.

    When your benching further in on a pretty full drive its just a guess and really hard to tell if there is a problem unless its way out of whack.

    Tex
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    These are the weirdest ATTO scores I've ever seen. This is my VIA southbridge SATA RAID with 2 WD1600JB drives on PATA->SATA bridges.

    I'm not experienced enough to be able to tell the distinction, but when I made the array I told the RAID BIOS to use 16k, so I'm guessing that's the stripe size. I used Windows default block size, which I seem to remember being 4k, so this would be a 16/4?

    This was with folding on, fresh XP install, no defrag. I think it likes the big writes.

    -drasnor :fold:
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    Here is a link to a thread where I benched my WD800JB on Pata and my WD1200JB on Sata converter.
    http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t=668
  • PreacherPreacher Potomac, MD Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Should PCI latency tweaking of two Raptors in RAID 0 make much difference? Whatever I do from 32 on up to 240 I get about 70,000 in Sisoft Sandra 2004 and ATTOs like the attached image. The drive has a very new installation of XP Home and is only about 11% full.

    Tex et al,
    anything I'm missing here or should I be happy and shutup!?

    Also, another interesting dilemma while tweaking my RAID 5 array of 4 WD JBs on a Highpoint RocketRAID 404, I noticed the controller has two separate entries in Powerstrip as well as Device Manager? According to all my online research this is normal, do I test the latency of both?

    Edit: Even more confusing is that my Sisoft Sandra scores dropped from 70k to 55k after a Diskkeeper defrag. Does that make any sense? In real world applications, I haven't noticed a difference.
  • FxXPFxXP
    edited January 2004
    Here is my benchmark after installing my first RAID 0 with 2 Seagate 80GB S-ATA's with the onboard SI3112 controller:
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    My new Maxtor DiamondMax 9 SATA drive (160GB).
  • FlintstoneFlintstone SE Florida
    edited January 2004
    Here's my 2 new Hitachi 80 Gig SATA's on a Sil 3112 raid controller. No tweaking, just a fresh defrag and a 16k/16k stripe/cluster:
  • FxXPFxXP
    edited January 2004
    Why does it say IBM Deskstar 2 x 80 and not your Hitachi's? :range:

    You should be faster then me and you are not...
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Hitachi Global Storage = IBM's Storage division. IBM sold their entire hard drive business to Hitachi, including the vendor ID's it seems. All current IBM hard drives are supported by Hitachi Global Storage, and all new Deskstar/Ultrastar/Travelstar drives are manufactured by Hitachi Global Storage.

    Answer your question?

    -drasnor :fold:
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Yeah, so they aren't actually Hitachi drives, they are still IBM Deathstars.
  • FlintstoneFlintstone SE Florida
    edited January 2004
    Yeah, I was a little skeptical about them as I've had a couple of old 75 GXP's go south on me but I read as much as I could about these and I haven't found any bad press about them anywhere. They're just fast, quiet, cool drives that play very well in a raid 0 array. And FxXP, why do you say that they're no faster than your Seagates? Maybe not in the real world would you ever notice a difference, but there seems to me at least to be a gap between yours and mine, no?

    Flint :aol:
  • FxXPFxXP
    edited January 2004
    You have an extensive gap between read/write where I don't. I find the benefit of having RAID is to write faster to the drives, not read from them. And since I just learned that Hitachi's are "Glass Heads" :P, I'll stay away from them. :-/
  • FlintstoneFlintstone SE Florida
    edited January 2004
    I give all credit to Storage Review for this excerpt from their review, and I suggest you read it in full for the fullest information, but here it is: (Oh, and I believe the PLATTERS were glass, not the heads)


    " Combining the first significant performance increase in over a year with whisper-quiet operation, Hitachi's Deskstar 7K250 proves that there's a lot of life left in the venerable 7200 RPM design. Western Digital's three-year run with the 7200 RPM ATA title has finally come to a close. Available across a wide range of capacities in both parallel and serial ATA interfaces, the 7K250 should top the list of all performance-oriented users seeking a new drive for their desktop rig.

    Hitachi has easily managed to impress. We look forward to seeing what's next!"



    Flint :nudge:
  • FxXPFxXP
    edited January 2004
    The only thing I like about Hitachi is their TV's. The three letters of IBM still do not impress me, among many others that have suffered from 75GXP/60 GXP era. I will get Raptors first before one of those. Case closed.

    :canflag:
Sign In or Register to comment.