dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
49694
share rss forum feed

jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

improving disk data transfer rate

Click for full size
so i am really happy with my rating on my computer and my computer performance here. the only thing is i wish my score was higher but this is due because of the primary hard disk data transfer rate. it is only at 5.9 and will not go higher this is disappointing.

i have a 500g 7200 32mb cache segate as my primary drive.
ok here is the scoop ,

is there anything i can do to improve this? i have read about raid setup but not sure how this works, i know that raid 0 is bad because if one disk fails then you lose everything which means you double your failure rate in raid 0. what about raid 1? does that make the drive slower then it is or faster? how does raid work and would i have to format my computer if i added another drive for raid setup.

or is it not worth it for raid and just get a ssd drive instead? 64 gig for $200 and use that as primany drive and put files on the 500 g drive? would that give a better performance rating? does ssd get fragmented and do you have to defrag the drive? help pl0x


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

there is no need to Defrag an SSD

rais 1 would mirror your 2 drives (ie the array would be as big as the smallest drive)

with 3 drives you could do raid 5
raid 5 is like raid 0 but with fault tolerance and your storage space is equeal to n-1 (ie space is as much as 2 in a 3 drive arry)

whether or not you have to format your drive partialy depends on the raid controller and which driver you have loaded and what OS

I'm guessing your using win7 based on the screen shot (since vista stops at 5.9 not 7.9

as for wanting to improve your harddrive preformance the ssd would likely beat the hdd raid

but the wei also is affected by what driver is loaded for your sata controller

on mine (c300 128GB) the sata driver that came with the mother board did better than the one on the mother board maker's site (driver on the CD got me 7.9 but the one from the site got me only 5.9)

its odd since HDtune showed near the same result on MB/s but the WEI was differant



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to jcoutos

RAID 0 is not bad... it is the fastest-performing RAID possible.

And on the flipside, it means less wear and tear if you tend to do a lot of stuff on your hard disks as well, because each drive has to work not as much to retrieve or write the same amount of data. Pardon the analogy, but it is basically why a v8 after 100k miles generally is in better shape than a 4-cyl. that went through the same amount of traffic, roads, acceleration, etc. Even if that isn't the reason, it has so far been the only factor that has helped explain why the only drives I've had that have survived past warranty period and still have been usable have been those used in a RAID. Every other used on its own has always failed within or shortly after warranty was up.

As for the transfer rates, I think the only thing that will perform better is to get an SSD for the WEI scores. And RAIDing two or more SSD's would just yield ridiculous performance (and the stuff geek's wet dreams are made of ).
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07
reply to jcoutos

thanks for the input guys. i appreciate it. so right now i have 2 drives in my system 500 gb and 750 gb. i also read that its not good to mix drives for raid as it could cause problems? so my best bet would be to get 2 more of the same 500 gb drives in order to do a proper raid setup?

would a raid 1 or raid 5 setup increase primary disk performance? and from what you said raid 5 (3 drives) is better since it does raid 0 but you have that safety of raid 1 so it balances out the failure rate? and in raid 5 you said 2 drives total storage so raid 5 (3 x 500 gb) would equal total of 1 TB? on 1 local disk (example: drive C:\) 1 TB RAID 5 (3 x 500 gb) if I understand you correctly?

right now in my system i am using the asus m2a-vm motherboard which only has 4 sata ports i believe which 3 are in use, 500 gb, 750 gb and dvd-r. so I believe raid-5 would be out of the question for me. and yes i am using win 7.

and for the wei i am not sure what driver is loaded for my sata controller, probably just the on-board motherboard one or the one that installs with windows 7? in my bios for the drive settings i only have 3 options:

IDE
AHCI
RAID

my motherboard is on: load setup defaults and it has the latest firmware bios loaded and my drive settings is set on IDE because i dont know what AHCI does and RAID i dont have so i did not touch the bios settings. no need to screw around if i dont know what to do in there.

should i download another driver for my hdd from asus? the only thing i notice is that SSD is still expensive for a high performance drive.

ex: OCZ VERTEX 60GB series is $200 + tax. Really expensive for such a small size. It would probably only be enough room for Windows 7 (15gb) and some program file installs and such to net about 30GB-35GB, because i am not sure but its bad to fill the disk that the operating system is on right? You should have at least 40% free space so the O/S primary disk can run fast and properly from what I know of Windows O/S?



asdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net
reply to jcoutos

"so i am really happy with ... my computer performance here."

Forget about the rating. It means next to nothing and you shouldn't be making upgrading decisions because of it.

It doesn't sound like you have a performance problem, but if there is some real world usage situation where you are frustrated by a lack of performance then we need to discuss that in more detail.



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to jcoutos

Yes in raid 5 3 500GB drives = 1TB

ya unless you got 2 more 750's and one ove them replaced the 500

as to which driver it would be very dependant on the chip (I wouldn't know which would be best for your setup)


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

hmm well I have the asus m2a-vm motherboard and the processor is a socket am2+ phenom 9950 x4 @ 2.6 ghz

the system does perform well, but i believe the HDD access could be faster. is this due to me having a slow mb or the hdd itself? would like to figure what the best option would be to improve HDD performance. raid setup or invest a nice chunk of money in a SSD. prices are mega expensive vs. storage space. but are they really that much more reliable?


Chrno

join:2003-12-11

Hard drive. IMO, yes, compared to mechanical hard drives.


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

what kind of primary disk are you using to achieve that rating? mine is a regular 7200 rpm 500 g drive



asdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net
reply to jcoutos

Well the amd solutions often don't perform quite where the intel do for storage benchmarks. Still I doubt that is the main issue.

For the typical random read behavior of desktop use nothing is going to beat an ssd. If you feel you must have something faster then I would go ssd or nothing. I wouldn't waste time raiding up hard drives. There are 40GB intel based solutions x-25v, that can be had for the $125 range.



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to jcoutos



and


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

thats cool Windows 7 wei index there, but what drive are you using DarkLogix?

Are you using a single 128GB SSD? What manufactuer is that? or are you doing a raid setup?

Same question goes for Chrno what type of disk are you using, to be specific so I can check out and compare and prices and such.

$125 for 40GB SSD sounds quite decent but I think I would need a minimum of 64GB because I think when you add in Windows 7 and a few program files it would easily eat up like 30-35GB no?

and how much space is good to leave free on an SSD so you don't notice performance degredation? Since you don;t have to defrag the drive is it best to leave a certain % of your hard disk empty space?


Chrno

join:2003-12-11

I am using a single 160GB Intel X25-M SSD as my primary. You will only get 5.9 if you were to run raid 0 with two of the Seagate drives you have right now. I know this because even with 1x1TB WD Black Editions, you only get 5.9.

The index score doesn't reflect true performance levels but then again, running raid 0 will not bring you anywhere close to access times achieved by an SSD.

I think DarkLogix is using the newer SATA3 SSD from Crucial.


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

hey thanks for that information. i did not know that. wow that sucks to hear that running in raid 0 on these 7200 disks will not improve performance rating past 5.9 that is sad to hear, it should go up since i figure you are getting a performance increase. i guess the only real option would be to upgrade to SSD. I might as well wait for more money to get a 128 GB like you guys,

how much free space should you keep drive C: to keep it running optimal? i am still wondering about this ...

also my BIOS setting is IDE mode, should I update the Windows registry and driver and change to AHCI or does AHCI mode not offer any performance increases?


Chrno

join:2003-12-11

I remember with one of my stupid experiments a little while back, I was able to hit 6.3 or 6.5 with six Western Digital Raptors in raid 0 (the old 36GB version). So getting more than 5.9 with legacy hard drives is possible but you will need more than two that's for sure.

As for ACHI, I don't believe it has any performance differences on hard drives. On the SSD I am using right now, there's a difference in index score. On IDE, I got a 7.6 index while on AHCI, it's 7.8 as you see on my screen cap.


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

ya man, looks good. so looks like i wont bother with raid then for my line up, i will just invest in a good 64gb or 128gb SSD for the performance increase. thanks for the tips!



Dream Killer
Graveyard Shift
Premium
join:2002-08-09
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
reply to jcoutos

Take WEI scores with a very large sack of salt. For instance my WEI score's lowest link is my processor, which is a Core i7 920 which was at 4.2Ghz with HT at the time.

Which SSD drives are you considering? Intel makes great ones, sometimes you can find the X25-M 80GB for $220. Just make sure you get the G2s because they have TRIM. If you want to RAID them, you can go with two X25-V 40GB and get even better performance.



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to Chrno

on mine I have ahci enabled

and yes its one of the new sata3 ssd's
and as I said before the driver can make a differance (I think wei takes into account the udma mode or some odd little thing)

with just loading a newer version of the driver (the one on gigabyte's site the wei lowered to 5.9) after doing a few reinstalls to besure everything was as I want it (windows wanted to put the 100MB partition on the 2tb drive but I wanted it on the ssd so I found that windows needed it to be on the drive with the lowest port number) and a few other things

in doing so I found that the newer ver driver from gigabyte's site actually lowered my wei even though HDtune showed very similar results (ie within 10~20 MB/s)

some controllers seem to be abit picky and WEI seems to look at things other than just speed


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07
reply to Dream Killer

hey .. i've only started looking around at various SSD's and trying to compare the prices and speed they offer and value.

I rain the HD Tune Utility on my computer and my xfer rates were only hitting 91 MB/sec average. Not sure if that is good for a 500 g 7200 disk. I was hoping for faster performance. Is this normal or only so/so? DarkLogix has some amazing speeds on his posts.

I've read about OCZ Vertex SSD drives seeing they offer fast speeds as well, but do you think the INTEL makes better ones? Would they work fine on an AMD based setup?

also what size would be good for me to go with? How much free space is needed to be left on the primary disk for optimal performance?


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

Click for full size
my results


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to jcoutos

the drive in my old computer (750GB seagate 7200 managed about 60-80MB/s)

the storage drive in my new computer (2TB Seagate 7200) manages about 90-140MB/s

the ssd is being used as my OS drive (and app install drive) its one of the few available SATA3 SSD's and is connected to a sata3 controller

I'm sure that a sata2 ssd would be plenty fast (I just had waited so long I wanted to go as highend as I could)

I've heard good things about the intel ssd's


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

aha, I was wondering about the 7200 read-speed so I guess what you are saying then 90mb/s is about normal for me for what i have right now.

yea I was curious about your speeds going over 300mb/s so i figured it had to be SATA3 since SATA2 maxes out at 300mb/s, I was curious if you were using the new asus or gigabyte boards that have SATA3 and USB 3.0 ports on them, but I guess your using a SATA3 controller on a SATA 2 board? Is it a pci-ex x1 controller card slot? I dont know too much about these things (yet)

and the temperature on your drive runs hot 128C is that normal? or is the sensor of the program not reading the drive correctly because its SSD? I'm curous about that ... lol

so I guess I should look into the Intels as well. What about kingston brand? There is one in my area going for $280 for 128GB. But I dont want to go cheap-o



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Its a gigabyte board with sata3 on it
heres a list of what it has
»secure.newegg.com/WishList/Publi···17842388

the gigabyte board has 6 sata 2 ports from the intel ich10r northbridge, 2 sata3 ports from the marvell chip, 2 from a jmicron chip labled gigabyte2, and 2 sata2 esata ports

the 128c is not accurate (i used an inferred thermometer to check its no where near 128c and the temp reading doesn't change even if the room is 64F)

so I don't know what HDtune is reading the temp from for the SSD but its not a temp sensor


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

Yea cool, I was kinda thinking in the back of my mind if anyone was trying out those new giga-boards I saw at my local computer shop 2 weeks ago. Sweet, nice rig setup there looks very tasty.

hmm, have you tried updating your HD Tune program to latest version 4.01? maybe your 2.55 version doesn't have SSD support and is reading some retarded number.

anyways, nice system there man. Looks like nothing but positive comments from the people that purchased that SSD that you have in there, but man $500 is a nice chunk of dough for a 128GB SSD, ouch.

and 64F in your room? brr thats 17.5C ... you must be freezing in there. LOL. I know I would.



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to DarkLogix

said by DarkLogix:

the 128c is not accurate (i used an inferred thermometer to check its no where near 128c and the temp reading doesn't change even if the room is 64F)

so I don't know what HDtune is reading the temp from for the SSD but its not a temp sensor
It's a bug in HDTune. Most SSDs don't have a thermistor in them that's tied to a SMART attribute (usually SMART attribute 194). HDTune doesn't appear to handle that situation correctly.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to jcoutos

the HDtune I downloaded was from HDtune's site last week (but its the free trial version)

and I like 64F (I turn it up to 69F when I'm at work)


jcoutos

join:2009-03-07

yea i went to the store today to have a look around, they have these intel ones here going for about $275 ... 80GB

Intel X25-M Mainstream 80GB 2.5" SATA2 Solid State Drive
»www.canadacomputers.com/index.ph···=HDD.859

Kingston has a 128GB version for $10 more, any reviews on this one? is the intel version better then this drive?

Kingston SSDNow V-Series G2 2.5", 128GB, SATA Solid State Drive 200MB/sec. read; 160MB/sec. write
»www.canadacomputers.com/index.ph···=HDD.859



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to jcoutos

I read these reviews recently which were fairly good IMO:

Corsair Force Series F100 100GB SSD Featuring the SandForce 1200

Its has benchmarks contrasting the Corsair Force series F100 with the Crucial’s RealSSD C300 using SATA 6G and standard SATA 3G as well as some other popular SSDs for comparison.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum:

Kingston SSDNow V Series (2nd Gen) 128GB SSD Review

And finally the SSD Decoder is useful for getting quick info on specific models:

SSD Decoder Ring - an SSD comparison guide (Rev 2.3)

I’m looking at the Kingston SSDNow V Series (2nd Gen) 128GB and 64GB models personally. I figure 200 / 160 and 200 / 110 reads / writes isn’t too bad and I can get them for ~$200 and ~$100 respectively.



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

I just looked at that one comparing the C300 to the F100

they must have had something off because I've consistanly hit 350MB/s using HD tune trial

(they might need to change the block size used to be sure they get all nand channels to be used)



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

I picked up on that too based on the numbers you were posting. So I guess anything is possible. However, for what its worth, based on their screenshots they were using HD Tune 2.50. Although I doubt that would make a difference.