Hard Drive Configs - Page 2

ThugsRook · 09-18-2002, 06:19 PM

yep ~ chalk one up for Win98SE

SupDawg · 09-19-2002, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mikki
I did those tests after my main tests, I was trying to find out why my scores weren't comparable to Thugsrook's . After testing different configs (including NTFS vs. FAT32), I tested using Win98, that's when I found out why I wasn't getting the same scores. I didn't save any of those tests because at the time I was testing for my benefit to find out why my scores were so low, had I realized those results would have been beneficial to the group, I would have saved them .

Well, I knew a long time ago, that NTFS was not performance oreinted, and that the size of the cluster made a huge difference in performace.

Mikki · 09-25-2002, 04:27 PM

That's the funny thing, on WinXP, FAT had no performance advantage over FAT32...:eek:

Mikki · 11-27-2002, 03:17 AM

bumpy

SupDawg · 11-27-2002, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mikki
That's the funny thing, on WinXP, FAT had no performance advantage over FAT32...:eek:

?Huh

Mikki · 11-27-2002, 09:13 AM

Never noticed that before.....hehe...I meant FAT32 and NTFS....there was no performance difference in WinXP during my testing. Thanks for pointing that out SupDawg

ThugsRook · 11-27-2002, 02:59 PM

WOOF! ~ WinXP is big fat dog thats why

Mikki · 11-27-2002, 03:58 PM

Could the gentleman in the fourth row middle with the orange tie please keep your comments to yourself...

ThugsRook · 11-27-2002, 04:21 PM

oops sorry Mikki, youre right ~ i shouldnt have barked in your thread

Mikki · 11-27-2002, 05:00 PM

lol!

Didn't think I was gonna get away with that...hehe...

Thugsrook, you can bark in my thread anytime!

Besides, I know I'll never be able to prove that XP is a far superior os (except for the invasion of privacy cr@p, that is...) ! hehe....

Mikki · 12-04-2002, 05:00 PM

bumpity-bump

for the new folks...

traveler · 12-04-2002, 07:47 PM

Very interesting!

Mikki · 01-03-2003, 07:20 PM

A little bumpage for more new folks...

ric65041 · 01-04-2003, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mikki
Results of testing I did a week or so ago, sorry to all that it took so long to post! Disclaimer: This is my system, and the results are general, I have no idea if they'll be different on other systems, with different OS's, different drives, etc.

System:
P4B533-E
2xWD 80G SE's
1XWD 80G 7200rpm 2mb buffer
WinXP

HDTach >>> Sandra

Raid vs no Raid:
Raid: 46175.0 >>> 43526
no Raid: 40505.5 >>> 28341
[i]All confi
1 part vs 2 parts:
1 part Raid: 46175.0 >>> 43526
2 part Raid: 45770.0 >>> 39753
1 part Single: 40505.5 >>>28341
2 part Single: 40468.3 >>> 28332
These tests yielded more of a mixed result, but mostly it was 1 big partition that won here

JB drive vs BB drive
JB: 39292.0 >>> 26921
BB: 33124.8 >>> 23552
No comparison, the BB is a dog compared to JB in all configs...

Single drive on raid channel vs on ide channel
...for those who want to use raid card for more devices...
on raid: 40291.3 >>> 30054
on ide: 40505.5 >>> 28341
and so it went, very mixed results, sometimes HDTach was higher, sometimes lower, sometimes they were the same. sometimes results were better for on raid, sometimes not, I'm drawing no conclusions here. if anyone wants me to post all these results, let me know...

I guess the objective of the exercise was to prove that 'part 1 RAID' setting was better than 'part 2 RAID setting' using two WD HDD with 8MB buffer and one WD HDD with 2MB buffer in you system configuration?

If this was the case, then you have achieved/proven this contention using the two benchmaks as indicated.

Was there a special reason for using the same brand HDD with different buffer configurations? What happened if they were all with 8MB or 2MB? Just curious!

Mikki · 01-04-2003, 08:01 AM

hehe...no ric65041, no objective whatsoever. I just don't like giving advise without testing to back it up, and I like to tinker and play with stuff.

And the only reason I used those drives was...that's what I had! I actually bought the BB drive for my wife's computer and decided to test the differences between the two.

If ya read thru this thread, there's some interesting differences we found between WinXP and Win98SE also....

09-18-2002, 06:19 PM	#16
ThugsRook Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: FLA Posts: 1,832	yep ~ chalk one up for Win98SE __________________ P4 2.26b @ 3.59ghz KHX3000 2x512mb @ 422ddr c2622 Abit IC7-G @ 211fsb SR-A-A-A-E ThermalRight SP-94 & NB-1C eVGA LE6800 GTU @ 425x1200
(Offline)

09-25-2002, 04:27 PM	#18
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	That's the funny thing, on WinXP, FAT had no performance advantage over FAT32...:eek:
(Offline)

11-27-2002, 03:17 AM	#19
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	bumpy
(Offline)

11-27-2002, 09:13 AM	#21
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	Never noticed that before.....hehe...I meant FAT32 and NTFS....there was no performance difference in WinXP during my testing. Thanks for pointing that out SupDawg
(Offline)

11-27-2002, 02:59 PM	#22
ThugsRook Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: FLA Posts: 1,832	WOOF! ~ WinXP is big fat dog thats why __________________ P4 2.26b @ 3.59ghz KHX3000 2x512mb @ 422ddr c2622 Abit IC7-G @ 211fsb SR-A-A-A-E ThermalRight SP-94 & NB-1C eVGA LE6800 GTU @ 425x1200
(Offline)

11-27-2002, 03:58 PM	#23
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	Could the gentleman in the fourth row middle with the orange tie please keep your comments to yourself...
(Offline)

11-27-2002, 04:21 PM	#24
ThugsRook Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: FLA Posts: 1,832	oops sorry Mikki, youre right ~ i shouldnt have barked in your thread __________________ P4 2.26b @ 3.59ghz KHX3000 2x512mb @ 422ddr c2622 Abit IC7-G @ 211fsb SR-A-A-A-E ThermalRight SP-94 & NB-1C eVGA LE6800 GTU @ 425x1200
(Offline)

11-27-2002, 05:00 PM	#25
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	lol! Didn't think I was gonna get away with that...hehe... Thugsrook, you can bark in my thread anytime! Besides, I know I'll never be able to prove that XP is a far superior os (except for the invasion of privacy cr@p, that is...) ! hehe....
(Offline)

12-04-2002, 05:00 PM	#26
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	bumpity-bump for the new folks...
(Offline)

12-04-2002, 07:47 PM	#27
traveler Where to next? Join Date: May 2001 Location: South Florida Posts: 18,227	Very interesting!
(Offline)

01-03-2003, 07:20 PM	#28
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	A little bumpage for more new folks...
(Offline)

01-04-2003, 08:01 AM	#30
Mikki Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,299	hehe...no ric65041, no objective whatsoever. I just don't like giving advise without testing to back it up, and I like to tinker and play with stuff. And the only reason I used those drives was...that's what I had! I actually bought the BB drive for my wife's computer and decided to test the differences between the two. If ya read thru this thread, there's some interesting differences we found between WinXP and Win98SE also....
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode