# HD Tach Scores



## blackduck30 (Sep 7, 2004)

This thread was started to help give people some indication of speed and read/ write time of different drives ( be it raid or non raid ) in what i hope to be various systems.
This thread will hopefully allow people to post there scores *in HD Tach only* to keep things uniform. It will also allow you to post your system specs for others to compare scores with systems. *THIS IS NOT A CONTEST*

Please be aware thats scores can vary in two systems with the same specs and hard drives, this is meant as a reference point and can help you decide and gauge the difference between say a raid 0 and a non raid and may help you decide if it is worth your outlay and time or if indeed your system is way out of tune.

*If you do not have HD Tach you can download a free version here*

*HERE*

*Alternate link* *HERE*

Here are my scores for my Intel Raid 0 system drive running the quick 8MB zone test

*Sequential Read Peak* = 115Mb/s
*Burst Speed* = 270MB/s
*Average Read* = 96.9 MB/s
*CPU Utilization * = 6%
*Random Access* = 15ms

My 200G Maxtor storage drive ( Non raid ) running the quick 8MB zone test

*Sequential Read Peak* = 75Mb/s
*Burst Speed* = 210.7 Mb/s
*Average Read* = 57.3 Mb/s
*CPU Utilization * = 3%
*Random Access* = 16.3ms

*System, 
Asus P5WD2 Premium
Intel Pentium D 940 3.2 mhz
2G corsair value select DDR2
Gainward,Nvidia 7900GT
2 X maxtor 200G Sata 2, intel Raid 0 ( system drives )
2 X maxtor 200G Sata 2 storage drives
Silverstone Zeus 650W Power Supply*


----------



## whardman (Jun 28, 2006)

(8MB Zone test)

Intel Pentium D 3GHz
Intel D945PSN
1GB DDR2 SDRAM
Asus AX550 Video Card
Thermaltake 500W PSU
Seagate 160GB SATA

*Sequential Read Peak* = 60MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 126.6MB/s
*Average Read* = 48.1MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 2%
*Random Access* = 12.6ms

---------------------------------

Intel Pentium III 667MHz
Intel CA810E (Dell)
384MB SDRAM
350W PSU (Dell)
Seagate 120GB IDE

*Sequential Read Peak* = 55MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 61.3MB/s
*Average Read* = 46.3MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 2%
*Random Access* = 14.9ms

---------------------------------

Intel Celeron D 2.8GHz
Intel D865GBF
1GB DDR SDRAM
Allied 350W PSU
Maxtor 100GB SATA

*Sequential Read Peak* = 60MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 117.4MB/s
*Average Read* = 48.6MB/s
*CPU Utilization *= 7%
*Random Access *= 15.5ms

---------------------------------

Intel Pentium III M 1.2GHz
Dell Inspiron 8100
512MB SDRAM
Seagate 100GB (2.5" Laptop) IDE

*Sequential Read Peak* = 43MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 87.9MB/s
*Average Read* = 30.8MB/s
*CPU Utilization *= 6%
*Random Access *= 17.4ms


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

Seagate ST373454LC Ultra320 SCSI Drive >>>> 15,000 RPM Cheetah
Operated by PCI Bus Adaptec 29160N LVD Controller

Quick Test Results:
*Random Access*: 5.8ms
*CPU Utilization*: 16%
*Avg Read*: 79.8 Mb/s

SCSI drives dont burst so I can input that result? & No Sequential Read Peak Results either; I am starting to feel cheated :sad: 


System:

Asus P4800-E Deluxe mobo
CPU Intel P4 Socket 478 Prescott 3.0GHZ (at time of test)
2 gigs Crucial Ram >>> Cas-3
Adpatec 29160N Scsi Controller on PCI bus


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

Interesting results:

I just swapped out the 3.0 ghz P4 processor and installed a Prescott P4 
3.2ghz CPU and overclocked it by 15% to 3.6ghz

the hard drive tach results only changed by CPU utilization of 8% instead of 16% all other results remained the same.

So much for the theory that a big overclock improves hard drive read & writes >>> to go from a 3.0 to an overclocked 3.2 and no improvement !

why bother? the heat is rising good though LOL cpu heat rose by 6C without any task really pushing it. Not sure if I would dare to encode a DVD movie with this setting. 

I really hate burning money  

hmmmmm ?????????????????


----------



## hwm54112 (Oct 10, 2005)

running the quick test-200 gig western digital ide

*Sequential Read Peak* = 59Mb/s
*Burst Speed* = 88.1MB/s
*Average Read *= 50.1 MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 7%
*Random Access* = 13.7ms

*System*: out of the box gateway

AMD Athlon 64, 2200 MHz 3500+
MSI RS480M2 (MS-7093) 
ATI Radeon Xpress 200, AMD Hammer
512 MB (PC3200 DDR SDRAM)


----------



## Ralck (Dec 10, 2004)

My system:
AMD X2 4200+ (stock speed of 2.2Ghz)
ASRock 939Dual-Sata2
2x1GB dual channeled DDR400 RAM @ 2-3-2-5
ATi 9800Pro AIW (directly from ATi)
FSP 450W PSU

Quick 8MB test:

Harddrive 1: 2.1GB ramdom Samsung IDE drive I found and decided to test. Model number is: WU32165A. I think it's a 4200 or 5400RPM drive.
*Sequential Read Peak* = 5.1 MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 13.0 MB/s
*Average Read* = 1.8 MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 0% (+/- 2%)
*Random Access* = 16.7ms

Harddrive 2: 200GB Maxtor IDE drive. 7200RPM, 16MB cache, theretical seek of 9ms, not defraged for about 6 months, with about 100GB of data on it, Model: 6L200P0 BAH41G10
*Sequential Read Peak* = 65.5 MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 120.8 MB/s
*Average Read* = 53.7 MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 1% (+/- 2%)
*Random Access* = 14.8ms

HDTach BSOD's my laptop (Does anyone else have this happen, or do I have a hardware conflict?)

I'm going to be formatting my 200GB tonight, so I'll edit with the fresh install results. If I get a chance I'll also grab scores of my parent's home PC, and my mom's and sister's laptops, along with a USB external harddrive.
I don't think there is a Mac or Linux version of HDTach, so I can't run it on my PowerPC 66Mhz SCSI rig or my server.


----------



## Ralck (Dec 10, 2004)

To slow for Edit time...

Here's the Maxtor after a fresh install. Odd how it actually drops performance?
*Sequential Read Peak* = 66.5 MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 119.9 MB/s
*Average Read* = 51.9 MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 4% (+/- 2%)
*Random Access* = 14.7ms

Maybe that shows the difference between XP SP1 (original tests) and SP2 (this test)? I'll try a defrag tomorrow and see how that might help.


----------



## Indoril Nerevar (Jan 7, 2006)

All tests were quick 8MB zone tests, and were run on this system:

AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz
Albatron K8SLI
1GB DDR400
2x Albatron 7800GTX in SLI
2x Seagate 80GB ATA
2x Seagate 250GB SATA
1x Seagate 250GB SATA2
Thermaltake 680W
Windows XP Pro with Service Pack 2
All drives are 7200rpm.

*Results:*

First Seagate 80GB ATA
*Sequential Read Peak:* 59 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 94.1 MB/s
*Average read:* 47.4 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 1%
*Random Access:* 14.7ms

Second Seagate 80GB ATA
*Sequential Read Peak:* 43 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 52.3 MB/s
*Average read:* 37.4 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 2%
*Random Access:* 14.7ms

First Seagate 250GB SATA
*Sequential Read Peak:* 74 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 125 MB/s
*Average read:* 57.6 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 3%
*Random Access:* 15.3ms

Second Seagate 250GB SATA
*Sequential Read Peak:* 74 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 134.2 MB/s
*Average read:* 58.8 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 2%
*Random Access:* 14.7ms

Seagate 250GB SATA2
*Sequential Read Peak:* 70 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 229.8 MB/s
*Average read:* 55.9 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 1%
*Random Access:* 14.4ms


I think my second 80GB drive is dying, which might explain the lower scores for that drive.


----------



## Ralck (Dec 10, 2004)

For those wondering the performance of an external USB 2.0 drive, here is mine:

Drive: External USB 2.0 Western Digital 160GB WD1600BB-55GUC0
*Sequential Read Peak:* 33 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 33.0 MB/s
*Average read:* 32.1 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 8% (+/- 2%)
*Random Access:* 20.4ms

As you can see, an external USB drive is severely limited by the USB bus. The USB bus is 33MB, so that's the fastest the reads/writes can go.

Edit: I thought it would be interesting to see what different RAM timings meant for harddrive performance. My RAM timings are normally 2-3-2-5-1T, so I loosened them to 3-4-4-8-1T, which is the same or worse than value-RAM. Did the test on my Internal Maxtor 200GB IDE with about 54GB space used:
(Timings of 2-3-2-5)
*Sequential Read Peak:* 68 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 121.3 MB/s
*Average read:* 52.9 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 3% (+/- 2%)
*Random Access:* 15.1ms

(Timings of 3-4-4-8; set through BIOS)
*Sequential Read Peak:* 67.5 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 121.2 MB/s
*Average read:* 53.5 MB/s
*CPU Utilisation:* 2% (+/- 2%)
*Random Access:* 16.1ms

I don't know how accurate this is without actually testing actual value-RAM, as my memory is very high quality, so even loosened RAM timings might not be as much of a performance drop as actual value-RAM.
Interesting... There doesn't seem to be any performance difference with different RAM timings; I guess RAM timings are like overclocking: doesn't seem to do anything for harddrive performance.


----------



## TechDragon (Aug 21, 2006)

Drive: Maxtor 200GB SATA 2 6V200E0 VA111630
*Sequential Read Peak:* 72 MB/s
*Burst Speed:* 213.1 MB/s
*Average Read:* 56.6 MB/s
*CPU Utilization:* 4%
*Random Access:* 15.4 ms

System:
Intel Pentium 4 3GHZ/ 800Mhz Prescott
ECS 945P-A Motherboard
2 GB DDR2-SDRAM (PC5300, meaning 667 MHz)
VisionTek Radeon X1300 Pro PCIe
Maxtor 200GB SATA2 HDD
FSP 600W PSU
Windows XP Home SP2


----------



## Rashiki (Sep 29, 2005)

Asus P5WD2 Premium
Intel Prescott 3.2 w/HT technology 
2gb Corsair XMS DDR2 800 (pc2 6400)
ATI All-In-Wonder X600 PCIE
Sparkle Power 550W PSU
Windows XP Pro SP2

*Western Digital Raptor 74gb 10,000 RPM*
Intel 82801GB SATA Controller
Sequential Read Peak: 73 MB/s
Burst Speed: 125.4 MB/s
Average read: 64.9 MB/s
CPU Utilizatio: 3% (+/- 2%)
Random Access: 7.8ms

*Maxtor 6L100MO 100GB 7200 RPM*
Intel 82801GB SATA Controller
Sequential Read Peak: 72 MB/s
Burst Speed: 134.7 MB/s
Average read: 54.9 MB/s
CPU Utilization: 3% (+/- 2%)
Random Access: 16.4ms


----------



## Rashiki (Sep 29, 2005)

Hahaha, just for kicks i tested my 'beater' computer. The HDD was in my old computer, and it's like 8 years old or so...

Tyan Trinity i875P
P4 2.6 no HT
1gb Centon Electronics DDR 200 (PC3200)
ATI Radeon 8500LE 128mb
Antec TruPower 2.0 430w PSU
Windows XP Pro SP 2

*Maxtor 5T020H2 20gb 7200 RPM* 
Sequential Read Peak: 15.5 MB/s
Burst Speed: 15.8 MB/s
Average read: 15.2 MB/s
CPU Utilization: 0% (+/- 2%)
Random Access: 13.3ms


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

Rashiki:



is the drive a 5400 rpm ?????


thanks for the info


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

Ok; New Build 

Asus A8N-Sli Deluxe
AMD 64 Socket 64 Dual Core 4400+
2 gigs Crucial Ballastix Memory 
(rest of specs are listed in my system)

Adaptec Ultra SCSI Controller 29160N


Seagate ST318452LC 15,000 RPM Ultra-160 SCSI drive

Random Access Time = 6.0 ms
CPU Utilization = 1%
Average Read = 54.2 Mbs


Seagate ST336753LW 15,000 RPM Ultra-320 SCSI drive

Random Access: 5.8ms
Cpu Utilization: 3%
Avg Read: 66.6 mbs


Western Digital *IDE* 7,200 RPM / 8 meg cache WD1600JB

Random Access = 13.2 ms
CPU Utilization = 2%
AVG Read = 50.5 mbs

Dont have my fastest drive ready for testing on this system  I sold it & waiting for new one >>>> will add the U-320 74 gig soon


----------



## Rashiki (Sep 29, 2005)

> Rashiki:
> 
> 
> 
> is the drive a 5400 rpm ?????


Nope, 7,200. It was first introduced in 1997, has a mind blowing 2mb cache, 100mb/sec transfer speed that blazed through it's IDE inferface. So it's 9 years old, not 8 :laugh:I need to upgrade badly.


----------



## blackduck30 (Sep 7, 2004)

Joe,
Those SCSI drives throw out some awsome seek times, have they been reliable ? and/or are they new with build also ?


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

Jamie:


the first seagate drive listed is over a year old, the other ST is about 8 months old. The are super reliable as they were really meant & designed for servers.
I still have drives on myshelf that are 10 years old right on up to 2-3 years old, very seldom do they ever die they just get too old and too small for practical use. Hell I have images of my main OS drive that are larger than the 18gig scsi drive tested above. rofl

The real reason I like them is dependability and stability; there speed "looks" impressive but in real life you cant see a big diff. You can feel and see a diff enough to make me want to go back to the Seagates when I do boot up with the WD IDE when cloning, but its not a blazing diff.

Not like the diff seen when dual channel is running compared to single channel or anything like that.

I just bought a Fujitsu MAU3147NP 147GB 15K RPM SCSI Ultra320 ; they are touted as the fastest hard drive in the computer industry. As soon as I get it and clone it, I will post the HD results and see what it "feels" like but at $300.00 for one drive one could almost raid two raptors for that cost.


@ Rashiki: its hard to mess with components that work, we have two P3's in our office that run almost everything just fine >>>> except I pull my hair out when I get stuck using autocard on them !!

its hard to beat a machine that has been long ago paid for !


----------



## Rashiki (Sep 29, 2005)

No doubt, it runs just fine for what I do. The only reason that i want to upgrade is for reliability issues. God knows it'll kick the bucket sometime, I want to prevent that 

I know the P3 feeling, this beater rig replaced my Dual P3 1.0ghz rig. It's old as well, but i gave it to a friend who just does basic stuff, and it's doing just fine still  Seems i have pretty good luck with components, *knock on wood*


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

Results of HDtach on a Fujitsu MAU 3147NP 147 Gig 15,000 RPM SCSI drive


Quick Test:

*Random Access *6.0ms

*CPU Utilization:* 5%

*Avg Read:* 80.8 mbs


This is the fastest single drive I have tested thus far, but they are FAR from cheap @ just over $335.00


----------



## subman (Oct 5, 2003)

Hitachi 320GB T7K500 series SATA II

Burst Speed = 222.3 Mb/s
Average Read = 64 Mb/s
CPU Utilization = 8%
Random Access = 12.8ms


Hitachi 160GB 7K160 series SATA II

Burst Speed = 221.9 Mb/s
Average Read = 65.3 Mb/s
CPU Utilization = 7%
Random Access = 13.7ms


Hitachi 160GB 7K160 series SATA II - in External Vantec eSATA case

Burst Speed = 221.9 Mb/s
Average Read = 62.1 Mb/s
CPU Utilization = 4%
Random Access = 13.7ms


System, 
Asus A8N-E
AMD 3000+ Venice at stock speed
1G Transcend DDR 400
Nvidia 6600GT
Antec TPII 550w PSU


----------



## jbloggs (Oct 27, 2004)

HDTach Scores:

2 x 74GB WD Raptors (8MB cache) in RAID0

Sequential Read Peak = 143Mb/s
Burst Speed = 228MB/s
Average Read = 130.1MB/s
CPU Utilization = 5%
Random Access = 7.7ms

Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII

Sequential Read Peak = 80Mb/s
Burst Speed = 233MB/s
Average Read = 66.4MB/s
CPU Utilization = 2%
Random Access = 13.5ms


System:

Asus P5WDG2 WS Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
2GB (2 x 1GB) Geil DDR2 6400C4
MSI Nvidia Geforce 7900GTO
2 x 74GB WD Raptors in RAID0
Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII


----------



## Kalim (Nov 24, 2006)

Here's one that performed better than expected when carried out on my main play system (4 yr old):

Long Bench 32MB Zone​
Maxtor 82GB 7200RPM 8MB Buffer UDMA 6 (3 yr old, 62GB full)

*AMD Duron 1.3GHz
300W Generic PSU
1.5GB DDR400*

Sequential Read Speed Peak = 61MB/s
Burst Speed = 100.8MB/s
Random Access = 14.9ms
CPU Utilization = 8%
Av. Read = 49.3MB/s

Repeated with my professional system

*Kentsfield 2.66GHz Quad core
OCZ Ballistix Tracer DDR2800 4GB
Seasonic 650W PSU*

Sequential Read Speed Peak = 72MB/s
Burst Speed = 121.5MB/s
Random Access = 11.0ms
CPU Utilization = 1%
Av. Read = 57.9MB/s

Some difference there. The rest of the drives here with me are ITB and 1.5TB external through FireWire800 and SCSI (which aren't compatible with the older spec AMD), so I'll leave them for now.


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Asus M2V mobo
2GB RAM (DDR2 800mhz)
250GB Maxtor SATA2

Quick 8MB test
Sequential Read Peak = 80 Mb/s
Burst Speed = 133 MB/s
Average Read = 64 MB/s
CPU Utilization = 2%
Random Access = 14.4ms


----------



## Kalim (Nov 24, 2006)

It won't count but I have some better RAM back in now from another system that was half way around the world and these are the new tests I ran this morn :smile:

*Quick 8MB Zone​*
*System*: In left side info.
*
Seagate Cheetah 73.4GB 8MB Cache Ultra320 SCSI 15,000 RPM*
*Average Read* = 89.2MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 0%
*Random Access* = 5.1ms

*Seagate Cheetah 146GB 8MB Cache Ultra320 SCSI 15,000 RPM*
*Average Read* = 78.7MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 1%
*Random Access* = 5.5ms

*74GB WD Raptor 10,000 RPM 8MB Cache in RAID 0*
*Sequential Read Peak* = 145MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 231.4MB/s
*Average Read* = 130.1MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 0%
*Random Access* = 7.0ms
*
150GB WD Raptor 10,000 RPM SATA 16MB Cache*
*Sequential Read Peak* = 110MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 138MB/s
*Average read* = 67.1 MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 0%
*Random Access* = 10.3ms
*
Maxtor IDE 82GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache*
*Sequential Read Peak* = 69MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 133MB/s
*Average Read* = 56.5MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 0%
*Random Access* = 11.0ms

Thanks :grin:


----------



## Kalim (Nov 24, 2006)

2.67GHz quad core overlocked to 3.5GHz

*Quick 8MB Zone​**150GB WD Raptor 10,000 RPM SATA 16MB Cache
Areca ARC-1210 - PCIe x8 RAID Controller*

*Sequential Read Peak* = 289MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 683MB/s
*Average read* = 160.3MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 1%
*Random Access* = 8.0ms

!!! I've done this three times now to confirm. This is my professional system setup usually running off the PCIe X8 slot. The difference is double. :grin:


----------



## smz (Mar 12, 2007)

*ATTN: Blackduck, download link for HD Tach is Dead*

FYI: the current link to download HD Tach is coming up dead.

I was going to contribute some of my drives to this thread but want to make sure you are using the same version as myself.



blackduck30 said:


> This thread was started to help give people some indication of speed and read/ write time of different drives ( be it raid or non raid ) in what i hope to be various systems.
> This thread will hopefully allow people to post there scores *in HD Tach only* to keep things uniform. It will also allow you to post your system specs for others to compare scores with systems. *THIS IS NOT A CONTEST*
> 
> Please be aware thats scores can vary in two systems with the same specs and hard drives, this is meant as a reference point and can help you decide and gauge the difference between say a raid 0 and a non raid and may help you decide if it is worth your outlay and time or if indeed your system is way out of tune.
> ...


----------



## blackduck30 (Sep 7, 2004)

> Simpli Software will be back soon. We are transferring to a new web server and didn’t quite get the migration right.
> 
> We apologize for the inconvenience.


:wave: thanks for letting us know about the dead link, I presume they will be back up and running soon

I added an alternative link from MajorGeeks


----------



## blackduck30 (Sep 7, 2004)

OK here are the results from my new build, same drives more or less but added a 250G Samsung SATA 2 and an External 80G drive to keep a clone of my O/S on

*nvidia raid0 2X200G Maxtor SATA2's*

*Sequencial read* 115mb/s
*Burst Speed* 267.3MB/s
*Average Read * 96.0MB/s
*CPU Utilization* 4%
*Random Access* 15.0ms


*Samsung 250G SATA2 Storage drive*

*Sequencial read *  75mb/s
*Burst Speed* 173.3MB/s
*Average Read* 62.2MB/s
*CPU Utilization * 3%
*Random Access * 14.9ms

*Seagate Barracuda SATA 1 Storage drive external via usb2*

*Sequencial read * 35mb/s
*Burst Speed * 34.1MB/s
*Average Read * 34.3MB/s
*CPU Utilization * 11%
*Random Access* 12.9ms

*Maxtor 200G SATA2 Storage drive*

*Sequencial read * 75mb/s
*Burst Speed * 220MB/s
*Average Read * 57.5MB/s
*CPU Utilization* 2%
*Random Access * 15.8ms



*ASUS P5N32-E SLI Plus
Intel E6400 @ 2.4
Gainward 7900Gt
Audigy 4 sound
2G corsair DDR2 533
Swiftech watercooling
Silverstone Zeus 650W PSU
TT armor Case*


----------



## sarcan (Apr 16, 2007)

*Bottleneck obvious? HD Tach Scores*

Seagate ST3500630NS3 SATA/300
Controller Sil 3112
Computer Dell Precision 530 Dual Xeon 2.4GHz 2GB Rambus

Sequential Read max 82 MB/s (read from graph)
Burst 102.7 MB/s
Random access 13.6 ms
CPU 2%
Average read 65.4 MB/s

This drive should, according to several reviews, be the fastest thing my money can buy. But it is MUCH slower than my old 32 GB SCSI ultra160, for example going into hibernate on the old drive takes about 3 seconds while on this new one over 12 seconds!
I'm aware that this is just a place to exchange test results but please allow me to ask if anyone has any suggestion what the bottleneck might be and / or how to solve it.


----------



## mattlock (Dec 28, 2005)

Quick Bench

Western Digital WD1600AAJS 160GB single platter

Sequencial read= 85 mb/s
Burst Speed= 201.2 MB/s
Random Access= 13.2 ms
CPU Utilization= 1%
Average Read= 68.2 MB/s

Seagate Barracuda 160GB ATA100

Sequencial read= 59.5 mb/s
Burst Speed= 68MB/s
Random Access= 14.9 ms
CPU Utilization= 4%
Average Read= 47.2 MB/s


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

@ Scarcan


Sata II drives (300mbs) are not yet faster in real world use than their 150mbs brother. The 150 & 300mb/s speeds are theoretical speeds.
You drive is performing to speeds that would be expected!

SCSI still has advantages over SATA drives just not in the price structure. Sata has however, closed the gap between IDE and SCSI to a point where justifing the cost of SCSI is very difficult.


----------



## sarcan (Apr 16, 2007)

My problem are not as much the HD Tach results, but more the real life lack of speed feeling. It can't be normal that I have to wait 4x as long before the hibernate blue bar fills up? Starting every day progs like Paintshop pro, firefox, Acrobat are all equally slow. My old Seagate Cheetah hit the market around the turn of the millenium, 7 year old technology, not even SCSI U320. My brand new Barracuda 500GB SATA/300 should be faster according to several reviews.

I'm not the type of person to get bothered by a little bit less performance than reviews promise. But the presence of a bottleneck is in my case so self evident that it's really worrying.


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

have you tried disabling power management features so see if that speeds the drives feel up?

sounds as if the drive might be running in the wrong mode ? 



go to your device manager

right click on IDE controllers & sata controllers

go to properties

then advanced 

what are the drive speeds set at ? *what are the current transfer modes set at ???*


----------



## sarcan (Apr 16, 2007)

Found the problem. There appears to be a tiny incompatibility issue between Sil3112 controllers and Seagate disks, known as the Mod15write problem. So all I need is another controller.
Thanks Google,
thanks forum members for suggestions


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

Thanks for sharing ray: 


easy solution for that problem too


----------



## sarcan (Apr 16, 2007)

actually not easy to find at all. Not a word on Seagate website, not a word on siliconimage.com. When I dived deep into my registry I found
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\si3112\ProblemDevices
A lot of string values, all Seagate drive model numbers, all with data Mod15Write.
After searching Google for Mod15Write I found a lot of forum sites, mainly Linux developers, discussing the mod15write problem in such programmers lingo that it still took me a lot of time before I got the picture.
see for example http://home-tj.org/wiki/index.php/Sil_m15w which is in relatively clear simple lingo.
So to let this forum be the first to have the whole picture for non-linux users in plain English (with a Dutch accent) 
Lots of Seagate disks are not 100% compatible with si3112 controllers. The results can be system hangups and bad performance. One workaround is adding your drive type to the list in the above registry key. This prevents system hangups but at a cost: even worse performance.
The other workaround is either another controller or another drive.
The brands using si3112 chips AFAIK are ATI, Dell, Gigabyte, IBM, Logitech, MSI, NEC, Sitecom, Sony, System Talks, Sweex and even Intel.
Not happy and very curious how these companies have been able to hide this fact for so long.


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

I have heard of such problems with NCQ (native command queing)and some controllers, but to my knowledge I have seen no similar problems with western digital drives.



I personally would email Seagate and maybe they could exchange drives with a model not effected by this incompatability ?


----------



## Kalim (Nov 24, 2006)

1: Hibernate, bootup, shutdown depends on your system OS first and hardware second. It also depends on your RAM/CPU/Motherboard more than just your drives.

2: Check your drive cabling and swap with known good.

3: That link is with Linux - a totally different fish. 

4: If you want to compare performance, if its your HDD or anything other at fault, then clone your OS onto another HDD, same everything - then run that HDD on the same computer to see pure "drive" difference.

5: The bottleneck could be the controller itself.

6: If you want performance, go for a 4 HDD in RAID0 setup, preferably a U320 15k.5, the better version. :wink:


----------



## sarcan (Apr 16, 2007)

@kalim:
1. I installed a new harddisk, so RAM/CPU/motherboard and OS are identical as before
2. SATA cables are very simple, working or dead
3. Use Google to find Mod15Write Seagate si3112, read and weep
4. I DID clone my OS from my old harddisk to the new one, all I have to do to switch between the two is tell my CMOS setup my desired boot order.
5. My si3112 is as healthy as any si3112, see how many brands use it on their motherboards. My harddisk is the most popular 500GB SATA drive of the moment.
6. I want the best performance MY money can buy


----------



## Kalim (Nov 24, 2006)

Don't worry I've had it myself back in an Abit AN7 nForce 2 Ultra 400 board before.. if its the same one. :wink: 

BTW SATA cables are anything but too straight forward, no electronic hardware is. Even a bend in one of the 7 wires can hinder performance drastically. Keeping the unshielded cabling close to other SATA connectors can do too. 

And FWIW SCSI has higher sustained transfer rates aswell as better seek/access times, and the main _other_ difference is the MTBF is something like >1,500,000 hours whereas for SATA drives its 150,000-ish hours. Hence the price difference. A SATA 300MB/s HDD will perform fine though.

HDD rating is more personal opinion and so it really can't say much about a host controller or how it would perform with it. Thats why when I said your controller could be the "bottleneck", this is what I meant..

You'll have to verify further, I thought you were talking about the same one I was: *This* one. The SATA 150MB/s controller?

That would make your transfer slower than an Ultra DMA 133MB/s HDD, max. available as 120MB/s due to the encoding overhead involved.


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

Here it is for my system (at left in the "My System" menu).

*32 MB read:*
*-------------------------
Sequencial read = *31 MB/s
*Burst Speed =* 97.1 MB/s
*Random Access =* 19.4 ms
*CPU Utilization =* 4%
*Average Read =* 22.1 MB/s


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

Now this is with my new Seagate 7200 RPM drive as opposed to my old Hitachi 4200 RPM drive.

*32 MB read:*
*-------------------------
Sequential read = *45 MB/s
*Burst Speed =* 91.0 MB/s
*Random Access =* 14.7 ms
*CPU Utilization =* 4%
*Average Read =* 36.7 MB/s


----------



## Lifeismusic (Jul 7, 2005)

Sequential Read Peak = 110MB/s
Burst Speed = 350MB/s
Average Read = 56.9 MB/s
CPU Utilization = 2%
Random Access = 13.6ms

I'm a little confused as to why I am able to consistantly achieve a Burst Speed of over 300MB/s. I'm using 4x 250GB WD 7200rpm drives in RAID 0+1, using an Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe for the controller. But because these are SATA, shouldn't they only be able to get to 300, not 300+?


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

Better for my new build. See left. <<<

*Sequential Read Peak* = 66 MB/s
*Burst Speed* = 196 MB/s
*Average Read* = 54.7 MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 6%
*Random Access* = 13.4ms

Because the drives are in a striping array, you do 300 MB/s x 2 for the max burst speed.


----------



## Lifeismusic (Jul 7, 2005)

Oh I see, thanks.


----------



## jaggerwild (May 21, 2007)

Hey figured I'd chime in 
none raid Western digital cavier 7,200 sata2
Sequential Read Peak= 65MB/s
Burst Speed = 200MB/s
Average Read =55MB/s
CPU Utilization = 2%
Random Access =13.2ms


----------



## ian_heath (Jan 14, 2007)

Ooooh yeh. 
Seems 4 SATA discs in RAID0 is a little over the top but sure does yield decent stats.
Just got a 329-330 MB/s burst using my 4 x WD 160g SATA 7200's
Powered using the stock JMicron RAID controller supplied on the ASUS P5B D
(see attachment)
Ian


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

You peaked at about 160MB/s which is actually pretty good for four disks. Usually even synthetic benchmarks don't get that high with RAID 0.


----------



## geek73 (Mar 29, 2007)

Here is my lonly numbers..with only 2 of my hard drives connected. But remeber I am also running 2 instances of Folding at home

Here is my just one hard drive yuck looks almost dead

Here is a much better test.. Though for your hard drives

http://webpages.charter.net/bvanlieshout/bench32.rar


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

Those spikes in the first screenshot can't be right - how can you get 4.0GB/s when your interface limits 3.0GB/s? :laugh:

Is that second one a RAID 0 array?


----------



## geek73 (Mar 29, 2007)

No mistake lol.. There raptors in Raid 0... I will do it again..

The reason for the spikes is I just downloaded a 4.7 gig iso file for Linux and it is on my raid stripe.. I think one of my raptors is dying though..

You should see what I get when I connect 6 hard drives in Raid )

I will do the other test as well as it is more reliable,, You can download it off of me
http://webpages.charter.net/bvanlieshout/bench32.rar


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

Ahh you have four of them so 3.0GB/s x 4. I shouldn't be posting after midnight. :laugh:


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2007)

Didn't want to type, my stats are in My System drop down ^^


----------



## Motorhead8478 (Dec 19, 2007)

Heres a screen capture of my latest 4x SATA II RAID zero, command queuing off.

If unreadable
Burst 334
AverageRead 134


Not bad for 4 cheap Western Digital 80GB SATA 3.0 drives


----------



## Aus_Karlos (Mar 10, 2007)

OK. Running the 8mb test this is what i got.

Maxtor 6 300gb (System & Backup)
*Sequential Read Peak*= 115mb/s
*Burst Speed* = 189.3mb/s
*Average Read* = 61.6mb/s
*CPU Utilization* = 1%
*Random Access* = 16.1ms

Western Digital 250gb
*Sequential Read Peak*= 65mb/s
*Burst Speed* = 171.1mb/s
*Average Read* = 52.9mb/s
*CPU Utilization* = 2%
*Random Access* = 13.2ms

Western Digital 320gb
*Sequential Read Peak*= 98mb/s
*Burst Speed* = 172.4mb/s
*Average Read* = 64.7mb/s
*CPU Utilization* = 4%
*Random Access* = 13.1ms

Western Digital 500gb
*Sequential Read Peak*= 90mb/s
*Burst Speed* = 212.1mb/s
*Average Read* = 70.1mb/s
*CPU Utilization* = 2%
*Random Access* = 13.2ms


----------



## ian_heath (Jan 14, 2007)

hey Motorhead8478

yeh - seems we are getting almost identical results using same/similar HDD but entirely different system config.

notable

Ian


----------



## burnin_18 (Apr 1, 2008)

i downloaded and ran the quick 8mb HD Tach but it said that my raptor x 150gb average speed was 4MB/s and was using 25% of my core2quad
q6600 cpu?! must be a software error i know but the raptor has been giving me issues, although the wd lifeguard diognistic or whatever its called reported no errors at all. system refuses to boot every now and again and in dos says "HDD error" or "operating system not found" :upset:

im running the 32mb test now and will post results when finished.

no i won't. just had a powercut and it stoped the test. havn't got time to run again. either way the computers goin out the window.


----------



## smz (Mar 12, 2007)

That is way off. I upgraded to a Q6600 myself and I just re-ran the test

and I got my highest score yet bursting at 187mb/sec and sustained 140mb/sec

I'm running a raid 0 with a pair of Maxtor 7200RPM SATA drives.

This makes very little since, but if this is a new config, maybe there is a conflict with the mb & drive detection.

Also the newest HD driver controller is good update. Keep in mind the raid driver is separate then a regular Sata Driver or IDE driver. All depends on your config.

Hope that sheds some inside.



burnin_18 said:


> i downloaded and ran the quick 8mb HD Tach but it said that my raptor x 150gb average speed was 4MB/s and was using 25% of my core2quad
> q6600 cpu?! must be a software error i know but the raptor has been giving me issues, although the wd lifeguard diognistic or whatever its called reported no errors at all. system refuses to boot every now and again and in dos says "HDD error" or "operating system not found" :upset:
> 
> im running the 32mb test now and will post results when finished.
> ...


----------



## HD_Monkey (Apr 16, 2008)

Hello, just set up my first raid 0 and here are the results. This was using two seagate 7200rpm barracudas sata2 with a 4kb stripe. Also, OS is x64. Not sure if that makes a difference.

Sequential read = 178 MB/s
Burst Speed = 350.5 MB/s
Random Access = 15.4 MB/s
CPU Utilization = 7%
Average Read = 155.5 MB/s

What do you think? :wave:


----------



## smz (Mar 12, 2007)

That is sweet. I pumped up my system to the max though I took out my raid for now in favor of the latest model Maxtor/Seagate Sata II (turns of out the raid 0 was SATA I) but it looks on par for what I get with my one single drive. The burst is real sweet on yours too!

I know for sustained read I'm getting around 80MB/s
though for some reason now at x64, HD tach keeps crashing even if i set it in compatibility mode 




HD_Monkey said:


> Hello, just set up my first raid 0 and here are the results. This was using two seagate 7200rpm barracudas sata2 with a 4kb stripe. Also, OS is x64. Not sure if that makes a difference.
> 
> Sequential read = 178 MB/s
> Burst Speed = 350.5 MB/s
> ...


----------



## HD_Monkey (Apr 16, 2008)

smz said:


> That is sweet. I pumped up my system to the max though I took out my raid for now in favor of the latest model Maxtor/Seagate Sata II (turns of out the raid 0 was SATA I) but it looks on par for what I get with my one single drive. The burst is real sweet on yours too!
> 
> I know for sustained read I'm getting around 80MB/s
> though for some reason now at x64, HD tach keeps crashing even if i set it in compatibility mode


Thanks smz, sorry to hear about the crashes. Did not have that issue, but am still finding my way around x64 and all the driver issues. Also haven't installed much software yet. Will not rant on Bill's business model because you all know the score anyhow. Exceptionally fast OS especially raided. :grin:

Laters :wave:


----------



## smz (Mar 12, 2007)

I just read your system profile and realized you are one of the few on XP x64, superior to vista X64 I must say.

I am testing Vista X64 and getting the error on it even with compatibility set to various Operating Systems.

Out of all the Vista's I've tested, this runs the fastest, though it takes full advantage of my 4GB of ram and I also upgraded to the Intel Core 2 Quad which really works well with the affinity settings when you do them manually. I need to do a dual boot with my XP x64 Pro and see how the affinity settings respond on it.

For the record, Vista x64, just like Vista in general generates errors in well more than just HD tach. I can't use 64-Bit Browsers with Flash, Quicktime doesn't work with any browser, I've found only "One" build of Sun Java runtime that does work, many drivers from hardware makers, say XP x64 support but no full support for vista x64 (there are work arounds for some), the list is gigantic.

Worst thing is so many programs that are x64 compatible run at x32 in task manager. But I guess with 4GB and the Quad, speed is not an issue with Vista x64, only compatibility. So I am only testing, I will be migrating back to XP x32 more than likely unless XP x64 gives me better compat.

Take Care.
For the record, attached is the screen shot of HD Tach taking a d*mp when launched from Vista Ultimate x64.




HD_Monkey said:


> Thanks smz, sorry to hear about the crashes. Did not have that issue, but am still finding my way around x64 and all the driver issues. Also haven't installed much software yet. Will not rant on Bill's business model because you all know the score anyhow. Exceptionally fast OS especially raided. :grin:
> 
> Laters :wave:


----------



## Lord Chaos (Jan 1, 2005)

HD_Monkey said:


> Hello, just set up my first raid 0 and here are the results. This was using two seagate 7200rpm barracudas sata2 with a 4kb stripe. Also, OS is x64. Not sure if that makes a difference.
> 
> Sequential read = 178 MB/s
> Burst Speed = 350.5 MB/s
> ...


How exactly do you get sequential read and random access numbers?


----------



## Lord Chaos (Jan 1, 2005)

smz said:


> Take Care.
> For the record, attached is the screen shot of HD Tach taking a d*mp when launched from Vista Ultimate x64.


Well, HDTach is working like a champ in my Vista Ultimate 64 Bit, and heck I have 2 Raid Arrays. (6 drives in total, 4xRAID 0 and 2xRAID 0)

I just set it to WindowsXP SP 2 Compatibility and it runs and tests.


----------



## smz (Mar 12, 2007)

after the fact, I found that setting it to compatibility mode SP2 for XP solved it all. Well I'm just about back to XP on all my machines anyhow.I tired an 8GB CF/SSD and enabled readyboost. used it for two days and didn't notice a thing. Have 3GB of DDR2 667mhz ram in this, I guess that's the equiv of 11GB ram and vista still runs no faster than XP with 2GB

next windows upgrade should be on Bill's tab.



Lord Chaos said:


> Well, HDTach is working like a champ in my Vista Ultimate 64 Bit, and heck I have 2 Raid Arrays. (6 drives in total, 4xRAID 0 and 2xRAID 0)
> 
> I just set it to WindowsXP SP 2 Compatibility and it runs and tests.


----------



## Lord Chaos (Jan 1, 2005)

Readyboost only gives 4 Gb and its not memory, its just a fast cache for small files (larger files are actually much slower).

And yeah, vista can't outperform XP on those kinds of machines.


----------



## smz (Mar 12, 2007)

You know what, It may be rare of a Tech asking a user questions, but since I hate vista with more than a passion, I am trying to understand why the whole ready boost thing seems so popular in marketing flash drives. You say 4GB and upon my first activation of my 8GB 233x Flash drive, it defaulted to 4090. Now do you know for a fact it's 4GB or is that all it let you do?

I only say this because all the flash drives I've come across use fat32 out of the box. well the limitaout of the box. well the limitation with that dumb partition format is the 4GB limit per file. So yes, when my CF is formatted at fat32, the max is 4090mb. However I go back a second time and the lever lets me use almost all the capacity but then fails, why? it can't create a file larger than 4GB. Now I am a curious person and since this drive is pretty darn fast and nothing is on it right now but that stupid readyboost. I'm going to disable readyboost and format it as NTFS and see if it lets me use 8GB. I just can see why all the manufacturer's market ready boot and continue to increase the size and speed of the drives if you get a lousy 4GB.

Though I am curious about your reference to it assisting with smaller vs larger files. Then if you are not using it with a flash drive is it better to turn the service off? I found with "superfetch" turning it off increases my data throughput on the hard drive. Any idea what the heck that service is?

Well I did my first test on my brand new lap with even a new hard drive. Installed my 320GB Scorpio from Western Dig after days and days of research just to find out everything I read was real. This drive is as fast as the most current 7200RPM notebook drive out right now. Burst for sure and sustained is right there. Random access/latency will be behind always for obvious reasons. But Before I take Vista and shove it in favor of XP Pro, I'm going to do a long HD Tach and I'll capture the HD Tach summary and post it. Keep in mind this is the latest technology. Manufactured Jan 28, 2008, this drive has a MSRP of $169 or so. It's 320GB @ 5400RPM with speeds matching all 7200RPM solutions on the market at least in low capacity form. I know companies already have press releases on up and coming 250+ gig 7200 drives which will then surpass what I have I suppose but not without major dollars. But if they do, the next generation will rival my SATA 7200 in my Desktop which is unreal.

Anyhow to be continued when I posted this amazing test result from HD Tach under Vista Ultimate x32 with the New WDC 320GB Scorpio.



Lord Chaos said:


> Readyboost only gives 4 Gb and its not memory, its just a fast cache for small files (larger files are actually much slower).
> 
> And yeah, vista can't outperform XP on those kinds of machines.


----------



## Lord Chaos (Jan 1, 2005)

Heh, it might be rare, but it does show character to do so. I don't think anyone is all knowing and sometimes its a good thing to share experiences and knowledge at any level, I guess thats why I like this place  I hope anything I say is of any use to you.

I cannot say for 100% sure if that limitation is because of the partition type or simply a limitation of Readyboost outright. But yes, the 4 Gb limit would be because flash drives (and even flash HDDs) are usually not NTFS (because using that is usually inviting trouble on a removable drive)

But for a cache drive, it wouldn't be a bad thing, but since I do not have a flash drive that exceeds 4 Gb I cannot test it. Let me know what your test finds out.



> I just can see why all the manufacturer's market ready boot and continue to increase the size and speed of the drives if you get a lousy 4GB.


As a sales gimmick? Usually it would be for that you could for instance have a 4 Gb ready boost cache + 4 Gb storage for files which you can take with you.

But yes, readyboost is mostly beneficial for low memory machines, especially with poor I/O and HDD performance to boot. For high end machines, it can (as I've found out) be more trouble than its worth and doesn't really help performance as the machine performance exceeds what a mere flashdrive can output.



> Though I am curious about your reference to it assisting with smaller vs larger files. Then if you are not using it with a flash drive is it better to turn the service off? I found with "superfetch" turning it off increases my data throughput on the hard drive. Any idea what the heck that service is?


Flashdrives have poor sustained transfer rates, but they can access the drive very quickly unlike harddrives. So if you're caching larger files it will be slow, for small files it will be able to access and transfer very fast. If you try and HDTach the flash drive you'll see its poor sustained performance.

As for the service, as far as I know its to use the readyboost cache, its turned on by default so anyone adding a readyboost cache can use it right off the bat. It can probably be turned off with no problems if you don't use readyboost, might save a little ressources.



> Well I did my first test on my brand new lap with even a new hard drive. Installed my 320GB Scorpio from Western Dig after days and days of research just to find out everything I read was real.


Very nice  Sounds like a really nice drive.

As for the Vista thing, I guess its just about the machine and what you get used to. I've had Vista 64 Bit Ultimate for a good while now and its performing extremely well and stable. (for now anyway, heh, thats why I am looking for a complete RAID boot backup system). I didn't disable anything but the UAC and then its pretty nice and smooth, and simply reminds me of a more pretty XP that can utilize the ressources better. Going from XP 64 Bit I am certainly pleased with the experience.


----------



## Jtsou (Jul 13, 2007)

I cant run it... vista


----------



## bobalazs (Jul 29, 2008)

SAMSUNG 403LJ -400 gigabyte
SATA150
Random Access: 21.6ms
AVG read 46.8 MB/S
Burst speed 129.7 MB/s


----------



## netmon22 (Nov 30, 2007)

I just saw this link and thought I would download this software and test my drives, which did very good. I don't get why the burst speed is so high though. The image below is from the 32Gb test, which I ran 3 times and all the speeds were very similar. The 8Gb test had the burst speed in the 2600mb range
32Gb test
Burst 2994.6MB/s
Random Access 7.2ms
CPU utilization 3%
Average read:208.0MB/s

Raid 0 WD 300Gb Raptor drives 
Asus p5k Premium Quad core [email protected]

I would like to try it now with my Areca controller running the drives instead of the built in raid to see the difference.


----------



## Jtsou (Jul 13, 2007)

netmon22 said:


> I just saw this link and thought I would download this software and test my drives, which did very good. *I don't get why the burst speed is so high though.* The image below is from the 32Gb test, which I ran 3 times and all the speeds were very similar. The 8Gb test had the burst speed in the 2600mb range
> 32Gb test
> Burst 2994.6MB/s
> Random Access 7.2ms
> ...


I'd have to say that what is underlined is why you get high speeds, but im not that good with HDS


----------



## mmmfreegoo (Nov 23, 2008)

Hey guys, I have a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB Hard Drive.

I have attached my HD-Tach results. 

I am getting very poor performance at the moment, and lots of horrible clicking noises. I can still use my computer, and browse the internet, but at times (when the clicking and scratching sounds start) the computer slows right down.

I'm concerned that it may be on its last legs. I was hoping someone here could look at my HD-Tach results (I am very much a newb), interpret them for me, and suggest a course of action.

Many thanks for your time.


----------



## jarekexe (Feb 3, 2006)

Similiar problem here, the hdd is only 2 months old


----------



## darklord_v (Nov 28, 2008)

tell me are these bad???????????


----------



## nugge (Aug 5, 2009)

Hello. I just found this forum and i work at a retailer and computer workshop. 

The Seagate barracuda series 7200.11 is actually faulty. It has a know firmware bug that damages the drive. 

here is the link to seagates site where they tell about the faulty firmware and a suggestion to upgrade it through the process guided. 
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207957&Hilite=

HD Tach has known issues with Raid Burst speeds reading them insanely high.

And the drive has a 5 Year warranty so you will get a new one and actually a 7200.12 series. This is how it has happend here.
//nugge out.


----------



## joshrune (Sep 28, 2010)

I have a mdadm raid 0 configuration (software raid in linux) running windows as guest operating system using two usb drives I got these unbelievable results:

Hp Dv5157ea laptop
Intel Pentium 4 1.6GHz
1.5GB DDR2
Nvidia Geforce Go 7400 Video Card
Samsung , Toshiba Mkgas Via USB 2.0

*Burst Speed* = 486.2MB/s
*Average Read* = 182.3MB/s
*CPU Utilization* = 8%
*Random Access* = 6.2ms

I can't believe two low class drives in software raid can shoot this far.

(Is this even correct?)


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

joshrune said:


> I have a mdadm raid 0 configuration (software raid in linux) running windows as guest operating system using two usb drives I got these unbelievable results:
> 
> Hp Dv5157ea laptop
> Intel Pentium 4 1.6GHz
> ...




I am skeptical if they are connected via USB interface


----------

