gunsmokingman Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Ran the tests on both computersUploaded the results in a zip file.Responce from HP about the interface speed in RaidI have verified the product specifications and found that the 1 TB (2 x 500) SATA 3G (3.0 Gb/sec) hard drive was bundled with your PC.I will also run the same test on Vista Sp2 and post the results. Edited February 19, 2009 by gunsmokingman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 WD 400 Seagate 500Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 62.06 MB/s 5.7 153.70 MB/s 7.1Disk Random 16.0 Read 1.01 MB/s 3.0 2.41 MB/s 4.2Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 5.991 ms 5.7 8.462 ms 4.7Latency: 95th Percentile 10.676 ms 5.6 45.524 ms 1.9Latency: Maximum 83.275 ms 7.7 94.381 ms 7.7Average Read Time with Random Writes 6.379 ms 5.5 14.475 ms 2.7Note the horrid blocking latency averages and average read with random write times compared to the two. You get great sequential performance (athough sequential write isn't even as fast as the WD 400, which is interesting), and decent random reads of larger files, but when it comes time to actually do a lot of work that would hit the cache and stress the firmware (the 95th percentile latency number registers how fast or slow blocking-induced latency is at the 95th percentile of the mean vs the maximum latency average number, and average reads with random writes hitting the disk is stressing the write caching and read-method portions of the firmware controller, specifically), the drive falls flat on it's face. Sorry to say, but Seagate built a drive tuned for streaming larger files around, not for random access. Sorry, the tests don't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Ok if i accept your explaination of what happening, then explain why on Vista I get 5.9 versus 2.8 on the 2 computers.Now the disk scores are as follows New 5.9 versus Old 5.6, from what I understand is that I should get a lower scoreon Vista with my set up. Which is not the case I get a higher disk score on Vista with the Seagate then the WDC, so is there a problem with Vista that it produces the wrong results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Ok if i accept your explaination of what happening, then explain why on Vista I get 5.9 versus 2.8 on the 2 computers.Now the disk scores are as follows New 5.9 versus Old 5.6, from what I understand is that I should get a lower scoreon Vista with my set up. Which is not the case I get a higher disk score on Vista with the Seagate then the WDC, so is there a problem with Vista that it produces the wrong results.Vista doesn't do any latency checks like this, only the more superficial sequential tests. You can run winsat from the command line in Vista as well and see the differences. The Vista score is *not* actually accurate with regards to disks, and this was rectified in Win7's WinSat. Unfortunately, there are going to be a lot of people like you who feel like this is wrong, but the numbers do not lie (and Seagate is generally known for making drives like this, this is not a new thing). If you want help looking at the winsat scores from Vista and Win7 to get an idea of what they mean, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 HP sent me a fix for Windows7 low access score.From: pavilion_support_en@mail.support.hp.com [mailto:pavilion_support_en@mail.support.hp.com] Sent: February-10-09 3:48 PMTo: Gunsmokingman@TELUS.NETSubject: Re: RE: RE: HP Pavilion Elite m9360f Desktop PC e-Hello Ed, Thank you for writing back. Ed, In reviewing your email, I understand that an error message low index score.As per the PC specification the PC is bundled with the SATA 2.0 and it have 3.0 Gb/sec speed. With the information you have provided to us you have installed Windows 7 in your PC. We at HP do not have the tested information regarding the Windows 7. However, I am providing the troubleshooting steps which may resolve the issue.Fix Low Hard drive Windows Experience Index Score/Rating on Windows 71. Right Click on My Computer and Select Properties from context menu.2. Select Device manager from left pan3. Locate your Primary Disk Drive and right click select Properties4. Now Uncheck Enable Write Caching on Drive and Press ok5. re-run your Windows Experience IndexPlease visit the below weblink which has graphical representation of the troubleshooting steps. So, please perform the troubleshooting steps form the Weblink.http://www.blogsdna.com/2133/fix-low-hard-drive-windows-experience-index-wei-score-in-windows-7.htmNOTE: The URL above will take you to a non HP Web site. HP does not control and is not responsible for information outside of the HP Web site.I did what was suggestted and got a 6 on the index, now I am happyCould you post the cmd line for winsat on vista I tried winsat disk -v but got a error.So I guess I was wrong to some extend, the fix was so simple I had to hit myself withthose wet noodles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 This is what I told you to do January 26th . Note that you should re-run the Win7 winsat tests just to see the difference.As to Vista, you can still run winsat disk, but you can't use the -v option (it doesn't support it for the disk tests).As you can see, the Seagate drive's write caching performance is poor, so keep that in mind when you shop for your next hard disk . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) When you posted that about the disk i was still running this in non raid, didnt occour to me it could affect the raid set up. As to the hard drives I wont be replacing them soon as I said I am happywith the new results, I only expected a result of 5.5 to 6.5.This is the new result of winsat disk -v> Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 163.21 MB/s 7.2> Disk Random 16.0 Read 2.46 MB/s 4.2> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 8.276 ms 4.8> Latency: 95th Percentile 13.101 ms 5.3> Latency: Maximum 49.755 ms 7.9> Average Read Time with Random Writes 9.364 ms 4.1 Edited February 11, 2009 by gunsmokingman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 There is also an option for Write back cache in the Intel Matrix software, enable it there and set the setting back for Windows 7 again.* (If you didn't already played with the Matrix Software.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 The software does not install, but thanks for that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 The very latest version of the Intel Matrix software should work on Win7 (even x64), as I am currently running it. However, it failed to install the first Win7 box I built, but worked the second time. Odd, but I guess that's beta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigeratiPrime Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Guys the reason Write Back Cache is disabled by default is it can greatly increase the chance of data loss. If you have data in cache and there is a power failure that data is lost. If this happens to data that is to be mirrored (RAID 1) the volume will be degraded, and if it is to be stripped (RAID 0,5) the volume will fail. The cache is only good for short bursts, because if there is a large amount to write the cache will fill and you will have to wait, at normal velocities, for it to commit to disk. If you look at discreet RAID controllers they recommend caching but only with a battery backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 DigeratiPrime, thank you for the information about that. This is the first time I have used raid on a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Access Denied Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) I used Acronis to reload win7 on my RAID and it lowered my HD score from 5.8 on a single Raptor to 3.0 with a pair of them @ RAID 0, lol. Something ain't right with this scoring. The same drives on Vista went from 5.6 to 5.9 when RAID was enabled. > Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 122.02 MB/s 6.9> Disk Random 16.0 Read 1.61 MB/s 3.6> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 6.415 ms 5.5> Latency: 95th Percentile 66.250 ms 1.9> Latency: Maximum 383.346 ms 5.3> Average Read Time with Random Writes 14.015 ms 2.7Some of these ms times are alot higher than his. Do they look right?EDIT. I know the disk performance is better in RAID. From the way the pc runs, to benching the RAID @ 2x the speed of the drives alone. Edited February 16, 2009 by accessdenied042 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I used Acronis to reload win7 on my RAID and it lowered my HD score from 5.8 on a single Raptor to 3.0 with a pair of them @ RAID 0, lol. Something ain't right with this scoring. The same drives on Vista went from 5.6 to 5.9 when RAID was enabled. > Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 122.02 MB/s 6.9> Disk Random 16.0 Read 1.61 MB/s 3.6> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 6.415 ms 5.5> Latency: 95th Percentile 66.250 ms 1.9> Latency: Maximum 383.346 ms 5.3> Average Read Time with Random Writes 14.015 ms 2.7Some of these ms times are alot higher than his. Do they look right?EDIT. I know the disk performance is better in RAID. From the way the pc runs, to benching the RAID @ 2x the speed of the drives alone.If it's *specifically* 3.0, with latencies like that I'd suspect disabling the write cache will clear that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Access Denied Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It is disabled and I cannot enable it(7 gives me an error stating it cannot be enabled) Only in RAID though, when just SATA, have all options there available, even the disable the write behind thingie. Im happy with the performance of it, even the score is wrong due to something. I know its faster, it works faster and that is all that really matters. I just thought the higher scores were too high for me to be running 74GB raptors in raid vs what he had. I know they are prob faster being sata II but I know for a fact my access times are lower per disk than his(raptors are bout half of reg drives, or used to be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now