• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

16MB buffer Hard Drives - your thoughts/tests?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ribbon13
The one in the top link is. Bleh, I'd still take a Seagate 7200.8 SATA, which would outperform it by .05% because of the PATA controllers latency.

I'm thinking of getting two of these.
http://lsilogic.com/products/megaraid/sata_300_8x.html

3Ware make a 12-port RAID-5 SATA controller too.

Just FYI.

We use them at work in some of the entry-level servers, and they're pretty good all told. I never get called down to Production to sort out a problem with a 3Ware SATA controller, whereas I get nothing but hassle with the Promise TX2 cards.
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
I have a 9500-12!!!!

I want 12/16 ports with NCQ!

Ah, that's a shame.
Have you seen the NCQ/TCQ benchmarks though? They only really show an improvement for servers / server applications. I mean, if you're building a server, then :thumbsup: woot to you, but I for one can't understand why some of the other users on this forum get so hyped up about NCQ/TCQ when it'll do nothing for their setup.
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
TCQ is far better though. 😎

Maybe I'll just suffer with the IOp/s until SAS comes around.

Like I said, if you're going down the desktop TCQ/NCQ route, you might want to reconsider. If you're running a server, however, then high queue depths will be helped with TCQ/NCQ:

2. Command queuing is meant to assist multi-user situations, not single-user setups. With the recent release of Intel's 9xx chipsets, pundits and enthusiasts everywhere have been proclaiming that command queuing is the next big thing for the desktop. Wrong.
As evidenced by the disparities between the FastTrak S150 TX4 and TX4200 (otherwise identical except for the latter's added TCQ functionality), command queuing introduces significant overhead that fails to pay for itself performance-wise in the highly-localized, lower-depth instances that even the heaviest single-user multitasking generates.
It is becoming clear, in fact, that the maturity and across-the-board implementation of TCQ in the SCSI world is one of the principal reasons why otherwise mechanically superior SCSI drives stumble when compared to ATA units.
Consider that out of the 24 combinations yielded from the four single-user access patterns, one-to-four drive RAID0 arrays, and RAID1/10 mirrored arrays presented above, the non-TCQ S150 TX4 comes out on top in every case by a large margin. TCQ is only meant for servers, much like the technology mentioned just below.
 
I usually bust out a BT Tracker/Hub off of my RAID5 at Lan cons (50-100 people). So NCQ would help a little bit I would think. Lots of IOs not much speed, limited by the Gigabit. Not like I can't saturate the Router as it is...

But from a cost standpoint, I can get the next best thing at (cost - profit of old 9500 sale)

 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
I usually bust out a BT Tracker/Hub off of my RAID5 at Lan cons (50-100 people). So NCQ would help a little bit I would think. Lots of IOs not much speed, limited by the Gigabit. Not like I can't saturate the Router as it is...

But from a cost standpoint, I can get the next best thing at (cost - profit of old 9500 sale)

Yes, in that case, anything that helps would be useful 😉

With a theoretical maximum of 125MB/sec for Gb-LAN, you're going to need something a bit serious.

May I recommend 15x Maxtor Atlas II 15krpm drives in RAID-10? 😀
 
My athlon rig has an access time of 35µs 😀 Courtesy of M-sys.

Don't need THAT much bandwidth for anything I do....

I wish I could download porn that fast though. haha. 😛
 
I have Seagate Cheetah 15k's in RAID10 as my system drive. I know Maxtor's SCSI stuff is top notch, but I still don't like the company.
 
Originally posted by: toattett
The 16mb cache surely increase performance, and the Maxtor 16MB cache HD is the highest performance 7.2k HD for now. Unfortunately, people in the forum generally dislike Maxtor, therefore this is the best place to ask for a Maxtor driver review.
I am guessing that you will get 10 replys of "Maxtor sucks, go seagate" replys before getting anything useful

That's interesting, because the 8MB cache DM+9 60GB was easily bested by my "ancient" 30GB 75GXP, and my 8MB WD JB drives still blow away my 8MB cache 250GB DM+9 in terms of seek performance and multiple I/Os. Even when it is on its own IDE port. Go figure. The firmware hadn't been updated in a year though, even though the drive was only produced a month before I purchased it. Whereas the WD drives had more-or-less up-to-date firmware on them.

By your statement, am I to assume that Maxtor finally revamped their firmware in their 16MB cache drives, with an eye towards performance? Because unlike in the case with WD, I didn't see any notable performance increase on Maxtor drives between 2MB and 8MB cache. (Which I mostly attribute to old/immature firmware.)
 
Back
Top