Hard drive performance

[BeTomXXX]

Hi all,


I just tested my HD performance of my Seagat barracuda wich is a 120 gb drive with 8mb cache.
I tested with Sisofsandra and have a performance of 29521.

the problem is that I also have an older 80GB maxtor diamand max with 2mb cache.

apparently in the test my 80gb drive is doing a litle better (not much tough) then the barracuda.

this worrys me because when i just got the drive, performance was a lot higher on the barracuda then on the maxtor.


Any one knows what could cause this?


Tom

 

[newParadigm]

Wahts the interface on the 2 drives, Is it the same?

Caue i know that most of the Cudas are ATA100, (At least my 2 80's are)

If the Maxtor is ATA133 this COULD be the cause.

 

[BeTomXXX]

OK, I did the test on the Maxtor again, and apparently performance difference is much bigger then I thought.

The maxtor is doing 36,073
The Barracuda is doing 29,000


This is a big difference because I epect the Barracuda performonce to be superior to the Maxtor (like it was)
Both drives where always connected to IDE 0 parallel interface.

Could it be possble that the cache of the Barracuda is broken or something like that?

 

[BeTomXXX]

I also disconnected the Maxtor and run the test again with only the barracuda but performance stays the same.

Is there a tool that can be used to check the HD cache?

 

[stevty2889]

I recomend using HD TACH for benchmarking hard drives rather than sandra, as it was actualy designed for testing hard drives. HD Tach

If you want to test your hard drive to make sure nothing is wrong, you should download the utilities from the manufacturers website.

 

[BeTomXXX]

OK, Thank you for the reply.

I just did a clean install of XP. sow now I have only windows installed, drivers and a few bench tools.

I ran HD tach (long test).

Barracuda: burst = 88.9mb/s; Average = 43.5mb/s
Maxtor: burst = 91,4mb/s; Average = 48,8mb/s

Still I expect the barracuda to be faster because it has 8mb cache.

now on the graph of the Barracuda I see something strange. In the first half the graph is very jiggy, big drops and peeks. Apparently to for comparisson the same barracuda is included in the list. When comparing both mine is extremly jiggy.

If you want I can send you the graph by mail.

 

[BeTomXXX]

Almost forgot, did run the seagate tools on, floppy but no problems where indicated. I'm still guessing something is wrong with the cache, but need to be shure about it.

This drive is still in warranty, but I need some hard proof that something is wrong with it or else they wont trade this drive.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: BeTomXXX
Still I expect the barracuda to be faster because it has 8mb cache.

That's a stupid assumption. Cache does not a faster drive make, and with the exception of the Cheetah, Seagate is on the lower rung for raw throughput. However, compare noise levels and you'll see why.

- M4H

 

[BeTomXXX]

Ok, you are probably right, but don't forget that when I first bought this drive, the performance whas superior to the Maxtor.

I update my information some more.

In the HD tach sequential read speed test I find that the peaks are there between 0 to 50GB. The peaks jump up and down with an average of 20 mb/s.

this can not be found on any other drive included in the comparison list.


Is there a way to add a picture to your post?