Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000: Two Terabyte RAID Redux
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000: Two Terabyte RAID Redux
Date: April 23rd, 2007
Topic: Storage
Manufacturer: Hitachi
Author: Gary Key
 
 

In our last article we took a second look at Hitachi's new Deskstar 7K1000 and provided some RAID 0 performance results while proclaiming it to be the best 7200rpm SATA drive that has passed through our labs. We still think highly of this drive but our article seemed to have raised more questions than answers in our look at RAID 0 performance in general.

We are back today for a quick look at RAID 0 performance and hopefully our second round of results will answer more questions than it raises. However, we cannot guarantee this will happen based upon the numerous comments, suggestions, concerns, and heritage questioning emails we received on the subject matter. The vast majority of correspondence requested that we test additional RAID modes, stripe/allocation sizes, hardware RAID controllers, various chipsets, and different programs. We plan on providing the majority of this information over the coming weeks but for today's article we are going to concentrate on requests that seemed to resonate in the emails and comments we received.


Outside of additional testing, the number one request was that we update our test platform. The thought process being that any true differences between RAID 0 and single drive performance were masked due to our test platform being both CPU and GPU limited. The other concern is the perceived lack of performance with the NVIDIA chipset in RAID operation due to what appears to be an artificial cap on sustained transfer and burst rates. Fortunately for us, as stated in the last couple of storage articles, we were already working on implementing a new test bed.

Our new test bed is based on the Intel QX6700 Quad Core CPU and the DFI Infinity 965-S motherboard featuring the Intel P965 and ICH8R chipsets. Along with one of the fastest motherboard/CPU combinations available we also added 2GB of PC2-9200 memory from OCZ and a liquid cooled 8800GTX from MSI. The balance of components utilized is available later on in the article. We found during testing over the past few weeks that this particular system should provide enough performance to ensure the majority of our tests are not CPU or GPU bound for the near future.

Our tests today are very limited in scope and only provide results from our Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 and Western Digital WD1500 Raptor drives. The reason for this is that we are currently retesting our other drives on the new test platform and will fully roll out our expanded benchmark test suite in the upcoming 500GB+ roundup. However, the test results today should give a very good performance indication of RAID 0 without CPU or GPU limitations. There were a couple of surprises with the new test platform but overall you will find our opinion about RAID 0 did not change that much.

Our technical briefing on RAID 0 can be located here. Let's see how the Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 drives perform in RAID 0 with a new test platform and a couple of revised benchmarks.

Hardware Setup   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

27 Comments - Last by Abki, 182 days ago
Username:
Password:
Hassle vs performance by Eastbay2359, 942 days ago
"The drive literally smoked its platters. Of course we lost the entire test image and a significant amount of test time"
WHAT NO BACKUP !! :)
oh, from the previous paragraph
"a data backup nightmare"

Reply
RE: Hassle vs performance by yacoub, 942 days ago
yowza! so compared to smoking the tires in a sports car, apparently smoking the platters in a harddrive is NOT cool. ;)

Reply
Thanks Gary! by Sunrise089, 942 days ago
I got my own share of bashing comments in this space for the previous article, apparently price/performance questions aren't as valid as dogma. Anyways, whatever the perception of the community to this article, I think it speaks well of AT that this story ever appeared. Many sites would just let their old article speak for itself, and leave the questions it raised unanswered. You went out and made a new rig and have hopefully answered some of the questions the folks on the fense regarding Raid O may have had. Keek up the good work.

Reply
RE: Thanks Gary! by Lifted, 942 days ago
I don't understand why AT mixes these review together. You always end up with people complaining about the compromises being made, and to a certain extene they're complaints are legitimate.

Make one review for a hard drive, and a seperate review or article on RAID configurations. There are so many possibilities when it comes to RAID configurations that these short reviews can only raise more questions than they answer. You'll always have people saying something about the system, the array adapter, stripe sizes, even the damn GPU. When it comes down to it, people that use RAID where the performance counts (servers) are just going to by an HP, IBM, Dell or whatever system and use the adapter that comes with it. Home users and their 2 or 4 SATA RAID arrays are never going to see or need the performance from these systems that they seem to always be complaining about in their responses to these reviews. Is there a reason they need 180MB/s rather than 140MB/s to store mp3's and movies?

Reply
RE: Thanks Gary! by poohbear, 942 days ago
very true, that Anandtech follows up on their articles speaks quite highly of this site. cheers and thanks for clarifying 110% what raid 0 should and shouldnt be used for.:)

Reply
Yet again... by DigitalFreak, 942 days ago
AT yet again proves the RAID-0 freak'tards wrong.

Reply
RE: Yet again... by mesyn191, 941 days ago
A POS software RAID controller was used again for the testing though, of course its gonna make RAID 0 look bad, or for that matter RAID 5 too. You need a good hardware (ie. Areca 1210) RAID controller with a CPU and dedicated cache for RAID 0 to be worth while, same goes for RAID 5 or 6.

Reply
AHCI enabled vs. disabled? by vailr, 942 days ago
Could you comment on AHCI mode? Comparing enabled in bios vs. disabled?
The AHCI "hot swap" feature, for example. Seems to work fine when connected to a SATA JMicron controller, yet DO NOT when connected to an Intel port. On the Gigabyte DS3 board, for one example.
Also: there are newer Intel Inf and Matrix drivers.
Used for this report:
System Platform Drivers:
Intel 8.1.1.1010
Intel Matrix RAID 6.2.1.1002
vs.
Intel Inf Driver Version 8.4.0.1010 Beta
http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intel%20chipset.htm
Matrix Storage Manager drivers version 7.0.0.1020 WHQL
http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intel%20raid.htm

Reply
I think this line is confusing... by SilthDraeth, 942 days ago
hopefully our second round of results will answer more questions than it raises answers.

Reply
RE: I think this line is confusing... by joex444, 942 days ago
I don't find it confusing, but then again I passed grade 4.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 3

DOWNLOAD vWire Today - FREE TRIAL
Take Control of Your Virtual Infrastructure. Manage VI Data & Prevent Problems.
Instantly Recover Active Directory
Instantly recover Active Directory without rebooting, panic or stress. Try FREE!
Report Unlicensed Business Software Use
Earn Up to $1 Million by Reporting Unlicensed Software Use. Fill Out Our Form!
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Supermicro Barebone Servers
We Carry Everything Supermicro. Low Price, Top Service, FREE Shipping, and more.




Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
more Storage Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information