Articole si teste interesante - harddisk-uri 3.5"

Am facut si eu un RAID 0 cu 2 Samsung HD250HJ pe un ICH9R.
Strip size-ul l-am lasat pe default adica 128KB.
In Vista Ultimate 32bit rezultatul este cel din prima figura.
Mi se pare dubios graficul cu cresterea spre final.
Cred ca am o problema de performanta.

Cu 2 instante de HD_Speed rata de transfer este de ~10MB/s pe fiecare instanta. Totalul ~20MB/s.
Cu 3 instante de HD_Speed rata de transfer este intre 7 si 12MB/s pe fiecare instanta. Totalul ~20-22MB/s.

Un singur HD250HJ pe SB700 in WinXP obtine performanta din figura a doua.

Niste teste foarte interesante despre NCQ performance on Seagate 1TB 7200.11.
Se pare ca la modelele 7200.11 de 1TB si de 500GB cei de la Seagate au reusit sa implementeze in sfarsit corect functia NCQ cu rezultate extraordinare, chiar si in RAID 0.
Daca nu ar fi zgomotoase si nu ar incepe sa caraie dupa un timp mi-as lua si eu vreo 2 (sau poate chiar 3) 7200.11 de 500GB pentru un RAID 0.
In poza 3 performanta a 2 Seagate 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0, iar in poza 4 performanta a 3 Seagate 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0.


  • ich9R raid 2 x hd250hj.jpg
    ich9R raid 2 x hd250hj.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 60
  • SB700 1x hd250hj.JPG
    SB700 1x hd250hj.JPG
    100 KB · Views: 56
  • raid 2x500GB.JPG
    raid 2x500GB.JPG
    117.6 KB · Views: 48
  • 3xSEAGATE7200.11_RAID0.JPG
    86.6 KB · Views: 57
Ghici ghicitoare :goofy:


  • HDTune_Benchmark_Intel___Raid_0_Volume(3 Raptor).png
    HDTune_Benchmark_Intel___Raid_0_Volume(3 Raptor).png
    46 KB · Views: 88
Doo solid state puse în RAID, probabil cu un RAM cache de 128-256MB battery-backed.
Mitul Raptoarelor a fost spulberat de ceva vreme, între timp a crescut densitatea de informaţie pe platan, au apărut perpendicular recording şi NCQ. Compară cu un Seagate 7200.11, de exemplu.
Hehe :biggrin:. Ai facut doar pe primii 40GB din matrice (probabil primii 10GB de pe fiecare hard) ca sa nu strici media transferului si a timpului de acces?
florin a fost cel mai jmecher şi a reuşit să afle :tongue:
bausto, aceia mă şi interesează cel mai mult. Pentru restul voi putea folosii "pocnitorile" descrise de puterfixer.
Cu ajutorul am pus mana pe urmatoare:
- Samsung HD501LJ – 500GB
- Western Digital WD6400AAKS – 640GB
- RAID0 2*Western Digital Raptor 150ADFD - 150GB

Cine vrea capacitati mai mici, poate alege varianta cu un singur platan si jumatate din capacitate. Performantele se vor pastra in mare parte.

Ca şi continuare, am testat azi Western Digital WD3200AAKS - 320GB. (HDTune şi PcMark05)
Ataşez şi valorile HDTune pentru RAID0 3*Western Digital Raptor 150ADFD - 150GB (primii 50GB).


  • HDTune_Benchmark_Intel___Raid_0_Volume(3 Raptor).png
    HDTune_Benchmark_Intel___Raid_0_Volume(3 Raptor).png
    46 KB · Views: 52
  • HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD3200AAKS-00YGA.png
    47.9 KB · Views: 35
  • PcMark05 WD320AAKS.png
    PcMark05 WD320AAKS.png
    166.6 KB · Views: 28

Intel X25 80GB Solid-State Drive Review @

Intel ships one of the fastest storage devices we've ever seen, but it costs a pretty penny. You know you want one.

Intel X25-M 80GB SATA Solid State Drive, Intel Ups The Ante @


* Fastest 225MB/s average reads
* Blazing fast <1ms random access
* Fastest real-world write performance we've seen to date
* Generally 2 - 3X faster than other MLC-based SSDs
* 3-year warranty

* Expensive versus other MLC SSD drives
* Much more expensive versus standard hard drives
* Max 80GB density currently

Intel X25-M 80GB Solid State Hard Drive Review @

Intel's first entry into the solid state drive arena is a success. All of the performance claims that Intel made about the product before our testing were met and that doesn't happen very often in this industry. If you want the top performing storage solution for your system and can live with a limited capacity (either with a specific usage model or other storage mediums) then Intel's X25-M drive is your best option today.

Intel's X25-M solid-state drive @

The X25-M delivers on both fronts, with low power consumption that should make notebook users swoon and truly inspiring performance with some workloads.
Adaug un articol foarte bun pe aceiaşi temă de la Anandtech. Spun foarte bun pentru că nu se bazează doar pe teste sintetice, ci pe experienţa practică, aducând în prim plan o problemă destul de gravă a unor SSD-uri pe care celelalte review-uri o ratează:

As I've mentioned before, the random write issues with JMicron JMF602 based MLC SSDs are simply unacceptable and in my opinion they make the drives unusable for use in any desktop or notebook that you actually care about. Next year we may see a JMicron controller that fixes the problem but until then, I'd consider those drives off limits.

Despre Intel:

This thing is fast, and I want one in my system...actually, two. It's the only SSD that I would actually go out, buy and stick in my desktop machine at this point. I think that's the first time I've ever said something like that in a review, but I'm absolutely convinced. I've been using SSDs in my systems for a few months now and I'm hooked.
To me this is bigger than Nehalem, but then I look at the price tag and think that Nehalem will probably be a cheaper upgrade. Intel redefined the performance of the MLC SSD, I only wish they also redefined the price...
Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: Bigger And Better? @

Seagate is the first hard drive maker to deliver a hard drive with a capacity exceeding 1 TB. The Barracuda 7200.11 family now sports a 1.5 TB top model, and its test results are ambiguous. On the plus side, the drive delivers excellent throughput of almost 130 MB/s. This is more than Seagate states on the official datasheet and it is a new record for 3.5” 7,200 RPM drives in our test labs. These results are reflected in the PCMark05 file write benchmark.

The 1.5 TB Mammoth is a Storage Drive

However, the drive delivers average I/O performance and it showed a considerably higher power requirement than specified by Seagate. We’ll look into that, but at this point it is safe to say that Seagate’s new 1.5 TB drive is an excellent storage drive, but no more than that. The power consumption is higher than the requirements of other 1 TB drives, but in the context of a 80+ watts in a PC, it may be negligible for many users. Also, if you can reach your target capacity with fewer hard drives, you’ll require less power overall. As long as there is no competition, there is no alternative to getting the Seagate drive. And while it’s certainly good, it doesn’t win across the board.
Hmm, ce-avem noi aici? HDD de 160GB cu platan de 320GB? :cool:
Seria, rev o vedeţi în sshot. Availability nu ştiu, e dintr-un HP.


  • WD1600AAJS.png
    36.3 KB · Views: 55
Este foarte posibil sa fie nevoie de HDD de 160GB pentru compatibilitate/RMA/etc. dar platane de maxim 160GB sa nu se mai produca. Concluzia simpla: arunci un platan de 320GB si ai rezolvat problema. Sigur tot nu au iesit prost din punct de vedere economic.