HD_Monkey

Thanks smz, sorry to hear about the crashes. Did not have that issue, but am still finding my way around x64 and all the driver issues. Also haven't installed much software yet. Will not rant on Bill's business model because you all know the score anyhow. Exceptionally fast OS especially raided.

Laters

smz

I just read your system profile and realized you are one of the few on XP x64, superior to vista X64 I must say.

I am testing Vista X64 and getting the error on it even with compatibility set to various Operating Systems.

Out of all the Vista's I've tested, this runs the fastest, though it takes full advantage of my 4GB of ram and I also upgraded to the Intel Core 2 Quad which really works well with the affinity settings when you do them manually. I need to do a dual boot with my XP x64 Pro and see how the affinity settings respond on it.

For the record, Vista x64, just like Vista in general generates errors in well more than just HD tach. I can't use 64-Bit Browsers with Flash, Quicktime doesn't work with any browser, I've found only "One" build of Sun Java runtime that does work, many drivers from hardware makers, say XP x64 support but no full support for vista x64 (there are work arounds for some), the list is gigantic.

Worst thing is so many programs that are x64 compatible run at x32 in task manager. But I guess with 4GB and the Quad, speed is not an issue with Vista x64, only compatibility. So I am only testing, I will be migrating back to XP x32 more than likely unless XP x64 gives me better compat.

Take Care.
For the record, attached is the screen shot of HD Tach taking a d*mp when launched from Vista Ultimate x64.

Attached Images

hdtach-visx64.jpg (52.7 KB, 19 views)

Lord Chaos

How exactly do you get sequential read and random access numbers?

Lord Chaos

Well, HDTach is working like a champ in my Vista Ultimate 64 Bit, and heck I have 2 Raid Arrays. (6 drives in total, 4xRAID 0 and 2xRAID 0)

I just set it to WindowsXP SP 2 Compatibility and it runs and tests.

smz

after the fact, I found that setting it to compatibility mode SP2 for XP solved it all. Well I'm just about back to XP on all my machines anyhow.I tired an 8GB CF/SSD and enabled readyboost. used it for two days and didn't notice a thing. Have 3GB of DDR2 667mhz ram in this, I guess that's the equiv of 11GB ram and vista still runs no faster than XP with 2GB

next windows upgrade should be on Bill's tab.

Lord Chaos

Readyboost only gives 4 Gb and its not memory, its just a fast cache for small files (larger files are actually much slower).

And yeah, vista can't outperform XP on those kinds of machines.

smz

You know what, It may be rare of a Tech asking a user questions, but since I hate vista with more than a passion, I am trying to understand why the whole ready boost thing seems so popular in marketing flash drives. You say 4GB and upon my first activation of my 8GB 233x Flash drive, it defaulted to 4090. Now do you know for a fact it's 4GB or is that all it let you do?

I only say this because all the flash drives I've come across use fat32 out of the box. well the limitaout of the box. well the limitation with that dumb partition format is the 4GB limit per file. So yes, when my CF is formatted at fat32, the max is 4090mb. However I go back a second time and the lever lets me use almost all the capacity but then fails, why? it can't create a file larger than 4GB. Now I am a curious person and since this drive is pretty darn fast and nothing is on it right now but that stupid readyboost. I'm going to disable readyboost and format it as NTFS and see if it lets me use 8GB. I just can see why all the manufacturer's market ready boot and continue to increase the size and speed of the drives if you get a lousy 4GB.

Though I am curious about your reference to it assisting with smaller vs larger files. Then if you are not using it with a flash drive is it better to turn the service off? I found with "superfetch" turning it off increases my data throughput on the hard drive. Any idea what the heck that service is?

Well I did my first test on my brand new lap with even a new hard drive. Installed my 320GB Scorpio from Western Dig after days and days of research just to find out everything I read was real. This drive is as fast as the most current 7200RPM notebook drive out right now. Burst for sure and sustained is right there. Random access/latency will be behind always for obvious reasons. But Before I take Vista and shove it in favor of XP Pro, I'm going to do a long HD Tach and I'll capture the HD Tach summary and post it. Keep in mind this is the latest technology. Manufactured Jan 28, 2008, this drive has a MSRP of $169 or so. It's 320GB @ 5400RPM with speeds matching all 7200RPM solutions on the market at least in low capacity form. I know companies already have press releases on up and coming 250+ gig 7200 drives which will then surpass what I have I suppose but not without major dollars. But if they do, the next generation will rival my SATA 7200 in my Desktop which is unreal.

Anyhow to be continued when I posted this amazing test result from HD Tach under Vista Ultimate x32 with the New WDC 320GB Scorpio.

Lord Chaos

Heh, it might be rare, but it does show character to do so. I don't think anyone is all knowing and sometimes its a good thing to share experiences and knowledge at any level, I guess thats why I like this place :) I hope anything I say is of any use to you.

I cannot say for 100% sure if that limitation is because of the partition type or simply a limitation of Readyboost outright. But yes, the 4 Gb limit would be because flash drives (and even flash HDDs) are usually not NTFS (because using that is usually inviting trouble on a removable drive)

But for a cache drive, it wouldn't be a bad thing, but since I do not have a flash drive that exceeds 4 Gb I cannot test it. Let me know what your test finds out.

As a sales gimmick? Usually it would be for that you could for instance have a 4 Gb ready boost cache + 4 Gb storage for files which you can take with you.

But yes, readyboost is mostly beneficial for low memory machines, especially with poor I/O and HDD performance to boot. For high end machines, it can (as I've found out) be more trouble than its worth and doesn't really help performance as the machine performance exceeds what a mere flashdrive can output.

Flashdrives have poor sustained transfer rates, but they can access the drive very quickly unlike harddrives. So if you're caching larger files it will be slow, for small files it will be able to access and transfer very fast. If you try and HDTach the flash drive you'll see its poor sustained performance.

As for the service, as far as I know its to use the readyboost cache, its turned on by default so anyone adding a readyboost cache can use it right off the bat. It can probably be turned off with no problems if you don't use readyboost, might save a little ressources.

Very nice :) Sounds like a really nice drive.

As for the Vista thing, I guess its just about the machine and what you get used to. I've had Vista 64 Bit Ultimate for a good while now and its performing extremely well and stable. (for now anyway, heh, thats why I am looking for a complete RAID boot backup system). I didn't disable anything but the UAC and then its pretty nice and smooth, and simply reminds me of a more pretty XP that can utilize the ressources better. Going from XP 64 Bit I am certainly pleased with the experience.

Jtsou

I cant run it... vista :(

bobalazs

SAMSUNG 403LJ -400 gigabyte
SATA150
Random Access: 21.6ms
AVG read 46.8 MB/S
Burst speed 129.7 MB/s

netmon22

I just saw this link and thought I would download this software and test my drives, which did very good. I don't get why the burst speed is so high though. The image below is from the 32Gb test, which I ran 3 times and all the speeds were very similar. The 8Gb test had the burst speed in the 2600mb range
32Gb test
Burst 2994.6MB/s
Random Access 7.2ms
CPU utilization 3%
Average read:208.0MB/s

Raid 0 WD 300Gb Raptor drives
Asus p5k Premium Quad core 9550@3.96

I would like to try it now with my Areca controller running the drives instead of the built in raid to see the difference.

Attached Images

kki.jpg (232.4 KB, 14 views)

Jtsou

I'd have to say that what is underlined is why you get high speeds, but im not that good with HDS

mmmfreegoo

Hey guys, I have a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB Hard Drive.

I have attached my HD-Tach results.

I am getting very poor performance at the moment, and lots of horrible clicking noises. I can still use my computer, and browse the internet, but at times (when the clicking and scratching sounds start) the computer slows right down.

I'm concerned that it may be on its last legs. I was hoping someone here could look at my HD-Tach results (I am very much a newb), interpret them for me, and suggest a course of action.

Many thanks for your time.

Attached Images

hd-tach-01.jpg (118.3 KB, 15 views)

jarekexe

Similiar problem here, the hdd is only 2 months old :(

Attached Images

hdtach.JPG (89.9 KB, 5 views)

darklord_v

tell me are these bad???????????

Attached Images

asdd.JPG (182.5 KB, 21 views)

nugge

Hello. I just found this forum and i work at a retailer and computer workshop.

The Seagate barracuda series 7200.11 is actually faulty. It has a know firmware bug that damages the drive.

here is the link to seagates site where they tell about the faulty firmware and a suggestion to upgrade it through the process guided.
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207957&Hilite=

HD Tach has known issues with Raid Burst speeds reading them insanely high.

And the drive has a 5 Year warranty so you will get a new one and actually a 7200.12 series. This is how it has happend here.
//nugge out.