Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(2) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]

Performance in FC Test

The FC Test utility is a benchmarking tool we use to measure the speed of hard disk drives under conditions closest to the real ones. The working principle of the program is simple: it measures the time it takes to perform read, write and copy operations over file sets, differing in the number and average size of the files.

The Windows and Programs patterns consist of many small-size files, while the other three patterns contain fewer files of a larger size. We partition the drive in two logical volumes for the copy operations. Then we perform copying between two partitions (copy-far) and copying within one partition (copy near) with the file patterns.

FC Test: FAT32 (Create)

The WDXC1200JB drive seems to be the best in the file-creation test in FAT32. At least, it took the first places in MP3, ISO and Install patterns. By the way, this drive performed better with the USB 2.0 interface rather than with FireWire. The OneTouch A14B120 left a nice impression in the Windows and Programs patterns with their small files. However, the same drive from Maxtor turned to be the slowest in the other three patterns.

FC Test: FAT32 (Read)

There’s no mistaking the winner in the read speed test. The WDXC1200JB was the fastest of all working via the FireWire interface. The OneTouch A14B120 took the second place.

FC Test: FAT32 (Copy Near)

The FireWire-connected WDXC1200JB is briskly copying files within one and the same partition. This drive also looks preferable when attached via USB 2.0 – only losing the ISO pattern to the Maxtor. This is the only success of the Maxtor, by the way, as it loses all the other patterns to the WDXU1200BB.

FC Test: FAT32 (Copy Far)

The WDXC1200JB retains its superiority in the copy-far test. When attached via USB 2.0, it proved to be the fastest drive in four patterns out of five. When attached via FireWire, it matches the performance of the WDXU1200BB. The OneTouch A14B120 is noticeably poorer than its rivals in this test – its bad access time must have hamstringed it here.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 2
Discussion started: 07/08/04 09:52:50 AM
Latest comment: 07/10/04 06:05:55 AM

View comments

Add your Comment