Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]

Performance in FC-Test

For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the hard disk and formatted in NTFS. A file-set is then created, read from the disk, copied within the same partition and copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the HDD is calculated. The Windows and Programs file-sets consist of a large number of small files whereas the other three patterns (ISO, MP3, and Install) include a few large files each.

You should be aware that the copying test not only indicates the speed of copying within the same HDD but is also indicative of the latter’s behavior under complex load. In fact, the HDD is processing two data threads then, one for reading and another for writing.

When reading large, ISO-like files, the HDDs almost reach their top sequential read speeds, so we don’t see anything new in this test. The Install pattern isn’t informative, either: every HDD has the same result except for the Caviar Blue WD10EALX, Barracuda LP ST31000520AS and Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000524AS. When reading the smaller files of the MP3 pattern, the losers are the same but the rest of the HDDs have a leader (it’s the RE4 WD1003FBYX). The data-transfer rates are not much lower than the sequential read speeds of these HDDs, though.

Switching to the Programs pattern wasn’t that easy, though, as the speed dropped by half. We see all of the WD drives go ahead, being obviously better under hard loads. The same goes for the Windows pattern except that the Caviar Black WD1002FAEX is somewhat faster than the rest of the WD drives. The Barracuda LP ST31000520AS takes last place in both cases, but the other Seagate drives are close to it.

We’ve got the same results as in our sequential writing test.

Seagate is on the losing side again. The Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000524AS is the only model to deliver acceptable performance while the rest of them are much slower than in the previous test. The WD drives have remained almost as fast as with the ISO pattern.

Seagate has problems again. The RE4 WD1003FBYX is in the lead while the Caviar Blue WD10EALX is the slowest of the WD drives. The latter is joined by the Caviar Black WD1001FALS in the Programs and Windows file-sets.

The Barracuda LP ST1000DL002 and RE4 WD1003FBYX are best at copying large files irrespective of whether the two data threads are near or far from each other. The Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000524AS is good, too. Despite its problems with writing, the Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS is in the middle of the standings while the last places belong to the Caviar Blue WD10EALX and Caviar Black WD1001FALS.

The files are smaller and the Seagate drives are slow again, except that the ST31000524AS is somewhat faster than the WD1001FALS.

Seagate’s HDDs are in the bottom half of the results table again, even though the Caviar Black WD1001FALS and Caviar Blue WD10EALX aren’t much faster, either. The Barracuda LP ST31000520AS is downright slow while the RE4 WD1003FBYX and Caviar Black WD1002FAEX take top places.

The picture is already familiar to us. The Barracuda LP ST1000DL002 is the slowest drive this time around.

We don’t see many changes here except that the Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000524AS has caught up with the Caviar Black WD1001FALS and Caviar Blue WD10EALX.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]


Comments currently: 5
Discussion started: 11/24/11 10:42:09 AM
Latest comment: 12/11/15 02:43:26 PM

View comments

Add your Comment