OT: Exhaustive HDD in RAID evaluation

farss wrote on 9/5/2008, 5:33 AM
The X-Bit Labs article here is kind of interesting as we're oftenly bound by HDD performance. I've never considered that the brand or model number of the disks used in various RAID configurations would make much of a difference. Sadly the Samsungs which have been my preferred manufacturer of late don't do too well, the crown goes to the WD4000ABYS.

Bob.

Comments

JohnnyRoy wrote on 9/5/2008, 6:16 AM
I have my 1TB internal RAID 0 made up of two WD5000ABYS drives and I've been very happy with them. These are enterprise class drives and you pay a bit more for them than the regular drives but IMHO it's worth it.

~jr
BowmanDigital wrote on 9/5/2008, 7:33 AM
Stranged that they picked 400gb drives based on 200gb platters i'm assuming.. older technology compared to the 250 and faster 320gb platter drives. I have a 640gb WD drive that outperforms my raid 0 WD500gbABYS drives in most cases. It's a lot quieter too!
megabit wrote on 9/5/2008, 7:37 AM
Also with Samsung, the 320/640/1000 GB's are known to be much faster than the 250/400/750 GB versions.

AMD TR 2990WX CPU | MSI X399 CARBON AC | 64GB RAM@XMP2933  | 2x RTX 2080Ti GPU | 4x 3TB WD Black RAID0 media drive | 3x 1TB NVMe RAID0 cache drive | SSD SATA system drive | AX1600i PSU | Decklink 12G Extreme | Samsung UHD reference monitor (calibrated)

farss wrote on 9/5/2008, 1:26 PM
They'll be running the same tests with larger capacity drives in the future.

Bob.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/5/2008, 9:40 PM
Note that this test was done with primarily database access of random small records.

That is the polar opposite of what is needed for video editing.

Meaning that the drive they rank last/worst may be the fastest/best for video editing.

Gotta be careful to see what the medals were for!

:O)