Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000: Two Terabyte RAID Redux
by Gary Key on April 23, 2007 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Hardware Setup
We are utilizing an Intel QX6700 Quad Core CPU to ensure we are not CPU limited in our testing at this time. A 2GB memory configuration is standard in our XP test bed as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory. Our choice of high-range OCZ Flex XLC PC2-9200 memory offers a very wide range of memory settings with timings of 3-4-3-9 for our benchmark results.
Our test bed now includes the MSI 8800GTX video card to ensure our game tests are not completely GPU bound. Our video tests are run at 1280x1024 resolutions for this article at High Quality settings. All of our tests are run in an enclosed case with a dual optical/hard drive setup to reflect a moderately loaded system platform. Windows XP SP2 is fully updated and we load a clean drive image for each system to keep driver conflicts to a minimum.
The drive is formatted before each test run and five tests are completed on each drive in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark results. The high and low scores are removed with the remaining score representing our reported result. We utilize the Intel ICH8R SATA ports along with the latest Intel Matrix Storage driver to ensure consistency in our playback results when utilizing NCQ, TCQ, or RAID settings. We will test with AAM off and NCQ turned on with our Deskstar 7K1000 unit to ensure the highest possible test results.
The Hitachi 7K1000 drives we are reviewing today will be compared directly against the WD WD1500AHFD 150GB drives in RAID 0 with a limited benchmark test suite. Our stripe size is set to the recommended default in the Intel driver set, which in this case is 128KB. We fully understand that different stripe and allocation sizes may result in possible improvements in performance based upon the application being tested, but testing these aspects is beyond the scope of this article.
We have also included a subset of drive results from our previous articles and will provide additional RAID 0+1 and 5 results of the 7K1000 in our upcoming RAID performance overview that will feature additional motherboard chipsets and hardware controllers.
| Intel Test Bed Playback of iPEAK Trace Files and Test Application Results |
|
| Processor: | Intel QX6700 - 2.66GHz Quad Core |
| Motherboard: | DFI Infinity 965-S |
| RAM: | 2 x 1GB OCZ Reaper PC2-9200 Settings - DDR800 - 3-4-3-9 |
| OS Hard Drive: | 1 x Western Digital WD1500 Raptor - 150GB |
| System Platform Drivers: | Intel 8.1.1.1010 Intel Matrix RAID 6.2.1.1002 |
| Video Card: | 1 x MSI 8800GTX |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA Forceware 158.19 |
| Optical Drive: | Plextor PX-760A, Plextor PX-B900A |
| Cooling: | Tuniq 120 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GameXStream 850W |
| Case: | Cooler Master CM Stacker 830 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
We are utilizing an Intel QX6700 Quad Core CPU to ensure we are not CPU limited in our testing at this time. A 2GB memory configuration is standard in our XP test bed as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory. Our choice of high-range OCZ Flex XLC PC2-9200 memory offers a very wide range of memory settings with timings of 3-4-3-9 for our benchmark results.
Our test bed now includes the MSI 8800GTX video card to ensure our game tests are not completely GPU bound. Our video tests are run at 1280x1024 resolutions for this article at High Quality settings. All of our tests are run in an enclosed case with a dual optical/hard drive setup to reflect a moderately loaded system platform. Windows XP SP2 is fully updated and we load a clean drive image for each system to keep driver conflicts to a minimum.
The drive is formatted before each test run and five tests are completed on each drive in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark results. The high and low scores are removed with the remaining score representing our reported result. We utilize the Intel ICH8R SATA ports along with the latest Intel Matrix Storage driver to ensure consistency in our playback results when utilizing NCQ, TCQ, or RAID settings. We will test with AAM off and NCQ turned on with our Deskstar 7K1000 unit to ensure the highest possible test results.
The Hitachi 7K1000 drives we are reviewing today will be compared directly against the WD WD1500AHFD 150GB drives in RAID 0 with a limited benchmark test suite. Our stripe size is set to the recommended default in the Intel driver set, which in this case is 128KB. We fully understand that different stripe and allocation sizes may result in possible improvements in performance based upon the application being tested, but testing these aspects is beyond the scope of this article.
We have also included a subset of drive results from our previous articles and will provide additional RAID 0+1 and 5 results of the 7K1000 in our upcoming RAID performance overview that will feature additional motherboard chipsets and hardware controllers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
View All Comments
Abki - Friday, May 22, 2009 - link
RAID 0 only give faster transafer rate of data from/to disk.It dosent give anything else faster even if you want it. If time for get or put data to disk dosent matter you have to buy a cheaper disk instead. Why weaste money on raptor or Deskstar.
About raid 1, it isnt so good and safe. Accidents has happen with 2 disk system, 1 get failure and raid system transfer same fault to the other disk. In the end its no data on any disk that is usuable. The only tru safe is to have a backup of all data. Sould be taken at least every day. That is what the second disc should be used for and not RAD 1.
Axbattler - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
I do believe that the main cost of stripping is the risk of failure. For everything though, you get what you pay for: the second drive, and the space associated with having a second drive. It is no harder to backup 2TB in RAID-0 than 2TB of individual drives, if you are going to have that much data, then it is an issue you are going to face anyway. So to me, it comes down to trading off risk of failure, and selected performance gains. I happen to think it is not worth it but I do think it is a matter of opinion (more of a 'to each their own' type of thing).michal1980 - Monday, April 23, 2007 - link
any one? I know its an extra drive. but you get some data protection, and some performance benefit, and you do not loss 50% of the drive space.but I heard bad things about on-board raid 5.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
I don't believe you lose any drive space in RAID 0, as there is no data redundancy.yyrkoon - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The bad things you've heard concerning onboard RAID5 was probably performance related, which would most likely be true, since most onboard RAID would not have a good XOR 'engine', unless perhaps some of the server classed boards have them.As for Matrix RAID, I personally am a bit sceptical, from my limited understanding of it, it basically gives you the ability to do a RAID 0+1 array on two drives. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
tshen83 - Monday, April 23, 2007 - link
I thought last time I already criticized that reviewing the 1TB drive with RAID 0 performance is missing the point, yet you come up with a redux part on the same drive. First of all, I don't care how much Hitachi is paying YOU or AT to pimp this drive(obviously they paid the wrong guy). If you don't understand that comparing a 1TB drive against the raptors are STUPID, you should get your head checked. One is targetted at the MASS STORAGE people(you know, I should spell it out for you, the guys who want 4TB +) and the raptor is targetted at the people as a PERFORMANCE OS boot drive. COMPARING THOSE TWO DRIVES ARE STUPID!now, if you really need a triple redux on this stupid drive, you should cover power usage, noise, heat, and basically constantly read/write to the 1TB drive to see how long the deathstar will last.
sdsdv10 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The title says it all...Sunrise089 - Monday, April 23, 2007 - link
Personal Attack: CheckTotally unsupported claim of bias: Check
Misunderstanding of market segments: Check
Use of ALL CAPS: Check
Improper understanding of "are/is": Check
Comment that makes you look like an ass: Check
tshen83 - Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - link
I will be honest:you are right about those: Personal Attach: Check and Use of ALL CAPS: Check
you are wrong about the following:
totally unsupported claim of bias? about what? about Hitachi drives being deathstars? Did you read that Hitachi bought the IBM deathstar hard drive business?
Improper understanding of "are/is"...ok...typo..so what? Try typing the whole message in 20 seconds.....you is stupid :)
comment that makes me look like an ass? So do you consider all criticisms make people look like ass?
Misunderstanding of Market Segment: Really? Is it me who misunderstood? The whole point I made is that Anandtech shouldn't review the 1TB drive against the raptors because the difference in market segment. 1TB isn't about performance. It's about mass storage. Mass storage drives needs different measurements: reliability(MTBF), RAID 1/5/6 performance, heat, noise, power consumption. OS performance drives(raptors) need those benchmarks: IO, Seek, Sustained write/read, etc. you get the point. Firmwares are tweaked differently for those two opposing sides.
I agree with the poster below you, Don't read the review: Check! To be honest, Anandtech hasn't come out with anything good for a while.(except that AppleTV review)
yyrkoon - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
LMAOYou forget one thing on your check list.
Dont read the article ? CHECK !!!