WD1200JB -- Low Read Burst rates?

[Q]

I have a new WD1200JB, made in late Oct 2003. Set as a single drive (no
jumper), HDTach 2.61 and 2.70 reports a read-burst rate of "only" 73
megs/sec. This using a Promise Ultra 100 TX2 (latest drivers, BIOS etc),
on a new MB... Whereas my old Quantum AS 20 gig drive does much better at 89
on the same system. I tested my WD1200JB on another motherboard just to
double check, and the same results. So we tested another WD1200JB of the
same vintage as mine, and still ~73. Isn't that kinda low, considering most
websites i.e. Tom's, X-bit Labs etc., report a read burst of around 87?
Has anyone else has noticed these low'ish read burst speed results on
recently manufactured WD1200JB drives? I wonder if WD changed the specs
since the drive first came out.

On the plus side, my WD1200JB has a sustained reads maxing out at ~ 61.6
MB/sec which is very good.

Thanks in advance....

 

[Wayne Youngman]

I have a new WD1200JB, made in late Oct 2003. Set as a single drive (no
jumper), HDTach 2.61 and 2.70 reports a read-burst rate of "only" 73
megs/sec. This using a Promise Ultra 100 TX2 (latest drivers, BIOS etc),
on a new MB... Whereas my old Quantum AS 20 gig drive does much better at 89
on the same system. I tested my WD1200JB on another motherboard just to
double check, and the same results. So we tested another WD1200JB of the
same vintage as mine, and still ~73. Isn't that kinda low, considering most
websites i.e. Tom's, X-bit Labs etc., report a read burst of around 87?
Has anyone else has noticed these low'ish read burst speed results on
recently manufactured WD1200JB drives? I wonder if WD changed the specs
since the drive first came out.

On the plus side, my WD1200JB has a sustained reads maxing out at ~ 61.6
MB/sec which is very good.

Hi Q,

I am using 2 x 120GB SATA Western Digital *Special Edition* disks, set-up as
RAID-0 using the onboard chip. Using the latest HDTach (v2.70) I get 109.1
MB/s read burst! That seems kinda low considering I get 60.6MB/s read burst
using my 4 year old IBM ATA/66 disk?

I haven't done enough digging around to be sure what the problem is, maybe
it's something I done in error, or maybe the nForce2 Ultra 400 SATA RAID
stinks? or maybe as you suggested the WD-SE drives (Oct 03) don't really do
fast *Bursts*. . . . . something's up. . . will have to finish my homework
and make a proper post.
--
Wayne ][

Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe - NTFS)
Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
WinXP-PRO-SP1
Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hi Q,

I am using 2 x 120GB SATA Western Digital *Special Edition* disks, set-up as
RAID-0 using the onboard chip.

Using the latest HDTach (v2.70) I get 109.1 MB/s read burst!

Do you really have to poke him in the eye?

That seems kinda low

It's actually quite good considering it is on a 33MHz PCI bus.

considering I get 60.6MB/s read burst using my 4 year old IBM ATA/66 disk?

So what?

I haven't done enough digging around to be sure what the problem is,

What problem, there is none.

maybe it's something I done in error, or maybe the nForce2 Ultra 400
SATA RAID stinks?

How can it when nForce2 doesn't even have SATA.

or maybe as you suggested the WD-SE drives (Oct 03) don't really do
fast *Bursts*. . . . . something's up. . . will have to finish my homework

and make a proper post.

After your new homework: setting up your newsclient properly.

 

[Q]

I haven't done enough digging around to be sure what the problem is,
maybe it's something I done in error, or maybe the nForce2 Ultra 400
SATA RAID stinks? or maybe as you suggested the WD-SE drives (Oct 03)
don't really do fast *Bursts*. . . . . something's up. . . will have
to finish my homework and make a proper post.

Well should you ever test it as a single drive, let me know what your burst
speeds are... Your 109 score in RAID mode is, as the other fellow suggests,
quite good.

 

[Wayne Youngman]

"Folkert Rienstra"wrote

Do you really have to poke him in the eye?
It's actually quite good considering it is on a 33MHz PCI bus.

So what?

What problem, there is none.

How can it when nForce2 doesn't even have SATA.

After your new homework: setting up your newsclient properly.

Hi Mr Rienstra,

haha sounds like you were a bit *grumpy* when you made your reply Well
indeed you may be right when you say 109MB/s is good for a SATA RAID-0 burst
rate, feel good in use but somehow I always thought it would be 150-300MB/s
(lol!). As it's nearly 4 years since I upgraded disks I was kinda expecting
*more* than a 100% leap in disk power, especially as I set-up a fairly meaty
SATA RAID-0 array using 8MB cache disks.

I mean I got 60MB/s burst rate from using a ATA/66 disk/controller, is it
unreasonable to expect 150MB/s from each *SATA 150* disk (300MB/s using
RAID-0). Of course I don't have the technical understanding of disk-tech
like yourself and Rod Speed, but I'm learning slowly. . .

No harm done, just that my expectations have not been met. When you say the
nForce2 Ultra 400 does not have SATA RAID onboard you are correct however
most high end nForce2 boards have the add-on silicon-image PCI SATA chip,
and it was this I was referring.

What is the problem with the way I have my newsclient set-up? and how
exactly is that relevant to this post? (did I miss something?).
--
Wayne ][

Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
WinXP-PRO-SP1
Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b

 

[Rod Speed]

"Folkert Rienstra"wrote



Hi Mr Rienstra,

haha sounds like you were a bit *grumpy* when you made your reply Well
indeed you may be right when you say 109MB/s is good for a SATA RAID-0 burst
rate, feel good in use but somehow I always thought it would be 150-300MB/s
(lol!). As it's nearly 4 years since I upgraded disks I was kinda expecting
*more* than a 100% leap in disk power, especially as I set-up a fairly meaty
SATA RAID-0 array using 8MB cache disks.

I mean I got 60MB/s burst rate from using a ATA/66 disk/controller, is it
unreasonable to expect 150MB/s from each *SATA 150* disk (300MB/s using
RAID-0). Of course I don't have the technical understanding of disk-tech
like yourself and Rod Speed, but I'm learning slowly. . .

No harm done, just that my expectations have not been met. When you say the
nForce2 Ultra 400 does not have SATA RAID onboard you are correct however
most high end nForce2 boards have the add-on silicon-image PCI SATA chip,
and it was this I was referring.

What is the problem with the way I have my newsclient set-up?

He's just another netnazi who demands that
everyone must do it the way he likes to see it.

and how exactly is that relevant to this post?

He's gotta have something to whine about.

(did I miss something?).

Nope.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

"Folkert Rienstra"wrote



Hi Mr Rienstra,

haha sounds like you were a bit *grumpy* when you made your reply

I tend to get that way when people like yourself aren't listening, Wayne.
Or are you suffering from memory lapses alot so you could be excused?

Well indeed you may be right when you say 109MB/s is good for a SATA RAID-0
burst rate, feel good in use but somehow I always thought it would be 150-300MB/s
(lol!).

One of those memory lapses again, Wayne?
It was already explained to you, only just over a month ago in
Re: WD Raptor - Real SATA?
or
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

As it's nearly 4 years since I upgraded disks I was kinda expecting *more* than
a 100% leap in disk power, especially as I set-up a fairly meaty
SATA RAID-0 array using 8MB cache disks.

I mean I got 60MB/s burst rate from using a ATA/66 disk/controller, is it
unreasonable to expect 150MB/s from each *SATA 150* disk (300MB/s using
RAID-0).

Not through a 33MHz PCI bus, you can.

Of course I don't have the technical understanding of disk-tech like yourself

and Rod Speed,
Who?

but I'm learning slowly. . .

A bit too slow for my taste, Wayne, considering this was explained to you before.

No harm done, just that my expectations have not been met. When you say the
nForce2 Ultra 400 does not have SATA RAID onboard you are correct however
most high end nForce2 boards have the add-on silicon-image PCI SATA chip,
and it was this I was referring.

Right, sitting on a 133MB/s PCI bus, as explained earlier to you:

"Actually that is rather self evident when you consider that the nForce chipset
doesn't have SATA channels. The seperate SATA controller is on the PCI bus.
It won't go any faster than ~ 110-120MB/s."

What is the problem with the way I have my newsclient set-up? and how
exactly is that relevant to this post? (did I miss something?).

Did you check your original post, Wayne?
Or do you require photographic evidence of it!?

 

[Wayne Youngman]

One of those memory lapses again, Wayne?
It was already explained to you, only just over a month ago in
Re: WD Raptor - Real SATA?
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

Not through a 33MHz PCI bus, you can.

Who?

A bit too slow for my taste, Wayne, considering this was explained to you before.

Right, sitting on a 133MB/s PCI bus, as explained earlier to you:

"Actually that is rather self evident when you consider that the nForce chipset
doesn't have SATA channels. The seperate SATA controller is on the PCI bus.
It won't go any faster than ~ 110-120MB/s."

Did you check your original post, Wayne?
Or do you require photographic evidence of it!?

Hi Mr Rienstra,
well despite the *tone* of your post, you have reminded me of the details I
was lacking, so for that I thank you. Remember that you have the choice to
reply to my post (or not). As long as you decided to take time-out to reply
with useful information, I will continue to appreciate it. I could do
without the *attitude* but what the heck. . .it's a free world!

I guess I will have to knock-up an INTEL machine which uses the ICH-5 to
really get the max rates from a SATA RAID-0 array. The OP was questioning
the *burst-rates* of the WD-SE drives which was the thing that caught my
attention, but from re-reading the earlier posts I can see that I don't have
a problem with my Disks. . . .

See ya later,
--
Wayne ][

Barton (AQXEA) XP2500+ @ 2.2GHz (10x220) - 1.775vCore
CoolerMaster Aero 7 Lite - 3,200rpm
ABIT NF7-S (v2.0 - BIOS#14)
512MB Dual TwiSTER PC3500 @ DDR440 1:1 (9,3,3,2.0 - 2.8v)
Sapphire Atlantis 9800 - 3.3ns Samsung (325/290 Default)
240GB (2x120GB) WD-SE SATA RAID-0 (16k Stripe)
Antec SX630II Mini-Tower Case Inc 300w PSU
2 x CoolerMaster 80mm Blue Neon Fans
WinXP-PRO-SP1
Cat 3.7 - DX9.0b

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Let me guess, you are studying politics.
Ignorance, desceipt, attitude, all available in abundance.
Congratualions Wayne, it all comes very naturally to you, should be a piece of cake.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I have a new WD1200JB, made in late Oct 2003. Set as a single drive (no
jumper), HDTach 2.61 and 2.70 reports a read-burst rate of "only" 73
megs/sec. This using a Promise Ultra 100 TX2 (latest drivers, BIOS etc),
on a new MB...

Whereas my old Quantum AS 20 gig drive does much better at 89 on the same system.

So it is not the MoBo chipset that is holding it back.

I tested my WD1200JB on another motherboard just to double check, and the
same results. So we tested another WD1200JB of the same vintage as mine,
and still ~73. Isn't that kinda low, considering most websites i.e. Tom's, X-bit
Labs etc., report a read burst of around 87?

Using the same benchmark application?

Has anyone else has noticed these low'ish read burst speed results on recently
manufactured WD1200JB drives? I wonder if WD changed the specs since
the drive first came out.

Well, not the specs but something that affects some of them.
Like cacheing algorithm.

On the plus side, my WD1200JB has a sustained reads maxing out at ~ 61.6
MB/sec which is very good.

The burstspeed only has significance when two drives are on the same
channel used simultaniously and channel bandwidth cannot be fully used.

 

[Q]

Using the same benchmark application?

Yes, all using same version of HDTach.

Well, not the specs but something that affects some of them.
Like cacheing algorithm.

That was my hunch too--that the cache algorithms may be tweaked differently
(and/or DSP).

The burstspeed only has significance when two drives are on the same
channel used simultaniously and channel bandwidth cannot be fully
used.

I didn't know that... good to know, thanks for telling me Folkert.