Faster HDD than SATA (not talking about scsi)?

I prefer a good 7200 rpm in PATA or SATA mode. No RAID!

My AX8 MB has four SATA ports, with two separate controllers. I suspect it is possible to run RAID 1 and RAID 0 at the same time. Don’t have the drives to test.

most newer mobos with a controller that has both SATA and PATA ports can run RAID 0, 1, 0+1 and sometimes 5 across the 4 (or more) ports.

Indeed… just be careful when using these RAID arrays. I guess you all know the benefits of RAID 0, 1 and 0+1, but there’s a major downside to RAID-5 as well: when it’s a software RAID (and in most cases, it is), it’ll consume quite some of the system’s CPU, as all the parity data has to be calculated whenever the discs are accessed. If you have a real RAID-5 controller (that means a controller with it’s own dedicated CPU), these downside doesn’t apply. These cards are pretty expensive though…

Thanks for the info eveybody. I’m not really sure what I wnat to do. I wouldn’t mind buying a card that had a dedicated processor but I a leary of getting stuck with another card that has conflicts or problems. I’ll figure something out though. softare raid might be my best bet fi the newer moterboards can run like that.
Anybody have any coments on the using smaller block size to get performance more sutable for a desktop machine?

Anybody have any coments on the using smaller block size to get performance more sutable for a desktop machine?

The small gains are only seen on benchmarks. It’s not something you would notice.

64-128k block size is the best for all-around usage…

I’ve lost a lot of WD HDDs but the official WD representatives confirmed all WD drives I have use FDB. According to, these use fluid bearing.



  • WD400BB-XXJHA0

  • WD800BB-XXJHA0

  • WD400JB-XXJJA0

  • WD800JB-XXJJA0

  • WD800JD-XXJNA0

And all LB and PB models, and all SATA models.

Those without FDB:


that’s very good info…thanks Kenshin…

Hi :slight_smile:
My Maxtors SATA’s
without NCQ transfer rate min : 65.6 mb max : 114.5 ave : 98.9 mb
with NCQ ******** ** : 82.7 mb *** : 134.4 *: 118.6
This is raid 0
Not bad eh!!
& better by more than double any IDE drive I’ve had (raided 0)
When not raided my SATA’s still outperform my IDE’s by about 15>20 %

Try Samsung P120 250GB SATA II sometime. :slight_smile:

Korean-language review, far more complete than THG review. Storagereview will probably review one sooner or later.

THG review published in April.

Hi :slight_smile:
Thanks Kenshin
PS: I should point out that my m/b doesnot support SATA 11 yet I still found a visable improvement

I also need to buy new hardware to make use of SATA II. Haven’t bought any P120, either, yet. :slight_smile:

Samsung Electronics director in charge of their HDD business said Samsung would release 400GB or larger HDDs based on three platters later this year. So far, all Samsung HDDs use one or two platters only.

I dunno. RAIDed Raptors is an elegant solution to some issues. OS install is close to 2x as fast for me. The main RAID advantage is throughput, so as mentioned some decrease in small file performance is expected. But most here, at least, are probably interested in large file manipulation (mpg encoding, etc). The throughput of my RAID0 is over 100MB/s, but still below 133MB/s, not close to 150 let alone 300. Definitely an advantage in some ways with games, like loading levels, but processor and video are the keys to fast gaming.

There will be some servers that utilize SATA II port multiplier similar to the way multiple SCSI HDDs are used to each channel allowing 30 SCSI HDDs in just two SCSI 320 channels. 4 port SATA II configuration is also standard on the latest Nforce 4 Ultra and ICH7® chipsets. Market analysts predict SATA share will continue to grow even taking some of the past and current SCSI market share. I have no idea how much the port multipliers and port selectors would cost. 300MB/s is hardly anything close to the maximum speed allowed for a single SATA HDD so port multiplier’s a logical solution and I personally think all motherboards should be bundled with a few.

Yeah, I’ve read on different sites (Anandtech, ABX, etc) about people doing crazy things like striping 4 drives. In a RAID-5 I guess it would make some sense, but as large volume drives keep getting cheaper I think the RAID solution becomes less appealing. Striping is cool and all, and I’m happy I did it, but it’s a significantly higher risk of failure (not actually doubled, but still significantly greater). When I first decided to make it, I was reading all the horror stories, I’d have to conclude that RAIDing drives stresses them beyond the simple statistics of independent drive failure. That’s why most tend toward the higher quality drives like the Raptors in S-ATA or the (in general) better quality of manufacture found in SCSI drives.

I use two WD caviars (sata 80gb, 8mb cache) in RAID0 and transfer rates are about 75Mb/s…

To get back on track a little, a ‘next step up’ in drive speed (apart from RAID0, RAID5 etc) is to add more cache memory between the disc and the host.

The above link details an IDE RAID controller with onboard cache. Bit of an extreme example, but I’m sure this type of controller will filter down to user (rather than workstation) level in the fullness of time.

I couldn’t find a SATA2 example, though I haven’t spent too much time looking.

The rumourmill surrounding drives with on-board flash RAM sounds quite appealing, and will be of some substantial benefit to the boot-time of your PC, but I have me doubts as to the efficacy of onboard flash when doing large transfers.

I run a 4 Disc SATA RAID 5. I didn’t get it for speed, but for safety. I had a real scare when my 300gb drive seemed to die and it made me rethink my system. I do get a performance boost over a single drive. When I went from a 3 disc setup to a 4 disc the performace jumped a good deal, but all I can do is 4 on this controller. The controller I have is hardware based, but was less then $200. It isn’t the most current or fastest one out their, but it was cheaper then the faster ones and within striking distance of the software only ones. Currently I run 4 Hitachi Tk250, 250gb SATA-II drives in the RAID-5 with a LSI SATA-150-4 controller(not SATA-II or NCQ capable). I get about 750GB’s of usable space. I have already had one drive die and all my data was fine. I was able to run at almost normal speed until I could rebuild the bad drive (about 24hrs).

If you are willing to spend a little more and get at least a 4 disc RAID-5 then I would highly recomend it. In tests I have done my 4 disc array is faster then my Maxtor Maxline III 300GB 16MB drive. Not a huge margin, but it is there.

I have strong opinions about onboard RAID systems on motherboard and they are mostly bad ones.