I’ve used several Seagate drives, both IDE and SCSI, and IBM/Hitachi drives again both in IDE and SCSI configurations but it was quite difficult for me to notice much difference between them.
Of course, Sandra does it better than me.
How about this? I don’t even feel much difference between RAID 0 and single Seagate or Samsung.
Drive Index : 134MB/s
Performance Test Status
Run ID : SP on 2004 - 07 - 11 PM 7:43:29
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Operating System Disk Cache Used : No
Use Overlapped I/O : Yes
IO Queue Depth : 4 request(s)
Test File Size : 2047MB
File Server Optimised : No
Buffered Read : 168 MB/s
Sequential Read : 182 MB/s
Random Read : 80 MB/s
Buffered Write : 116 MB/s
Sequential Write : 123 MB/s
Random Write : 86 MB/s
Average Access Time : 7 ms (estimated)
Drive Type : Hard Disk
Total Size : 596GB
Free Space : 17GB, 100%
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with ‘real-life’ performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Notice 5209 : Consider using the Removable Storage/Flash Benchmark for Flash devices.
Tip 5202 : Use cache on to measure Windows performance.
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.
I had to edit the date because that was in Hangul on my system.
That’s one of my RAID 0 volumes that I daily use. I used one of the slowest HDD drives on the market but that’s still faster than any disc-based HDD announced till now. However, I’ve used only SCSI drives for http/db servers.
Therefore, I can only agree to what rdgrimes said. I’d recommend adding more memory modules. I’ve got only 2GB DDR 266-MHz there though it can accept up to 16GB. A Supermicro mainboard based on Intel E7525 can accpet up to 16GB DDR-II memory.