Sluggish disk(s)

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Sorry, long post!

Admittedly, my OS install is long in the tooth; installed almost exactly 4 years ago. I am dreading reinstallation of all the sw, the utilities, the tweaks, etc.

But while the system is generally ok, disk throughput seems poor.

I had 2 Hibachi 250 GB SATA drives in the system. These began to develop bad sectors (or so I believed). I had purchased 2 Samsung 320GB SATA drives in 2007, but never installed them. I now purchased an additional Hibachi 1TB drive (Deskstar 7K1000.C) with the intention of using the 3 drives.

I used an external drive to copy data from the old drives, replaced them with the 3 drives with the 1TB being the boot drive, and restored my OS image and data. I had many hiccups using the 1TB because Partition Magic 8 kept buggering it and I didn't realize it was PM.

I finally restored the OS image to the 1TB, but after booting, strange things happened. Some folders that I created 2 levels down from the root of C: were gone. Wordperfect, which was working before, now asks for the installation disk when I try to run it. I don't know what happened and if these symptoms are connected to the sluggish I/O.

All the drives have multiple partitions. The 1TB Hibachi seems especially slow.

After installing the new drives but before using them, I ran Hibachi's and Samsung's utilities extensively on the drives, and the reports came clean. Device Mangler looks good: I have one UDMA2, one UDMA 3 and three UDMA 6 drives (I have 2 opticals). Write caching is turned on for all the drives (I have a UPS as well). Event log shows nothing. BIOS settings were checked. SMART settings checked via SpeedFan (even the extended checks) rate as:

Hibachi: 91% for both fitness and performance (3 values are "Normal", the rest are "Very Good")
Sam-A: 100% for performance, 98% for fitness (all values are "Very Good")
Sam-B: 100% for performance, 98% for fitness (all values are "Very Good" except Airflow temperature = "Good".)

I ran some tests on all of them; no idea if performance is in the ballpark or piss-poor. The test file was a 2GB OS image file that was copied from one SATA drive to another. All partitions were fully defragged first.

For simplicity, I am calling the Hibachi Hib. The two 320GB Samsungs are named Sam-A and Sam-B. Sequence-wise, the system shoud see the Hibachi, then Sam-A then Sam-B. The swap file is on Sam-320-B in the first partition.

These are the results:

Code:
----------------------------
Source | Destin. |   MB/S
----------------------------
Sam-B  | Sam-A   |   74.3
Sam-A  | Sam-B   |   71.8
----------------------------
Sam-A  | HIB     |   85.2
HIB    | Sam-A   |   80.7
----------------------------

Do these numbers look normal?
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Firstly, would you mind not referring to a 100 year old company, apparently the 3rd largest 'technology company' in the world with 400,000 employees, as a type of grill? I have nothing but fond memories of all sorts of Hitachi products over a 40-year span and I'd like to keep it that way. :p

Yes, the numbers seem reasonable. Obviously, file copies are limited by the slowest drive.

Ironically, the PC in front of me contains both a Samsung 250GB and Hitachi 1TB drive, so I'm in a pretty good position to compare with your rig.

Subjectively, the Hitachi feels significantly faster to me.

Instead of one large file, gather a few thousand small files and test with them. It sounds like you're experiencing sluggishness while browsing the drive?
 

BingBangBop

Storage is cool
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
667
If anything they are too fast. The UDMA-2 drive should max out at 33 MB/s and the UDMA-3 should max out at 44MB/s. See: UMDA Transfer rates

Unless you are doing some form of RAID I would never expect any better than 80-90MB/s and these are older drives on an older machine.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
70-80 MB/sec. is fine for copying files from a single drive to another. You'll only achieve 100+ on empty drives for large, sequential transfers. Do disk benchmarks such as HDTach, Atto and HD Tune return typical results?
 

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,278
I have very fond memories, not so distant, of a wonderful woman that worked for Hitachi in South San Francisco...yum....
 
Top