* Need opinions on high-volume SATA models *

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi,

I'm putting together the following computer :

MB : Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
CPU : AMD 3200+ 2GB
RAM : Corsair TWINX 2GB (2x1) Cas2
VID : Asus EN6600GT 128MB (TVO/SLI)
AUDIO : Echo Gina3G
HD 1 : WD Raptor 74GB SATA (10,000rpm)
HD 2 : Seagate Barracuda 200GB SATA (7,200rpm)
DVD: Plextor 716SA SATA
PSU: Antec 480W NeoPower
CASE : Antec P160

The Raptor will serve as the OS (C drive. The only question mark is the
2nd drive, which will be used to store docs (music, video, etc.)

The network administrator where I work tells me Seagate Barracudas, which he
recommends as they are eerily silent, support NCQ (N____ Command Queueing,
whatever that is) only at 250GB and up. 200GB models and lower, he claims,
do not. I don't know what NCQ is, but for the small price difference, I
originally opted for the 250GB... but the store has none in stock and
doesn't plan to have any for a bit. They recommended the 200GB, which they
have plenty of.

First question... is NCQ (Seagate SATA 250GB+) worth hunting down and
finding?

Next... I'm told by a competing store that they no longer carry Seagate SATA
drives *AT ALL* because they have a 50% return-rate on them. Apparently they
keep breaking. Naturally, the store I'm ordering my system from - which DOES
carry them - says they're great.

So my second question is... should I be looking at Seagate at all? Or is
there a significant leader in the 250GB range among Maxtor, Quantum or
Western Digital?

SCSI is out of my price range.

Thanks!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

JF Fortier wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm putting together the following computer :
>
> MB : Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
> CPU : AMD 3200+ 2GB
> RAM : Corsair TWINX 2GB (2x1) Cas2
> VID : Asus EN6600GT 128MB (TVO/SLI)
> AUDIO : Echo Gina3G
> HD 1 : WD Raptor 74GB SATA (10,000rpm)
> HD 2 : Seagate Barracuda 200GB SATA (7,200rpm)
> DVD: Plextor 716SA SATA
> PSU: Antec 480W NeoPower
> CASE : Antec P160
>
> The Raptor will serve as the OS (C drive. The only question mark is the
> 2nd drive, which will be used to store docs (music, video, etc.)
>
> The network administrator where I work tells me Seagate Barracudas, which
> he recommends as they are eerily silent, support NCQ (N____ Command
> Queueing, whatever that is) only at 250GB and up. 200GB models and lower,
> he claims, do not. I don't know what NCQ is, but for the small price
> difference, I originally opted for the 250GB... but the store has none in
> stock and doesn't plan to have any for a bit. They recommended the 200GB,
> which they have plenty of.
>
> First question... is NCQ (Seagate SATA 250GB+) worth hunting down and
> finding?

NCQ is not worth hunting down--first, you need a host adapter that supports
it, which most don't, and second the benefits in a single user machine are
marginal at best.

> Next... I'm told by a competing store that they no longer carry Seagate
> SATA drives *AT ALL* because they have a 50% return-rate on them.
> Apparently they keep breaking. Naturally, the store I'm ordering my system
> from - which DOES carry them - says they're great.

I've not had any problem with them or seen any large number of complaints
about them anywhere--in any case they have the longest warranty in the
industry (5 years).

Seagate _did_ have a problem with Linux with some brands of host
adapter--Seagate implements SATA directly on the controller chip while
other manufacturers use a bridge chip that they buy from another
manufacturer--there was apparently enough leeway in the original SATA
specification to allow Seagate's interpretation to vary slightly from that
of the manufacturer of the bridge chip. This caused problems with the
early releases of the SATA drivers for Linux but that has since been
corrected.

> So my second question is... should I be looking at Seagate at all? Or is
> there a significant leader in the 250GB range among Maxtor, Quantum or
> Western Digital?

There is no Quantum--Quantum sold out to Maxtor several years ago. And IBM
sold out to Hitachi. And Samsungs work fine, tend to be quiet, and are
usually inexpensive.

If all you need is a big drive then go with whatever your local stores have
on sale. Personally unless all my PATA connectors were fully utilized or
my motherboard was old enough that the BIOS didn't support 48-bit LBA I'd
consider going with a PATA drive and saving a little money.

> SCSI is out of my price range.
>
> Thanks!

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d1hr6p0v61@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> NCQ is not worth hunting down--first, you need a host adapter that
> supports
> it, which most don't, and second the benefits in a single user machine are
> marginal at best.

Will the Asus A8N-SLI be able to take advantage of this NCQ technology?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

JF Fortier wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:d1hr6p0v61@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> NCQ is not worth hunting down--first, you need a host adapter that
>> supports
>> it, which most don't, and second the benefits in a single user machine
>> are marginal at best.
>
> Will the Asus A8N-SLI be able to take advantage of this NCQ technology?

I have no idea, but so far the only devices I know of that do are
purpose-made high-end RAID controllers.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>

>
> NCQ is not worth hunting down--first, you need a host adapter that supports
> it, which most don't, and second the benefits in a single user machine are
> marginal at best.

I saw an interesting quip in an advertisement by Seagate in a recent
trade magazine, along the lines of:

"Seagate's newest drives with NCQ have been proven to perform quicker
than a competitor's 10,000rpm hard drive."

Great marketing hype - the writer should apply for a job with Microsoft.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> NCQ is not worth hunting down--first, you need a host adapter that
>> supports it, which most don't, and second the benefits in a single user
>> machine are marginal at best.
>
> I saw an interesting quip in an advertisement by Seagate in a recent
> trade magazine, along the lines of:
>
> "Seagate's newest drives with NCQ have been proven to perform quicker
> than a competitor's 10,000rpm hard drive."
>
> Great marketing hype - the writer should apply for a job with Microsoft.

I'm curios as to where they found a 10,000 RPM drive without command
queuing. The first generation Raptors didn't have it but the second
generation do, and the SCSI drives have all had it right along.

> Odie

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Perhaps you should spend less time reading magazines and more time on the
web.

It was the Fall 2003 IDF were SiI, Intel, and Seagate demoed SATA2 NCQ:
www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/releases/article/0,1121,1824%5E,00.html

Last year a hardware site benchmarked Seagate's 7200.8 with/without NCQ
against the Raptor, and Seagate's NCQ matched the Raptor with its inferior
ATA-4 command queuing.

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:423D2308.B9B0E3D@hotmail.com...

> > NCQ is not worth hunting down--first, you need a host adapter that
supports
> > it, which most don't, and second the benefits in a single user machine
are
> > marginal at best.
>
> I saw an interesting quip in an advertisement by Seagate in a recent
> trade magazine, along the lines of:
>
> "Seagate's newest drives with NCQ have been proven to perform quicker
> than a competitor's 10,000rpm hard drive."
>
> Great marketing hype - the writer should apply for a job with Microsoft.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d1jqgc019rd@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm curios as to where they found a 10,000 RPM drive without command
> queuing. The first generation Raptors didn't have it but the second
> generation do, and the SCSI drives have all had it right along.

Any way for me to make sure the Raptor I'm getting is 2nd Gen?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> First question... is NCQ (Seagate SATA 250GB+) worth hunting down and
> finding?

Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.

http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

According to JF Fortier <doh@nospam.com>:
>
> Will the Asus A8N-SLI be able to take advantage of this NCQ technology?

The A8N-SLI Deluxe has 2 SATA controllers: 4 ports from the nForce4 chipset
and 4 ports from a Silicon Image 3114 on board. (The A8N-SLI non-deluxe has
no SiI3114 on board.) The nForce4 SATA ports support NCQ, but make sure you
use recent enough drivers from nVidia's web site as early drivers are
reported to corrupt data with NCQ on.

If your choice for Asus is not fixed, the Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI looks better
on paper: IEEE 1394b instead of 1394a, the 2nd gigabit ethernet is connected
via PCIe rather than PCI. I have the A8N-SLI Deluxe and it is a nice board,
but I'd have probably got the gigabyte if it was available when I bought the
motherboard.

As for harddisk choice, you should look at the platter density as well. The
250GB+ Seagates with NCQ are 133GB/platter; the SATA 200GB that doesn't have
NCQ is probably the ST3200822AS which is 100GB/platter which translate to
lower sequencial read/write speeds and more seeks.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> Perhaps you should spend less time reading magazines and more time on the
> web.
>
> It was the Fall 2003 IDF were SiI, Intel, and Seagate demoed SATA2 NCQ:
> www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/releases/article/0,1121,1824%5E,00.html
>
> Last year a hardware site benchmarked Seagate's 7200.8 with/without NCQ
> against the Raptor, and Seagate's NCQ matched the Raptor with its inferior
> ATA-4 command queuing.
>
I don't actually spend all that much time reading magazines, you twit -
but I don't have a computer in my car, so when I'm waiting to pick my
children up from school / singing lessons / whatever, I find the trade
press quite an interesting way of passing the time.

I'm not even going to bother going to your link, as I have to think
about Christmas 2007, but from experience I suspect the testing would
have been limited to situations that would have benefited directly from
NCQ capability, rather than from what the average user would subject the
drive to.

No doubt you will spend hours trying to conjure up some sort of smarmy
response - but I would expect no less from you.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:423DD49A.EF92C673@hotmail.com...
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you should spend less time reading magazines and more time on the
> > web.
> >
> > It was the Fall 2003 IDF were SiI, Intel, and Seagate demoed SATA2 NCQ:
> >
www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/releases/article/0,1121,1824%5E,00.html
> >
> > Last year a hardware site benchmarked Seagate's 7200.8 with/without NCQ
> > against the Raptor, and Seagate's NCQ matched the Raptor with its
inferior
> > ATA-4 command queuing.
> >
> I don't actually spend all that much time reading magazines, you twit -
> but I don't have a computer in my car, so when I'm waiting to pick my
> children up from school / singing lessons / whatever, I find the trade
> press quite an interesting way of passing the time.
>
> I'm not even going to bother going to your link, as I have to think
> about Christmas 2007, but from experience I suspect the testing would
> have been limited to situations that would have benefited directly from
> NCQ capability, rather than from what the average user would subject the
> drive to.
>
> No doubt you will spend hours trying to conjure up some sort of smarmy
> response - but I would expect no less from you.
>
Typical idiotic response from a Troll. Care to explain why you had to snip
the stupid claim you made? ---

> "Seagate's newest drives with NCQ have been proven to perform quicker
> than a competitor's 10,000rpm hard drive."
>
> Great marketing hype - the writer should apply for a job with Microsoft.

Keep reading those trade mags, you don't want to have to think too much.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
newsph%d.45092$5T6.34542@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> First question... is NCQ (Seagate SATA 250GB+) worth hunting down and
>> finding?
>
> Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.
>
> http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2


According to this, the non-NCQ drive actually performed better.

After wondering if it was worth hunting down, now I'm wondering if it's
worth going out of my way to avoid.

Or did I read it wrong?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> >
> Typical idiotic response from a Troll. Care to explain why you had to snip
> the stupid claim you made? ---

Firtsly, to curtail the length of posts.

Secondly, because I am rather confused about this "stupid claim" I made;
all I mentioned was what I read in a magazine, the gist of which appears
below - unsnipped for your benefit. What claims am I making?


Previous post by myself:
> > "Seagate's newest drives with NCQ have been proven to perform quicker
> > than a competitor's 10,000rpm hard drive."


I've been to your link on the Seagate site; I see nothing there that
suggests the Seagate NCQ performs better than the Western Digital
Raptor.

Hopwever, you didn't provide a link backing up your "Last year a
hardware site benchmarked Seagate's 7200.8 with/without NCQ
against the Raptor, and Seagate's NCQ matched the Raptor with its
inferior
ATA-4 command queuing." statement. Care to post one? I'll spare the
time to have a look.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

JF Fortier wrote:

> "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
> newsph%d.45092$5T6.34542@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>> First question... is NCQ (Seagate SATA 250GB+) worth hunting down and
>>> finding?
>>
>> Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.
>>
>>
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2
>
>
> According to this, the non-NCQ drive actually performed better.
>
> After wondering if it was worth hunting down, now I'm wondering if it's
> worth going out of my way to avoid.
>
> Or did I read it wrong?

Most likely the difference in performance in that benchmark had nothing to
do with NCQ. In earlier tests StorageReview has seen small changes in
performance between drives of the same model that the manufacturer
attributes to firmware revisions. Also, it's not clear what they did to
test with and without NCQ--if they used different host adapters that could
very easily bring about the difference you see in that review.

Just don't obsess about getting the last tiny increment of performance.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> >
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2
>
>
> According to this, the non-NCQ drive actually performed better.

In most benchmarks, yes.

> After wondering if it was worth hunting down, now I'm wondering if it's
> worth going out of my way to avoid.

In the real world, on a single user system, I doubt you would notice any
difference. In fact, given the small difference in performance, I will even
go so far as to say you will _not_ notice a difference.

> Or did I read it wrong?

No, you read it correctly.

FWIW, and remember this is Usenet so you get what you pay for <g>, I'd go
with the Western Digital 2500JD. Explore storagereview.com and you'll see
why.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:423E71E8.38AFCEEC@hotmail.com...
> Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> Secondly, because I am rather confused about this "stupid claim" I made;
> all I mentioned was what I read in a magazine, the gist of which appears
> below - unsnipped for your benefit. What claims am I making?
>
>
> Previous post by myself:
> > > "Seagate's newest drives with NCQ have been proven to perform quicker
> > > than a competitor's 10,000rpm hard drive."
>
>
> I've been to your link on the Seagate site; I see nothing there that
> suggests the Seagate NCQ performs better than the Western Digital
> Raptor.
>
Try harder, from WinHEC 2004:
www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/releases/article/0,1121,2102,00.html

> Hopwever, you didn't provide a link backing up your "Last year a
> hardware site benchmarked Seagate's 7200.8 with/without NCQ
> against the Raptor, and Seagate's NCQ matched the Raptor with its
> inferior
> ATA-4 command queuing." statement. Care to post one? I'll spare the
> time to have a look.
>
The WinHEC public demo says Barracuda 7200.7 with NCQ beats Raptor.

A google of DiamondMax-10 or Barracuda-7200.8 with "NCQ benchmark" gives lots
of results:

http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/553/1&lp=nl_en
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=nl_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tweakers
..net%2freviews%2f553%2f7

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/maxtor-diamondmax10/index.x?pg=1

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=ncq300&page=8&cookie%5Ftest=1

None meet the WinHEC claim, but they are within 20% of The Raptor 73GB IO/s.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

NCQ is supported by Intel's 915 and 925 chipsets and Nvidia'a nForce4. NCQ
disks, inc Maxtor DiamondMax 10, are faster than non NCQ, but the spin
speed, 10,000 vs 7,200rpm, has more of an effect. IOW, a 10,000rpm disk,
such as the Raptor, will likely be quicker than a 7,200rpm + NCQ disk.

The best speed boost is to combine NCQ with RAID, so a couple of the 200GB
Maxtors would do you a treat.

HTH



"JF Fortier" <doh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3a3hriF63cdauU1@individual.net...
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:d1hr6p0v61@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> NCQ is not worth hunting down--first, you need a host adapter that
>> supports
>> it, which most don't, and second the benefits in a single user machine
>> are
>> marginal at best.
>
> Will the Asus A8N-SLI be able to take advantage of this NCQ technology?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
newsph%d.45092$5T6.34542@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > First question... is NCQ (Seagate SATA 250GB+) worth hunting down and
> > finding?
>
> Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.
>
>
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidco
nfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2

You made this claim in early December, and it is still wrong.
Here is my response again:

Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufar...@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:KXvrd.71583$IQ.18362@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

> Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check
> out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o
> NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. Not sure if that's
> really significant in real world usage.

There are two drives with NCQ reviewed, the MaxLine III and the Barracuda
7200.7. The MaxLine performs better with NCQ in all tests. The Barracuda
performs better without NCQ, but only for desktop benchmarks.

===

Storage Review really screwed up with their NCQ conclusions.
You have to use controlled test: one SATA2 controller,
with the NCQ feature switched on and off.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message news:MTA%d.45051$Q83.29523@bignews5.bellsouth.net
>
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2
> >
> >
> > According to this, the non-NCQ drive actually performed better.
>
> In most benchmarks, yes.

In the desktop suites.
It's almost the complete reverse for the server suite. And guess what, com-
mand queuing only works when there is something to queue, like with busy
servers that feed more I/O to the drive than it can service in real time so
commands do get queued and the drive get's the opportunity to reorder them
so that aggregated seektime can be minimized.

>
> > After wondering if it was worth hunting down, now I'm wondering if it's
> > worth going out of my way to avoid.
>
> In the real world, on a single user system, I doubt you would notice any
> difference. In fact, given the small difference in performance, I will even
> go so far as to say you will _not_ notice a difference.

And if you disable NCQ there shouldn't be any difference at all.

>
> > Or did I read it wrong?
>
> No, you read it correctly.

For desktop use.

>
> FWIW, and remember this is Usenet so you get what you pay for <g>, I'd go
> with the Western Digital 2500JD. Explore storagereview.com and you'll see
> why.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

As I said:

> > > > Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.

> > Most likely the difference in performance in that benchmark had nothing
to
> > do with NCQ. In earlier tests StorageReview has seen small changes in
> > performance between drives of the same model that the manufacturer
> > attributes to firmware revisions.
>
> > Also, it's not clear what they did to test with and without NCQ--

Please point out something other than _opinion_ about why the testing _may_
be inaccurate. Storage review is well known for their unbiased drive
testing.

> Presumably they enabled queuing in the driver as no drive decides by
itself
> whether it will queue or not. The xxxxxx queued commands may impose a
bigger
> overhead on the protocol and allow less data per time unit to be
transferred.

Presuming is just like ASSuming.

> > if they used different host adapters that could very easily
> > bring about the difference you see in that review.
>
> And since queuing involves the use of different commands and a mechanism
> to keep track of the order of commands (tags) and the data that belongs
> to them, that too may bring about the difference you see in that review.

Again, more opinion about what _may_ be wrong with their testing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.
> >
> >
>
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidco
> nfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2
>
> You made this claim in early December, and it is still wrong.

Guess you missed the comment above so let me repeat it slowly so maybe you
can understand:

"Unless you're interested in a file
server or web server, no."



> Here is my response again:
>
> Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufar...@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
> news:KXvrd.71583$IQ.18362@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> > Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and
check
> > out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one
w/o
> > NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. Not sure if
that's
> > really significant in real world usage.
>
> There are two drives with NCQ reviewed, the MaxLine III and the Barracuda
> 7200.7. The MaxLine performs better with NCQ in all tests. The Barracuda
> performs better without NCQ, but only for desktop benchmarks.

Where in the OP's post was there _anything_ mentioned about _server_
performance? Look at the link and you'll see the Seagate w/o NCQ wins every
single _desktop_ benchmark compared to the same drive, with the same model
number. Just like the OP from that other thread, this OP has _not_ mentioned
anything whatsoever about _server_ configuation. Can you not follow a
thread?

> ===
>
> Storage Review really screwed up with their NCQ conclusions.
> You have to use controlled test: one SATA2 controller,
> with the NCQ feature switched on and off.
>

If you want to debate their testing methodology, take it up with
storagereview.com. I'll leave it up to the OP whether he thinks the people
at storagereview.com are more beleivable... or some bit-twister on Usenet
who's always finding something wrong with something when it doesn't support
his argument.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Chuck U. Farley" wrote:
>
> As I said:
>
> > > > > Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.
>
> > > Most likely the difference in performance in that benchmark had nothing
> to
> > > do with NCQ. In earlier tests StorageReview has seen small changes in
> > > performance between drives of the same model that the manufacturer
> > > attributes to firmware revisions.
> >
> > > Also, it's not clear what they did to test with and without NCQ--
>
> Please point out something other than _opinion_ about why the testing _may_
> be inaccurate. Storage review is well known for their unbiased drive
> testing.

They don't necessarily get that opinion in the UK.

Besides, their site accepts advertising, which clearly paves the way for
biased testing.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> "Chuck U. Farley" wrote:
>>
>> As I said:
>>
>> > > > > Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.
>>
>> > > Most likely the difference in performance in that benchmark had
>> > > nothing
>> to
>> > > do with NCQ. In earlier tests StorageReview has seen small changes
>> > > in performance between drives of the same model that the manufacturer
>> > > attributes to firmware revisions.
>> >
>> > > Also, it's not clear what they did to test with and without NCQ--
>>
>> Please point out something other than _opinion_ about why the testing
>> _may_ be inaccurate. Storage review is well known for their unbiased
>> drive testing.
>
> They don't necessarily get that opinion in the UK.
>
> Besides, their site accepts advertising, which clearly paves the way for
> biased testing.

Actually, I did not "suggest" that the testing was "innacurate". I stated
that they, Storagreview, has in earlier tests addressing the same issue
seen differences in performance that _they_, not _I_, attributed to
different firmware.

If Mr. Farley has a problem with that I suggest he take it up with
Storagereview and not with me.

The particular pages that were linked appear to be part of an article that
has not yet been released in its entirety--I could not find the text that
goes with them, so it is not possible to comment on the methodology.
Perhaps when the article is complete one can determine more.

As for bias due to advertising, I fail to see how that would lead to a
Seagate drive without NCQ looking more capable than one _with_ NCQ. Since
Seagate is trying to sell their drives on the basis of the performance
benefits of NCQ I would expect that sort of bias to go the other way.

Regardless of any of this, the difference in performance was minuscule.

> Odie

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Chuck U. Troll" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:bbW%d.67473$%Y4.27126@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > > Unless your interested in a file server or web server, no.
> >
>
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidco
> > nfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=271&devID_1=270&devCnt=2
> >
> > You made this claim in early December, and it is still wrong.
>
> Guess you missed the comment above so let me repeat it slowly so maybe you
> can understand:
>
> "Unless you're interested in a file
> server or web server, no."
>
I guess you are still an idiot and now a troll.
Look at the storage review performance database,
and compare the four drives marked NCQ.
For the mentally challenged: http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

The MaxLine III performs better with NCQ in all tests.
The Barracuda 7200.7 performs better with NCQ on the desktop.

Since you are really slow ...

The MaxLine III performs better with NCQ in all tests.
The Barracuda 7200.7 performs better with NCQ on the desktop.

The MaxLine III performs better with NCQ in all tests.
The Barracuda 7200.7 performs better with NCQ on the desktop.

I have never seen benchmarks that show NCQ doesn't help.