Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hitachi 7K1000.C benchmarks

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 31, 2010 2:07:02 AM

I was looking at the new 1TB Hitachi 7K1000.C that was posted to the performance charts - and it looks pretty strange with the IOmeter results. In general it's quite competitive - I'm comparing it to the 7200.12 and Caviar Black. It seems to dust the competition in one benchmark - IOmeter streaming reads in MB/s - where it gets a nonsense number like 900+MB/sec vs 100, which I don't believe. But in other IOmeter tests, like database benchmark IOs/s (37 vs ~100), streaming reads IOs/s (~120 vs 900), and streaming writes IOs/s (~130 vs 900) it gets destroyed. What gives?????
a c 127 G Storage
January 31, 2010 2:42:16 AM

How big test file are you using for IOmeter? You need at least 8 times your RAM capacity. So with 4GB RAM your test file should be at least 64GB. This will prevent you from actually testing your RAM instead of testing disk access; since the data you requested is still present in RAM you get high scores. By using a larger test file this will not fit into RAM so it will have to do real disk access.
m
0
l
January 31, 2010 2:37:29 PM

Hi sub mesa, thanks for the reply. To be clear, I wasn't running the test - I was thinking about buying this drive, and I looked at the "2009 3.5” Desktop Hard Drive Charts" posted here on tomshardware.com. I don't know how the test was run. I can see from your description how running with an insufficiently large file size could boost that one score - but I don't see how it could account for the other scores being so dramatically low - lower performance than many previous generations of drives. Something else may not be right - and I'm worried it's the firmware on the drive!
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 127 G Storage
January 31, 2010 2:54:49 PM

Ah i can see now.

Well, 900MB/s would ofcourse not be even possible to go through the SATA cable; which limitd to 300MB/s. So at least part of the data was in RAM during that IOmeter test; so you should ignore the 900MB/s score as its bogus.

What will you be using the HDD for? If for large files, you need not to worry. If for anything else; all HDDs are slow with this; the actual differences arent that big. For a real difference when using the HDD as a system drive containing the operating system, you need a solid state drive instead.

In other words, HDD performance is not that crucial; as all disks in the same generation perform roughly the same.
m
0
l
January 31, 2010 6:05:37 PM

Good point about the SATA bandwidth, that proves it for that score. I'm more worried about the low ones....

Quote:
What will you be using the HDD for? If for large files, you need not to worry. If for anything else; all HDDs are slow with this; the actual differences arent that big.


I'm getting 4 for a RAID 5 in a small NAS. Small multiuser environment. (3 PCs) Was looking at these drives, but now I think I'm going for Seagate 7200.12s. The Hitachis were cheaper, and the Seagates seem to have a relatively slow access time, AAM which can't be disabled, which I thought might be bad for this. But in application benchmarks, the Seagates seem quite decent, falling down nowhere, where the Hitachis seem to have specific issues on a few tests. I found another benchmark site, harddrivebenchmark.net, which also seems to find an issue with these new drives, almost 1/2 the score of older models or the new Seagates.

Thanks for your input!
m
0
l
!