The 2.5" vs. 3.5" RAID Challenge

Features
By
published

Test Setup

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Processors
Socket 604Dual Intel Pentium 4 Xeon, 2.8 GHz,512 kB Cache, FSB533
System Components
DDR-SDRAM2x 512 MB PC3200 Samsung,ECC, Registered
MotherboardAsus PP-DLW, Rev. 1.03Intel E7505 Chipset
Graphics CardMatrox Millennium G450 AGP, 32 MB
Hard DrivesSystem Drive: Western Digital WD1200BBTest Drives:4x Fujitsu MHT2060BS4x Western Digital Caviar RE WD1600SD
ControllerI/O Benchmarks:Adaptec AHA-2410SA, 4-Port SATAData Transfer Benchmarks:Areca ARC-1120
Software
Intel ChipsetIntel Chipset Installation Utility 5.1.1.1002Intel Application Accelerator RAID Edition Ver. 3.53
DirectX9.0b
OSWindows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition5.2.3790
Controller Drivers3Ware Software 9.1.5.2LSI Driver 6.43.2.32
Benchmarks
I/O PerformanceIOMeter 2003.05.10Fileserver BenchmarkWebserver BenchmarkDatabase BenchmarkWorkstation BenchmarkThroughput Benchmark
Patrick Schmid
2 Comments Comment from the forums
  • If you look closely you will see that this review compared 5400rpm 2.5" drives with 7200rpm 3.5" drives.

    Which makes it completely useless and flawed. I seriously can't believe Tom's did that. Maybe if there had been 5400rpm 3.5" drives included, some useful information could be gleaned from the tests.

    This entire article should be deleted just to save face, if not disk space. This article's very existence makes me embarrassed for Tom's Hardware.
    Reply
  • Agree
    This is ridiculous
    the outside speed of the platter !!
    I cannot believe it .. you wait one turn never mind where your data are located and at 7200rpm your platter may be 1 meter in diameter it is not going to change anything it will stl be one rouind trip
    You will wait one turn ( 1/7200th of a second )
    It ain't go faster nor slower mechanically
    The heads are another story

    Reply