Sandra Benchmark results not good.

S

Shock_Hunter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2001
Messages
181
With a RocketRaid 133 and two maxtor 60GB Plus 9 drives I only score 31400.. But sandra claims two 100ATA drives can score 41000. Should'nt a Maxtor being 133ATA be a little faster?

Should I be concerned with these results or not ?
 
Sandra hard disk benchmarks are about as worthless as benchmarks get. Think nothing of it.
 
The usefullness of the sandra benchmark is often doubted on. I use it as a normalcy detector. As long as the bench runs as well as it always has on my system - I know nothing is wrong...
 
So basically sandras a lying bitch and should be ignored? So are there any other hard drive benchmarks which could tell me if my raid setup is working correctly?
 
Using HD Benchmark... This any good ?



HD.JPG
 
Yeah, that's right in line with what you are supposed to get.
 
Yeah, a single drive would probably score in the mid 40s for Read Burst Speed, and around 14.5 ms in the Random Access Time.
 
there is a caveat to employing IOMeter


Benchmarking
IOMeter Freeware (Open Source)
IOMeter User Guide
Introducing IOMeter @ StorageReview (Testbed II)
Using IOMeter @ 2CPU.com (contributed here by big daddy fatsacks)

Note from the Storage Review FAQ
"Can IOMeter measure single-user performance? (see link for embedded links)
In a nutshell, no it can not.

With all due respect to both Intel and to the SourceForge.net team (cache) that picked up the project after Intel discontinued it, IOMeter measures random access performance across varying loads and simulated nodes (network performance). In otherwords, while it remains quite suited to assessing multi-user performance, it has little capability to tackle single-user scenarios.

Why not? As explained on a page in our comprehensive methodology outline (cache), IOMeter does not have the capability to accurately simulate the localized data access that dominates single-user drive use. That is, it can not simulate the tendancy for a drive to spend a large amount of time seeking across a very small area relative to broader-stroke movements.

StorageReview? itself is primarily to blame for IOMeter's popularity across hardware sites to simulate "Workstation" usage. One of the goals of the Testbed3 project was to recant this erroneous deployment while introducing far more accurate tools to assess single-user (desktop/workstation) performance. It has been nearly two years... we hope that other hardware evaluation sites will eventually give careful consideration to the theories behind IOMeter's inability to simulate locality and as a result consider removing the "Workstation" pattern from their performance suites."
Click to expand...



IOZone Freeware
Important Filesystem Benchmark

WinBench 99 (freeware)




ATTO
HD Tach

Diskspeed32 Freeware

George's HDSpeed Disk Performance Test Freeware
Rudimentary Interface speed and Read Sequential Sustained Transfer Rate

Disk Bench

IPEAK SPT - Intel Performance Evaluation & Analysis Kit Storage Performance Toolbox
(StorageReview's new Testbed 3) yours for a measly $995 :eek:
which is actually a suite of utilities
WinTrace32, AnalyzeTrace, AnalyzeLocality, RankDisk and AnalyzeDisk
IPEAK SPT AnalyzeDisk Reference Guide @Storage Review,com
a good read if nothing else ;)

The Older StorageReview Testbeds
Testbed I
Testbed II
Optical Testbed

Legacy Benchmark Database

RAID.edu Benchmarks
many Unix NT and DOS Benchmarks
(some unavailable anywhere else)
UNIX
Bonnie++
Bonnie v.2.0.6
IOZone
IOStone v. C/II
Disktest
IOBench
IOCall
RawIO
PostMark
IOGEN

DOS
SCSITool
RAIDmark
Qbench
COREtest

NT\W2K|XP
Nbench
NTiogen
Bench32
Threadmark
(others are already linked above)


In addition checkout
BenchmarkHQ
 
Originally posted by xonik
Yeah, a single drive would probably score in the mid 40s for Read Burst Speed, and around 14.5 ms in the Random Access Time.
Click to expand...

So why is my Random Access Time higher ?

PS: Thanks for the links Ice Czar..
 
Originally posted by Shock_Hunter
So why is my Random Access Time higher ?
Click to expand...
Because it's harder to get two drive to access simultaneously, causing a very small time delay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top