Intel recommends using 128 KB strip size for RAID 0 so we also conducted tests with 128 KB transfer request size on these drives, mainly to see whether or not CPU utilizations will be lower with larger transfer request size. Here are the results for 80 GB drives.
| Sequential | |||
| Deskstar 80 GB single | Barracuda 80 GB single | Caviar 80 GB single | |
| Read (Iops) | 457.32 | 580.8 | 587.71 |
| Read (Mbs) | 57.16 | 72.6 | 73.46 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 2.19 | 1.72 | 1.7 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 4.97 | 7.24 | 11.95 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 0.64 | 1.44 | 2.21 |
| Write (Iops) | 457.09 | 580.82 | 572.53 |
| Write (Mbs) | 57.14 | 72.6 | 71.57 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 2.19 | 1.72 | 1.75 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 16.06 | 5.91 | 17.28 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 0.62 | 1.4 | 1.35 |
| Deskstar 80 GB array | Barracuda 80 GB array | Caviar 80 GB array | |
| Read (Iops) | 914.51 | 808.54 | 999.29 |
| Read (Mbs) | 114.31 | 101.07 | 124.91 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 1.09 | 1.24 | 1 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 10.88 | 19.85 | 18.16 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 1.21 | 4.04 | 4.11 |
| Write (Iops) | 910.01 | 738.21 | 828.14 |
| Write (Mbs) | 113.75 | 92.28 | 103.52 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 1.1 | 1.35 | 1.21 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 17.91 | 7.93 | 23.11 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 1.19 | 2.18 | 2.69 |
And 160 GB drives.
| Sequential | |||
| Deskstar 160 GB single | Barracuda 160 GB single | Caviar 160 GB single | |
| Read (Iops) | 597.94 | 576.43 | 608.78 |
| Read (Mbs) | 74.74 | 72.05 | 76.1 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 1.67 | 1.73 | 1.64 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 12.53 | 8.34 | 11.8 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 1.48 | 1.59 | 1.78 |
| Write (Iops) | 515.92 | 576.26 | 608.9 |
| Write (Mbs) | 64.49 | 72.03 | 76.11 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 1.94 | 1.73 | 1.64 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 24.62 | 11.51 | 16.12 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 1.23 | 1.54 | 1.42 |
| Deskstar 160 GB array | Barracuda 160 GB array | Caviar 160 GB array | |
| Read (Iops) | 795.01 | 798.28 | 988.58 |
| Read (Mbs) | 99.38 | 99.78 | 123.57 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 1.26 | 1.25 | 1.01 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 25.11 | 28.13 | 17.94 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 4.27 | 3.91 | 4.28 |
| Write (Iops) | 852.44 | 733.46 | 838.16 |
| Write (Mbs) | 106.55 | 91.68 | 104.77 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 1.17 | 1.36 | 1.19 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 2.6 | 23.84 | 15.66 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 2.56 | 2.23 | 2.34 |
Looks like they're right, larger transfer request size do help keep CPU utilization down. So, from these prelimnary test, we've learned that very little separates the Deskstar and Caviar in terms of performance. The 80 GB Caviar drives puts up a good balance between single drive and RAID 0 performance. The Deskstar is slightly slower as a single drive, but put a much smoother performance in RAID 0 according to HD Tach. Write performance is similar between the two drives, though according to IOMeter the 80 GB Deskstar have a slight advantage in write performance with RAID 0 higher performance. The 80 GB Deskstar also seem better in handling random operations.
On the 160 GB arena, the Caviar is without a doubt the better drive. HD Tach shows a much more smoother performance throughout the entire array with a 160 GB Caviar than a 160.Deskstar. This is confirmed by slightly higher performance numbers in IOMeter sequential tests in a single drive configuration and read performance in RAID 0. The clincher is of course single drive and RAID 0 random write performance.
Heat
For thermal testing, we monitor the hard drives' temperature by monitoring SMART output via SpeedFan. To push the drive, we perform a drive to drive copy of about 60 GBs worth of data with Western Digital's Data LIfeguard tool to the first drive and copy several 2 GB files to the second hard drive. The first and second drive are positioned as they would inside a case (one drive on top of another - separated with plastic CD case - but without the confines of a drive enclosure. The drives were actively cooled using a standard 80 mm, 0.22 Nidec Beta SL ampere fan configured to suck of air instead of blowing into it.Here are the results.
| Deskstar 80 GB | Barracuda 80 GB | Caviar 80 GB | |
| Low | 44'° | 40'° | 33'° |
| High | 47'° | 44'° | 42'° |
| Deskstar 160 GB | Barracuda 160 GB | Caviar 160 GB | |
| Low | 40'° | 38'° | 32'° |
| High | 45'° | 42'° | 40'° |
(temperatures are in ° Celsius)
Looks like the trend is fairly constant - Caviars are the coolest drive, Barracudas the second and Deskstars are the hottest. Looking at these results, we think it would be much better to choose the 160 GB Deskstar intead of the 80 GB drives. Kudos to Western Digital engineers for not only providing high performing drives, but also the coolest as well. We think Barracuda's slightly smaller dimension have a role in this test - much less dissipation area than the other two drives, so they also deserve a thumbs up. You could probably fit three Barracuda in a space where you could only fit two Deskstars or Caviars
[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Next Page]