iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail






WD2500JD vs. Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA in Distributed RAID0 Arrays

The Western Digital drives were already tested in RAID arrays, and today we will use their results for comparison. Earlier we saw that Seagate's performed badly in distributed arrays. Let's have a look at the Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ST3160023AS. In the separate tests the Seagate drive had a kind of problem in writing, though it generally performed better than the Parallel ATA model.  Today we are testing a couple of such drives with firmware version 3.05.  


Standard testbed:

  • Mainboard - Iwill WO2-R (BIOS ver. 6.00PGN);
  • CPU - Intel Pentium III 800EB;
  • Memory - 256 MB PC133 SDRAM;
  • System disc - IBM DTLA 307015;
  • SATA RAID controller - Iwill IS150 (Silicon Image SataLink SiI3112,BIOS Ver., Driver Ver.
  • OS - Windows 2000 Professional SP4.

The test suite is standard.

  • Ziff-Davis WinBench 99;
  • Intel IOMeter.


Ziff-Davis WinBench 99 

The Iwill IS150 controller allows making RAID0 arrays with the chunk size of 4, 15, 32, 64 and 128K. Since the results obtained with different array parameters are similar, here we show only those for the 16KB chunk.

Unexpectedly, the Seagate looks better than the WD at reading at the beginning of the array. The read speed of the single Barracuda 7200.7 is lower  - have a look at the diagram to see why.

RAID0 Seagate Barracuda ST3160023AS


The WD reaches the maximum linear read speed not at the beginning of the array - hence such results.

The array built on the WD2500JD has the access time comparable to the single disc, while the array built on the Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 has it lower by 0.5 ms. As a result, the Barracuda has a good advantage.

The WD2500JD performs better in the High-End Disk WinMark but loses in the Business Disk WinMark probably because of the poor realization of writing algorithms of the Barracuda 7200.7.

Intel IOMeter

Here are the scores for the arrays with the chunk size of 4, 32 and 128K.


The scores are almost similar, the WD drives take the lead only at the maximum loads.

In the Web-Server pattern the Seagate drives look better especially at the average loads.

The Workstation pattern demonstrates parity.

In the Database pattern the WD looks better especially at high loads. To find out the reason let's look at the patterns' specs, in particular, percentage of Write.

Pattern % of Write
File-Server 20
Web-Server 0
Database 33

The higher the percentage, the worse the Seagate Barracudas perform.

The array built on the Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 looks better at random reading at the average load, and falls behind at random writing. The situation is similar to the single disc.

These diagrams show once again that the Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 has problems in writing algorithms.

The array built on the WD2500JD copes better with reading of small chunks, but the Seagate array has the higher maximum read speed. It looks logical considering that it starts reading from the beginning of the array.

The WD looks superior again in case of small chunks (except 1K ones) and goes on a par in case of larger chunks.


The tests show that the array of two Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ST3160023AS looks quite good compared to the array based on two WD2500JD in reading especilly at the average loads (16-64 simultaneous requests). At the same time, the writing algorithms do not let the Seagate array perform well when the write requests outweigh.

Nikolai Dorofeev (niko@ixbt.com)

Write a comment below. No registration needed!

Article navigation:

blog comments powered by Disqus

  Most Popular Reviews More    RSS  

AMD Phenom II X4 955, Phenom II X4 960T, Phenom II X6 1075T, and Intel Pentium G2120, Core i3-3220, Core i5-3330 Processors

Comparing old, cheap solutions from AMD with new, budget offerings from Intel.
February 1, 2013 · Processor Roundups

Inno3D GeForce GTX 670 iChill, Inno3D GeForce GTX 660 Ti Graphics Cards

A couple of mid-range adapters with original cooling systems.
January 30, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1

An external X-Fi solution in tests.
September 9, 2008 · Sound Cards

AMD FX-8350 Processor

The first worthwhile Piledriver CPU.
September 11, 2012 · Processors: AMD

Consumed Power, Energy Consumption: Ivy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge

Trying out the new method.
September 18, 2012 · Processors: Intel
  Latest Reviews More    RSS  

i3DSpeed, September 2013

Retested all graphics cards with the new drivers.
Oct 18, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, August 2013

Added new benchmarks: BioShock Infinite and Metro: Last Light.
Sep 06, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, July 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and AMD Radeon HD 7730.
Aug 05, 2013 · 3Digests

Gainward GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST 2GB Golden Sample Graphics Card

An excellent hybrid of GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GeForce GTX 660.
Jun 24, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

i3DSpeed, May 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780.
Jun 03, 2013 · 3Digests
  Latest News More    RSS  

Platform  ·  Video  ·  Multimedia  ·  Mobile  ·  Other  ||  About us & Privacy policy  ·  Twitter  ·  Facebook

Copyright © Byrds Research & Publishing, Ltd., 1997–2011. All rights reserved.