my system tests with readspeed

[alex1440]

system 1
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | ReadSpeed: Hyper-accurate mass storage read-performance benchmark. rel 1 |
  |  Benchmarked values are in megabytes read per second at five locations.  |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
81  256GB Samsung SSD 850 PRO 256GB     542.4   542.4   542.2   542.4   542.9
82  1.0TB Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB       537.0   541.9   541.4   541.6   542.8
83  4.0TB WDC WD4003FZEX-00Z4SA0        163.6   152.7   137.5   117.0    86.6
84  1.0TB WDC WD1003FZEX-00MK2A0        165.4   152.6   137.1   114.3    81.1
85  1.0TB Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB       542.2   542.4   542.4   542.4   542.4
86  6.0TB WDC WD60EZAZ-00ZGHB0          187.6   181.7   159.6   129.1    83.2
87  6.0TB WDC WD60EZAZ-00SF3B0          179.5   168.8   150.7   120.5    76.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
83 and 84 wd black drives
86 and 87 wd blue drives

system 2
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | ReadSpeed: Hyper-accurate mass storage read-performance benchmark. rel 1 |
  |  Benchmarked values are in megabytes read per second at five locations.  |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
81  256GB Samsung SSD 850 PRO 256GB     542.9   542.8   543.3   543.3   543.2
82  1.0TB Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB       541.6   541.4   542.5   542.5   542.5
83  1.0TB Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB       542.9   543.1   543.1   543.1   543.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

system 3
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | ReadSpeed: Hyper-accurate mass storage read-performance benchmark. rel 1 |
  |  Benchmarked values are in megabytes read per second at five locations.  |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
81  250GB WDC WDS250G2B0A-00SM50        485.1   532.8   526.0   542.4   541.2
82  4.0TB WDC WD4003FZEX-00Z4SA0        167.9   157.2   139.5   119.1    89.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
82 wd black drive

 

[alex1440]

forgot to add

on system 1
86 and 87 are 5400 rpm drives

on system 3
81 is wd blue ssd

 

[Steve]

Nice numbers, Alex!

 

[alex1440]

thanks, I wish the numbers where a little better on my wd blue drive's I hade bought them a few months ago to late to return them now will just use them to archive my files and backups
only if I knew they would hade these numbers I have gotten different drive

 

[pmikep]

I have removed my content

 

[alex1440]

my wd blue drives to be more clear have 256 MB Cache so they are not the older model of the drive some that only got around 64 to 128 in Cache

 

[alex1440]

I wish the speed where a little better not going to try and complain a lot because I hade bought them around 130 for each new
the number to those drives seem to a little over the place
I about system 1 for drives 86 and 87 that are wd blue 5400 rpm drives 256 MB Cache

 

[pmikep]

I have removed my content

 

[alex1440]

heck man, nowadays I might and try and only stick the 64MB Cache wd black drives have not to hade many problems with my other 2 wd black drives

 

[alex1440]

@Steve I have some
2.5-inch drive's like 5 of them or more
form old labtops
I need to look for them I will come back with some more results

 

[alex1440]

old laptop hard drive tests
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | ReadSpeed: Hyper-accurate mass storage read-performance benchmark. rel 1 |
  |  Benchmarked values are in megabytes read per second at five locations.  |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  320GB TOSHIBA MK3275GSX              72.7    67.9    69.6    59.2    36.1
 82  320GB TOSHIBA MK3265GSXN             88.3    80.6    74.3    61.6    45.0
 83  1.5TB TOSHIBA MQ01ABC150            111.1   103.9    91.5    76.5    56.1
 84  320GB TOSHIBA MK3263GSX              72.0    65.4    56.8    46.9    33.6
 85  750GB TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075             98.4    89.8    79.3    65.6    49.3
 86  750GB TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075             96.3    90.9    83.7    71.5    57.3

sorry for posting alot today

 

[Steve]

sorry for posting alot today

No apology, Alex. The benchmark is providing interesting and possibly valuable information to its users, and in the process it's verifying the correct operation of the new hardware driver code that's finally finished and will be heading into SpinRite. So this is all good!

 

[AlanD]

It is interesting that the performance of these drives seems to roughly follow the size, larger disks are faster. Or is it a function of the age of the drive, larger disks are newer and also faster?

 

[PHoganDive]

Newer, larger drives typically have a higher writing density, bits per inch, so given the same rotational speed, it will read/write the data faster. If they gain the extra capacity from extra platters with the same writing density, you won't see the same speed increase.

 

[miquelfire]

It is interesting that the performance of these drives seems to roughly follow the size, larger disks are faster. Or is it a function of the age of the drive, larger disks are newer and also faster?

It's both actually. Some drives do age over time, but I assume the difference is not noticeable in most cases because newer drive tend to increase the density anyway causing them to be faster than older drives when they're new. I assume that with an older drive not being able to go the speeds when new mostly had something that SSDs do with replacing bad sectors with other good sectors (I remember a spinning drive I had throwing SMART errors because it that was the reallocation value going too high. Ended up replacing with a slower drive because the company seemed to have switch completely to SSD at the point I needed the replacement)