Printable View
The boot up time of the x25-5 in raid took into account the boot initialisation of the 5405. It's not really testing how fast the X25-e is in this regard, but how slow the 5405 is at initialising.
"Ignore this one, folks. Our RAID setup may take more than a minute longer to boot than the rest, but it's also the only configuration that has to initialize the Adaptec RAID card, which takes its sweet time booting up."
But the times show normal HDD's booting XP faster than and x25-m.Quote:
Originally Posted by audienceofone
From my experience these times look like BS to me.
How often do you boot your system a day?
Is booting your hobby? :D
I´m not interestet in boot-time-benches.
@ tekjunkie
Try the "Ms" of Intel or Vertex/Supertalent UD ME
@ Xope_Poquar
14x 1TB-HDDs? To high consumption!
The 6x Samsung F1 of my Raid 6 consumes ~ 35W
The X25-Ms have been shipped, should be here tomorrow.It should be interesting to see them on ICH10R Vs ARC-1231ML.
TR storage reviews are totally cr@p. I had hints before and the proof came with their ANS-9010 review in which they didn't even enable the ICH's caching option and gave RAID0 results lower than a single drive.
I just don't trust them anymore and therefore not even checking at their reviews.
The Areca ist faster. See my comparison (Areca vs. Onboard)Quote:
Originally Posted by tekjunkie
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=255
When you set the stripesize to 4k there is a great difference of performance between the Areca an Onboard ;)
Btw: An extra controller gives you much more comfort (online-settings) and security.
@ Chosen.
Yes, the techreport-review is crap.
With many simultaneous acceesses every SSD collapse to a few of MB/s.
Not a Acard :D
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...21&articID=935 (see Conclusive Thoughts)
I couldn't imagine spending that much money on SSD's. Just aint going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.
Usually? Never.
When I swap/test CPUs for stability though, it's 100x in a row easy. You can save a LOT of time there with 1-2 SSDs on the ICH10R, believe me.
Now as for Areca vs. onboard, the Areca will win overall especially at 4k random write/read like F.E.A.R. pointed out. Even though you probably won't "feel" much of a difference running most standard tasks.
As many X-25M's or Vertex's as I can afford.
Considering the price scaling seems to be linear (60gb = $150, 120gb = $300) I'd make my choice based on the raid card, if it's 4 ports, get 4x80gb X25 or 4x120gb Vertex, if it's 8 ports I'd get 8x60gb Vertex :drool:
IMO the X25-E aren't worth it at all
@ jcool, du Luxxer :D
Du kannst ruhig deutsch schreiben.
Wenn ich mein sys. teste (CPU oder Ram) nehm ich den Controller natürlich raus, sonst wird man ja irre :D
1500$ ? yeh ill be going for new ~6x slc ssd soon :)
f.e.a.r itll put your ramdrive to shame :rofl:
I think we need some real world tests because the only advantage I can see with a raid card is cache for 4k writes. What about reads? They usually out number writes! Also the x25-m doesn't need any help in that department anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
I think benchmarks with drives on raid controllers give unrealistic performance promises due to cache affecting the benchmark.
Does the cache improve read performance?
@ One_Hurts perhaps you could chime in, as I know you used to use hardware raid.
What drives though?Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
if you think cache is unrealistic/unimportant.. remove your cpu cache and then tell me cache is unrealisticQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
cache @ raid controller is just as important
may aswell remove your ram/cpu/mobo/os everything!
tell me.. what you left with???
goodness gracious theres so much baseless talking in the forum but little experience talking
Forget mentioning everything unrelated to Raid Card cache. Can you simply advise how cache on the raid card will be improving read speed?Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Does the OS read from the drive or the cache?
i wont say till i put it up :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
oh so now forget? lol ok i forgot what cache does :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
ill tell you this.. adding the areca 1231 to my q9650 @ 4.6ghz is like adding 100+mhz to q9650 ;)
i know.. im too naive for sharing everything
Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
look man i dont have the time to spend all day/night on forums why/how this why/how that.. im not here to correct everything.. just to balance things a bit :D
anyways im not here to push/force raid cards down anyones throats
happy with no raid? stay happy.. if my raid makes you sad.. my apologies :)
All I want to know is, do hardware raid cards 'really' improve ssd performance, and if they (or some) do, then why?Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
I don't care about happy or sad right or wrong, I just care about the reality.
cache = efficiency
thats what i mean by: remove cpu/video/ssd/raid/os/everything
remove all that cache and what are you left with ?
reality?? but of course areca 1231 improves ssd efficiency
otherwise id be stupid to spend loads of $
But only for 2GB, than your cache is full of data. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Let a Flash-SSD-Array run with many simultanious accesses and can see a big dropdown.
No Flash-SSD can beat the raw performance of DRAM-based SSDs (since 30 years) :p:
See Ramsan 440 or Violin 1010 :D
When you start a second run of a app (or whatever), you can read from the controller-cache. Max. 1600MB/s. is no problem for one controller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
here we go again with the cache :)
not when its bound to sata :p:
my only concern is whether youll believe the numbers ill post up :D
You can´t get more than ~ 800MB/s. without cache and 1600MB/s. with cache.
I still waiting for results with IOmeter/Workstation of your Flash-SSDs.
I don´t believe you can beat DRAM-based SSDs.
Note: The Acard 9010 have in fact SATA 2, but they are bounded with PCIe x8 between Areca and system :D