Forum Vs Naplam - Fasted real world storage solution

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-15-2009, 12:28 PM
Rhys

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveRo

Yes, I did notice that but I also should have stated that my 1680ix benches are with the acards as sata I speeds - so that is probably affecting the timed iso, program and game benches significantly.

Yes it would, but the other benchmarks tell a different story due to the cache, this is what I think mis-leads most people into thinking their system is faster when it actually isn't.
07-15-2009, 12:30 PM
SteveRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhys

Perhaps he bought the wrong card, but it is STILL interesting how the 1680 added more mb/s in the benchmark (cache) but slowed it down to about half speed in the simulated real-world tests (ISO Game App)!
Obviously this is not definitive but if this is the start of a trend, then it could mean there are allot of people spending big £ to ruin the performance of their drives.

My current 'suspicion' is that if he used the same controller as you he would get better results than the 1680, but not as good as ICH10R.
I'm kinda thinking that you are seeing better results on Areca simply due to J-micron lack of cache. i.e. I don't think it will benefit other SSD's that now come with plenty of cache.

BUT as I have said before I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, so perhaps you can time some App / game level loads.

Does your array load COD MW levels as fast as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWCDch4YDPk

I do plan on sending back the 1680 but I wanted to TRY to make it work because in SHOULD be faster. The iop348 runs at 1200 vs 800 for the iop341 AND it can handle 4GB vs only 2GB for the areca 12xx. The 1680 could be much faster if the right f/w was written for it, will that ever happen? - who can tell - will I wait for it? - probably not.
07-15-2009, 12:35 PM
SteveRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhys

Yes it would, but the other benchmarks tell a different story due to the cache, this is what I think mis-leads most people into thinking their system is faster when it actually isn't.

I somewhat agree - however - if a given IOP request or I should say a set of IOP requests can be handled by the cache AND if latecy can be kept low - a controller with a lot of cache - say 4GB - SHOULD be a winner. So many factors go into this - controller f/w being a huge one. I think the 1680 has such potential, it is a shame that the f/w is holding it back!
07-15-2009, 12:45 PM
Rhys

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveRo

I somewhat agree - however - if a given IOP request or I shoudl say a set of IOP requests can be handled by the cache AND if latecy can be kept low - a controller with a lot of cache - say 4GB - SHOULD be a winner. So many factors go into this controller f/w being huge. I think the 1680 has such potential, it is a shame that the f/w is holding it back!

Acard need to swap out sata with PCIe and then it would be CRAZY fast because in my opinion anything that adds latency is not worth it for me.
Although I do understand your point about cache.
07-15-2009, 12:48 PM
SteveRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhys

Acard need to swap out sata with PCIe and then it would be CRAZY fast because in my opinion anything that adds latency is not worth it for me.
Although I do understand your point about cache.

If the fusion ioxtreme becomes bootable it should be a killer set up.
I will certainly want one!
07-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Rhys

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveRo

If the fusion ioxtreme becomes bootable it should be a killer set up.
I will certainly want one!

Me to, especially due to it being 80gb's. I might start saving now encase they change to 34nm Nand and ship 160gb versions also at some point.
07-16-2009, 03:27 PM
SteveRo

No new posts? common everybody! Here is a screen shot of 7 Mtron Mobi 3000s R0 on 1680ix-12 -

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7884/asssd1680.jpg http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/a...jpg/1/w519.png
07-16-2009, 03:30 PM
SteveRo

Here is 6xMton Mobi 3000s R0 on ICH10r -

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1...ch106xmobi.jpg http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/a...jpg/1/w510.png
07-16-2009, 03:32 PM
Speederlander

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveRo

I do plan on sending back the 1680 but I wanted to TRY to make it work because in SHOULD be faster. The iop348 runs at 1200 vs 800 for the iop341 AND it can handle 4GB vs only 2GB for the areca 12xx. The 1680 could be much faster if the right f/w was written for it, will that ever happen? - who can tell - will I wait for it? - probably not.

Which 1680? 12 port, 16, 24?
07-16-2009, 03:34 PM
SteveRo

Here is 7xMtron Mobi 3000s on Areca 1231ML -

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/4...kareca1231.jpg http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/a...jpg/1/w507.png
07-16-2009, 03:38 PM
SteveRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander

Which 1680? 12 port, 16, 24?

12 port - it went back to the egg earlier this evening -could only get it to work with the acards at sata I speed and with the Mtrons in maxed out on write B/W at approx 365MB/s -

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7...rwrite1680.jpg http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/e...jpg/1/w802.png
07-16-2009, 05:52 PM
NapalmV5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhys

Perhaps he bought the wrong card, but it is STILL interesting how the 1680 added more mb/s in the benchmark (cache) but slowed it down to about half speed in the simulated real-world tests (ISO Game App)!
Obviously this is not definitive but if this is the start of a trend, then it could mean there are allot of people spending big £ to ruin the performance of their drives.

My current 'suspicion' is that if he used the same controller as you he would get better results than the 1680, but not as good as ICH10R.
I'm kinda thinking that you are seeing better results on Areca simply due to J-micron lack of cache. i.e. I don't think it will benefit other SSD's that now come with plenty of cache.

BUT as I have said before I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, so perhaps you can time some App / game level loads.

Does your array load COD MW levels as fast as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWCDch4YDPk

i dont need to prove anything to anyone

but you guys have your minds twisted by idiots who believe in iometer and who come up with mind degrading benchmarks like as ssd bench.. you guys fall for it so easy!

example: 2gb cache = .022ms write 512mb cache = .222ms write @ benchmark

which cache do you think is the fastest/offers the most performance @ most real world apps ?

alright atm i got other priorities.. but later tonight ill install cod mw/time the same loading.. ive timed his loading @ 6 seconds.. if you guys want to confirm on that..

you guys think 1231 slows down my system lol
07-16-2009, 08:41 PM
NapalmV5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhys

Does your array load COD MW levels as fast as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWCDch4YDPk

1231/512mb cache/pcie @ x4/2x raid0 slow ass jmicron ssd (275-295mb/s read)

cod4mw blackout loading @ 2-3 seconds!

you guys want me to install the game on the 4x and load it @ 1-2 seconds ?
07-17-2009, 10:19 AM
F.E.A.R.

2x Acard 9010 @ 4x Raid 0 with ARC-1261ML

http://www.abload.de/img/hc_750dl7a.jpg http://www.abload.de/img/hc_751mxgw.jpg
07-17-2009, 11:19 AM
XS Janus

:shocked:
07-17-2009, 11:41 AM
NapalmV5

Quote:

Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.

2x Acard 9010 @ 4x Raid 0 with ARC-1261ML

http://www.abload.de/img/hc_750dl7a.jpg http://www.abload.de/img/hc_751mxgw.jpg

hmm.. are you my ally? or my axis? :D

ally: welcome.. theres just you and me against the world

axis: finally a worthy adversary.. im honored.. but dont let your acards get to you.. my ssds are no slouch :D
07-17-2009, 04:49 PM
orangekiwii

napalm what do you do to get such good speeds i'm not sure what exactly is going on

sounds like your setup owns but I have no idea what exactly it is

i mean you linked a thread but i still don't see how yours is so much faster than people with "better" setups :S
07-17-2009, 05:19 PM
NapalmV5

actuality thats whats going on.. some of you just cant see it.. blinded by bsing benchmarks

its just perplexing when you guys think that a 1231 hinders/bottlenecks a system when in a actuality it speeds up the system

my 1231 vs fears 1261 @ the closest to actuality benchmark

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=56

4x ssd vs 4x acard

i lose 3/win 2

with faster ssds @ 1231 im sure i can match fear :)

why? his acards are bound to same sata rules ;)
07-17-2009, 05:36 PM
orangekiwii

just the faster controller or what?

i'm just curious i'm not really huge into bandwidth stuff and drive performance i'm just curious

even if i'm not big into it... 4 second boot times sound highly appealing
07-17-2009, 05:43 PM
NapalmV5

yes the controller does the magic.. no mater how slow/fast your storage is

and im not referring to bandwidth.. the better/smarter/capable/faster/etc the controller is the faster the system
07-18-2009, 12:01 AM
F.E.A.R.

I´m always a ally. Peace brother... ;)
07-18-2009, 12:44 AM
MnM

http://www.auswebserv.com/Cubic/SSDs.jpg
07-18-2009, 04:19 AM
XS Janus

MnM what are the drives on your Areca?
07-18-2009, 06:52 AM
MnM

7 x mtron 7500 pro
07-18-2009, 04:33 PM
XS Janus

My speed!!! 160GB, 5400rpm notebook :D:D LOL! Sorry for this "insult" guys, I realize it is about 100 times off topic! :D
Oh and PS I ran ths benchmark over night... that's how long it took:D

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page