opens fine for me.
Printable View
opens fine for me.
OK, I'll prepare a new file asap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
anvil u have pm
:eh:?Quote:
MFT can't do much for random writes on SSD's that already excel w/ them.
can u explain it?
what do u mean by SSD's that already excel and why MFT can't do here much?
u just ruined a nice plan :shrug:.
Tiltevros,
Could you try this file.
(I've got no email set up on this computer)
Attachment 101172
(this file is set for 2GB file size)
If you're running Vista or W7 you should start iometer using "run as administrator".
do i have to put icf extension?
Newest FW, sanitary erase, clean install Win7, with better results than when I first got it, so should be a good comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
Nope its running AHCI, AS just isnt reading it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
OK, it's not that much of a difference on the Indilinx drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4h4o8s6T
I've still got my 60GB at FW1.3 and I don't think I will upgrade that one.
(my 120 and 250GB drives are both upgraded to 1.5 and they are working OK but 1.3 is very good)
My scores for the 120 and 250GB are ~220 using AS SSD.
The last file I posted should have the icf extension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
no it hasnt :/
when i put the icf extention IOmeter crashes
ok where do i post the results :P :P :P
Tiltevros,Quote:
btw im in the mood of buying this
The SC199 Cheetah Y-Series has R/W speeds up to 290/280 MB/s in 2.5" and 3.5" SATA form factors - which approaches the theoretical speed limit of the SATA-II protocol. It also delivers impressive R/W IOPS of up to 50,000/45,000 respectively.
but i cant find a store lol?????
u should contact the company at foremay.net, note that these drives can be quite expensive..
Post the results here, just zip the result file and make it an attachment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
I'll get GullLars to look into it later today.
i did but i didnt got any reply for 5 days now :(
ok the results that i will post is with my setup BUT NO INF NO LSIs DRIVERs Just a clean installation with microsoft drivers... i want ur comments about it... for me its to wiered that this setup perform better with out any drivers... :S
I'll get GullLars to create a new thread for this, it wasn't my intention to start something new here. Just post the results and I'll get back to you in the new thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
These new 6 cores is more than likely going to put a dent in my wallet as well.
Good luck with that roof.
the wierd thing is that they r compatible with 5520 chipset ;D so i will be broke again :D
up to 1.5GBps!
seems to be topped at 75,000IOPS, and at QD of 16.
maybe with a different controller, it could reach higher IOps?..
it got a strange drop at QD32 64K vs the QD 16 & 64,
u can also find a pop in the response time there.
just some observation.
couldn't help it :D, sorry if it's misplaced :).
2x x25-V in Raid 0 on Areca 1231ML-4G -
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2183/zzzzzst.jpg
Great results SteveRo,
The Areca sure is a nice controller.
In the spirit of the X25-V (although in the name of Kingston) here is a small video showing 50 applications loading on 1 single drive in around 10seconds.
Link to youtube
All MFT does it cache writes. So instead of writing a bunch of random writes to the drive. It just makes one long sequential write. On drives like the X25-V, the 4k random write speed is almost just as high as the sequential speed. So MFT couldn't benefit these drives much at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by onex
well, that's nice,Quote:
All MFT does it cache writes. So instead of writing a bunch of random writes to the drive. It just makes one long sequential write. On drives like the X25-V, the 4k random write speed is almost just as high as the sequential speed. So MFT couldn't benefit these drives much at all.
sorry for the confusion,
can't follow the specs currently, it's a bit over the head, but should get to it soon..
emm..,
^^ how does a 2x170/35MBps drives gets to R/W at ~1.5GBps?
some people say that at certain packet sizes, the benching programs simply read the controller cache, not the drive's..
It is not about packet sizes. What happens is that those benching programs must have a place on the drive to benchmark. What they do is write a temporary file onto the array for the purposes of the benchmark. The first place any file goes when written to an array is cache. The benchmark then proceeds to access/benchmark from that file, which is still in the cache of the controller, effectively only benchmarking cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by onex