Not the fastest system, but a better HDD-Score
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...60&postcount=6
Not the fastest system, but a better HDD-Score
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...60&postcount=6
Try pcmark vantage. I think you can to well in that test :)Quote:
Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.
hmm.. I got over 100k
Guys I was looking at the test reports that Principled Technologies carried out for Intel. The test report sets out methodologies and test parameters such as seasoning the drives so that the results are correct and repeatable.
If you guys are going for a benchmark shoot out dont you first need to agree exactly how you are going to test?
Here is how Principled Technologies benchmarked sdds vs hdd http://download.intel.com/design/fla...Comparison.pdf
#9 in the HOF:D
http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/
512k stripe!
Sorry, but i canīt believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nizzen
I compared my HDD-Tests (post #203) with yours ;) http://service.futuremark.com/result...eResultType=18
me - you
HDD - importing pictures to
391 vs. 346
HDD - Windows Media
950 vs. 598
HDD - gaming
281 vs. 264
HDD - adding music to Windows
280 vs. 193
HDD - Windows Defender
378 vs. 284
HDD - application loading
364 vs. 417 (point for you)
yea what gives!!???
F.E.A.R. :
Try me :D
HDD Test Suite 112441
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ac...post&id=320554
nizzen you are still running around posting intentionally altered results? LOL due yer classic!
what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Can you explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Anybody got this running under (Open)Solaris?
I think what Compu means with that is "scores that cannot be submitted as valid for Futuremark database."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nizzen
Yes that is the gist of what my statement means, also, it has been demonstrated in another thread just exactly how easy it is to make these benches say whatever you want them too, using MFT and cache adjustments, you can make anything put out unreal numbers that are physically impossible.
Hi all,
Soon I'll be getting a new PC.
In it there will come a RAID 5 of Seagate Barracuda LPs of 1,5TB.
4 to start with, later it will become 8...
The Barracude LPs are 5900rpm HDs, so as you can guess: I'm not going for benchmark speed records :p
I will get a single Intel 160GB SSD for the OS, which will do the really speedy stuff (a lot later I may buy more SSDs and who knows, put them in RAID as well)
My main objective of the RAID 5 is to have a (relatively) speedy filesystem that is reliable, easy and maintenance free...
With speedy I mean that it needs to be a lot faster then single normal HDs in all cases (I'm now used to a RAID 0 of 2 HDs for my data and OS and a RAID 1 of 2 HDs for my important stuff)
With easy and reliable I mean that if a HD gets broke, I should be able to simply replace it after ordening a new one, without any difficult stuff to do. Also adding a new drive should be easy. All must be trouble-free for maaaaaaany years
I heart that the software of the LSI is a lot less than for example Areca... That is mainly why I'm still doubting which one to get... How does this "less" software impact me? (is it just that some tasks, that I will never use, are more difficult on the LSI? or is it really the setup and simple maintenance tasks that are a pain in the ass on the LSI? i have no experience at all with "professional RAID 5 controllers like this...)
I'm doubting a bit between the following controllers:
* LSI MegaRAID SAS 9260-8i
* Adaptec RAID 5805
* Areca ARC-1222
* Highpoint RocketRAID 3520
The Adaptec, Areca and Highpoint all have the same ancient Intel IOP. The Highpoint is the cheapest. Adaptec and Areca are more or less the same in price. LSI is a bit more expensive.
Of the Intel IOP controllers, the Adaptec has my preference atm, since it officially supports the HDs that I want to get and also official SSD support seems the best...
The LSI looks the nicest one paper, but most comparisons I found so far are all with fast SSDs, not with slow HDs... Also, as I said above, the software of LSI worries me a bit too...
Can anyone give me some advice perhaps?
Thanks!
LSi is the has the fastest CPU so It should help quite a bit if you plan on doing live expansion on you array, meaning adding more drives to the array.
That process is painfully slow. And I would hate to lose a drive during it.
My second choice would be Adaptec, cause I remember it for being 4x as fast at that particular task than my own 3ware 9650.
I notice you never did get a response from nizzen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
yea, he hasnt been posting much lately....must be on vacation. I dont like to call other people onto the carpet with their benchmarks, but when they are unrealistically high and ridiculously out of scale for the performance of the drives themselves, then something doesnt add up....you cant have a four disk array with a max read speed of 200 mb/s for each drive read at a speed of 1500mb/s. (just an example)
Greedings from greece ppl.
Here r my results from a 9260i4 in my business server.
And another thing that i want to say...
I saw a post here saying about real world results.. Do u think that those benchmarks are real world results?? do u think that an IT manager will care how many application will open instantly???
i dont think so... put a OBDC server.. a oracle database.... use some dot.net platforms... use a raid controller for the reason that manufactors made it for...
My results are on LSI 9240i4 on 4xIntel X25-m 80 RAID0 stripe 256k.
Sorry for my english and for my attitude but.. a RAID controller is a RAID controller not a VGA that u can overclock..
crystal disk mark 3.0
4xIntel x25-m G1 on LSI 9260i4
Real world tests and benchmarks are totally individual, and since we will never decide with consensus on what to test, exactly what apps, its better not to ad more oil on that fire...
Thanks for the results! Lookin great so far! :)
you make a very valid point. the ONLY 'real world usage' for these ultra high end raid cards IS in a server!! And the LSI is awesome, great benchmarks!:clap:
we update the dataserver this days and im waiting another 4 intel x25-m G2 to put in the array. we r testing the new SSD line for datacenters so we can go in E series with professional Raid Series. one of our ideas is to buy the new PCIE intels ssd card but no price whet.... with an onboard LSI controler :P
http://www.tweaktown.com/popImg.php?...01_06_full.jpg
So that is an Intel PCIE SSD!:shocked:
IS it bootable?:D
Hey Tiltevros,
I was looking at your CrystalDiskMark 2.2 sequential read performance of 181.9 MB/s thinking, '4 drives only giving 2 drives worth of performance!'
Then I saw your result of 307.5 MB/s for CrystalDiskMark 3.0 Beta 1 - it looks likes they've fixed a bug :D
Downloaded CrystalDiskMark 3.0 Beta 1 and ran it on the 780i using Windows 7 x64 and 4 x 80 GB Intel x25-m's (G2's, firmware = 02G9) in RAID0 [edit]128k stripe (software RAID, OS drive);
http://members.iinet.net.au/~michael...x64_beta_1.gif
You can really see the cache kick in hard on your LSI 9260i4 (you said LSI 9240i4 the 2nd time but I assume that was a typo) when reading & writing small files.Code:---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Read : 699.984 MB/s
Sequential Write : 304.597 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 508.305 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 282.222 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 21.263 MB/s [ 5191.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 49.615 MB/s [ 12113.1 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 79.148 MB/s [ 19323.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 109.260 MB/s [ 26674.9 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 61.0% (181.8/298.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/03 20:10:58
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
My main concern with using any PCI-e RAID card is the added latency to access times, particularly random access times, in which Intel SSD's are supposed to excel.
I ran HD Tune Pro 3.5's random access test and would be interested to compare the results to yours. I know the variability of the test makes a comparison pointless to a degree, I would just like a ball park comparison.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~michael...ccess_read.gif
I am wondering if the LSI 9260i4 is only likely to show benefits (over software RAID) in sequencial reading & writing - with access times being roughly the same?
tell me why a single drive intel x25-m G2 is faster in 4kb than ur raid and u will understand what im saying about LSI areca and all the hardware Raid controllers :D
Im not saying that Raid sux but.. Raid controllers are not for home use... or for gaming. Yes they give us performance but not in the way that the controller does..
Hi Tiltevros - you make a very good point about the single drive performance compared to my RAID setup with small files.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
I also would like to know the answer...
Is it hardware (780i SATA controller + SSD's) or software (I am using the default Windows 7/nvidia RAID driver)???
I ran ATTO to get a better idea of how my system handles different file sizes and the results are quite bad!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~michaeldd/atto_02g9.gif
I might try the latest SATA driver from nvidia to see if it makes any difference (I don't want to derail this thread, might have to start a new one).
I wonder if the large stripe size (128k) would account for this?
I want to put the array onto a PCI-e RAID controller eventually, I was just waiting for them to be better optimised for SSD's.
for me 256k or 512k stripe size is better for 4xRAID in x25-ms
10 years in IT i learn something in Raid arrays. maybe its wrong u tell about it.
onboard RAIDS are most of the time (80+%) soft raids.. the real power of a h/w raid controler is in Raid5+0 6+0 .
So yes i belive that 780i is a soft raid.
here is my ATTO benchmark. And tell me what to belive... ATTO ?? CrystalDiskmark??? HDD tune PRO??? HDD Tach??? iometer???
the real test is how u feel the system even in 12xRAID 0 u can tell the difference.. maybe is like 3% more but its there. the system is smoother database or task or programs response faster.
Now for the Hardware RAID user.
take the areca, the LSI, the Promise and all the other controller that u want to bench and put SAS drives to see the power of the controller
yes maybe LSI have SSD guard but is it a raid Controller for SSD????
yes maybe the ARECA much much faster than GOD in MB/s or in IO/s but is it made for SSD????
As u can see in the market many labels made PCIEx SSD can u figer WHY? why intel or OCZ or what ever the brand is says 200.000 on PCIE ssd and not in a 2,5".
We all here love our babies (HDDs SSDs RAIDs) but its to soon to see the real potencial of H/W Raid with SSDs.
4c. RAID-0 Performance Scaling With # of Drives
One of the things I have always hated seeing here is people who have RAID-0 arrays with 7 or 8 drives. Aside from the clear danger of disk failure, RAID-0 may scale well with a few drives, but much less so as you add more. For example, versus one disk and assuming theoretical maximums:
1 Disk = Baseline
2 Disks = 1/2 Time Decrease = 50% performance increase vs. 1 disk
3 Disks = 2/3 Time Decrease = 16% performance increase vs. 2 disks
4 Disks = 3/4 Time Decrease = 9% performance increase vs. 3 disks
5 Disks = 4/5 Time Decrease = 5% performance increase vs. 4 disks
6 Disks = 5/6 Time Decrease = 3% performance increase vs. 5 disks
And one must take into account the fact that as the number of drives increase, so too does the minimum size of the file required to be considered a "large" file. Add in the fact that overhead alone accounts for a few % of performance and you can see that past 3 disks your *theoretical maximum* increase is sitting in the low to mid single digit range.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...26&postcount=3
Many thanks to Mr Serra for his post
OK now its time for fun :D:D:D:D
Mr Computurd hehe
can u post the everest disk benchmark with 4 hdds please :D:D:D
i think that i can take over ur Hdds hehe
(joking)
thanks for the advice!Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
it is not like i'll be adding new HDs every week though ;)
so i guess it wouldnt matter very much if it took 8 hours instead of 4 hours (I have no idea if those a realistic numbers though)
but i guess this means that the "crapp" lsi software wouldnt really be a big problem, right?
I read yesterday that more specificly the controller app outside the OS (runs after bios post) is a real disaster. I guess that is the tool I need to use to setup the RAID 5 initially, right?
Also, what about that damn uberexpensive battery? Should I buy it? If for example the power falls away, then it cant write the data from the cache anymore. Can this actually corrupt my RAID 5 causing me to loose everything? Or will it only cause to loose the file it was writing at that moment maximum (and any other files it still had to write and were still in the cache)?
If it is possible to actually get a corrupted RAID 5 because of a powerloss, then will a battery be able to prevent that?
do u know why this "crappy" controller needs the battery??? or in general do u know why H/W Raid needs the battery??
to enable write back cache in a raid controller u need the BBU. The BBU stands for the cache memory that if u have a power fail it will prevent data loss. so... if u want to make a serius Raid 5 u will buy the bbu..
Now for the crappy bios post... ok biosweb is nothing compare to ARECA but... how many times u will go in RAID bios?????? when u can do anything in MEGARAID Storage Manager that rocks...
Its really bad for a user to say wierd words for something that he even test it... Test it and then express ur self. let me tell u something.
Areca is superb... fast easy to use in bios... BUT CAPPED in 800MB/s... LSI is ok but CAPPED in 2.5GB/s .. so??? witch is better??? Areca is 3Gb/s per port LSI is 6Gb/s per port so??? and????
areca (12 series and 16 series) cost here in greece 800 euros LSI cost 412 with bbu. areca is a mature product (means that it is in the market for long time...) and LSI (9200 series) in 6month old...
now for the corrupted RAID that u said. the array will be there.. the data that was in the cache will be there for 72 hours... but the HDDs maybe wont be there :P :D so.. if u want to prevent data loss buy a UPS and stay in ICH or Nvidia soft RAID.
euh... you clearly misunderstood me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
When did I ever say it was a crappy controller??
I also know why the controller needs a BBU, I just don't know the exact impact / risk of not having one...
I know the differences you mentioned between the Areca and the LSI, I just don't know "how bad" the LSI software is (since I dont have experience with either the Areca, nor the LSI, I don't really know how this "bad" software will impact me...)
From the reactions here I think I can conclude that it will not impact me much...
About the last part of your message, I cant really follow... data will be in the cache for 72hours? In which case? LSI with BBU? And how do you mean that the HDs may not be there anymore?
I'm not planning to buy an UPS and I certainly dont want to use ICH or Nvidia soft RAID for a RAID 5 since I don't want those horrible write speeds... The main reason I want a RAID 5 is not because I could loose one little piece of data (the piece in the cache) in case of a powerloss. The main reason is that I don't want to have a chance to loose ALL data in case a HD gets broke or something else happens... That is also why I wonder if an LSI without BBU has the chance of loosing all data in case of a power loss...
ow yes, and where the hell did you find the LSI with BBU for 412 euro? In Benelux the LSI will only be for sale in about 10 days (i hope). The cheapest webshop will have it then for 433 euro. And the BBU costs 112 euro minimum... So thats 545 euro at least...
I think the array expanding goes at about 4MB/s on my 3ware 9650 and I believe it was about 12MB/sec on Adaptec 5405... so you do the math.
I don't thing we are talking hours here. :D
Remember it is HEAVY disk trashing during this:(
It made me invest a whole lot more, and go for 8 drives at once. Didn't want to risk it going wrong in the process.
www.span.com :D
there 2 ways that the power losses.. 1 way i dont know how to say it in english... but i will try to express it in my own way... the power goes up and then dives down like eg if ur power socket ensure in stady way 220volts for miliseconds goes to 260volts then to 175Volts and then 220volts that power goes in to ur psu and after psu inside ur pc. the second way is when the power goes from 220 stady volts to 175volts and then goes up to the 260 volts. the second way for me is more more more dangerous couse the loss of the power reduse from minimum to max and that gap is very painfull to electronics.
ALL serius RAID controllers have bbu's. when u work ur data for seconds are on the cache of the controller those 512mb or more that the controller have. if the power loss hit u in that moment ur data stays in the controllers cache for 72 hours top. thats what u pay for the bbu. For a home user maybe this bbu is useless but for enteprises is gold.
Now for home users the only benefit that the bbu stands is for Write Cache Back. if u dont have the bbu u cant enable it. ;)
rebuilding and expading on LSI
6Gb/s SAS Performance Advantage
6Gb/s SAS is designed for backward compatibility
with 3Gb/s SAS as well as with 6Gb/s and
3Gb/s SATA hard drives. Regardless of the drive
speed, 6Gb/s MegaRAID controllers will deliver
significant performance improvements in both
read and write applications as compared to their
3Gb/s predecessors. Other new features of the
6Gb/s MegaRAID SATA+SAS controllers include
greater signal integrity using Decision Feedback
Equalization, support for more sophisticated
SAS topologies using Expander Self-discovery/
Self-configuration, and additional safeguards to
enhance data protection.
http://www.lsi.com/DistributionSyste..._PB_072209.pdf
What???Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
I expand my Raid 6 from 3TB to 4TB (netto) in only 17h (total time !!!)
The 5805 has more CPU-Power than my 1261-ML, but itīs not faster.
A consistence-check takes 3:15h (326MB/s.)
@ all
SAS-HBAs are optimized for SAS-Drives. Areca SAS-HBAs simulate the SATA-Protocoll only with software. I think all other controllers too!?
@ Tiltevros
Arecaīs ARC-12xx-Series (IOP341) is old, but fast with little files.
60.000 IOps @ 512Byte and 0,02ms in HDtune - Random Access is no problem.
We need more realworld-benches.
thats my point. its old mature and bug fixed.. ;) let the 9200 series to mature :) and we will see how it perform.Quote:
Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.
will it mature up to areca 1231 ?? :)
http://i49.tinypic.com/330zj4h.png
^ sneak peek of whats coming :D
sure why not ;)
The 12XX controllers won't stay on top forever - nothing does.
Actually you could argue the 12XX is no longer on top even now.
Both nizzen and computurd have turned in some very high pcmark vantage numbers using sas controllers (areca 1680 and LSI 92XX).
See - http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/
Is the next king of the hill the LSI 92XX - could be.
Actually I'm rooting for a bootable pcie direct connect solution - much cleaner (if less versatile) formfactor.
Will ioxtreme get there - who knows ...
Napalm, that is your array? the one with 4 SLC drives? Which ones are they again?
:)
Thats how I remember it go on my card. I realised that while still experimenting with 4 drives. SO I went out and asked around the web ans saw others having similar speeds on my card.Quote:
Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.
After that I asked about 5405, since it has better cpu, and a member on some forum posted that his did ~12MB/s when he divided the time it took him.:shrug:
That's my experience with it... I'm not saying it is the absolute truth.
I'll do more tests on this subject, when I will build another server. :)
Consistency cheks are no problem on mine, as well:)
Intel RS2BL080 the same perf. like the LSIs?
http://666kb.com/i/bemsh4agihd0zoxiu.png
I expanded my Raid 6 from 4TB to 6TB with my Areca 1680ix-12. 8x samsung f1 1tb. It took 9h :)Quote:
Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.
Not bad at all I think.
Anyone know what the new HighPoint RocketRAID 4460 24P PCI-Ex 2.0 will perform?
RAID 5/6, PCIe 2.0 x8, 1024 MB RAM, Intel IOP348 (1.2Ghz), 6x int. mini-SAS
was that a one time offer at span.com when you got the controller and battery for only 412 euro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
Cause now I see the LSI 9260-8I for 421,42 euro and the battery for 120,90... :(
I have 2 APC SurgeArrests for 8 outlets each to protect all my electronic devices, so power spikes shouldnt be a problem.
Power drops and complete power loss however can still occur.
In case of power loss I wouldnt mind very much to loose what i was working on. However the chance of loosing all data because of power loss causing a corrupt RAID 5 is unacceptable (that is the reason why I'm investing in this expensive RAID controller, I do not want the chance anymore to loose all data. And I'm tired of putting everything on DVDs :p)
So can anyone confirm that I don't need a BBU to ensure that I will not loose all data?
About the write back cache: Interesting... I didnt know you cant enable it without a BBU... Does it matter much in performance? Or where lies the difference?
Thanks!
btw:
Xbit posted a nice (I suppose at least :p still reading) review of this card!!
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto...as9260-8i.html
9 h ist very fast. I will verfy this ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nizzen
Good :)Quote:
Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.
I used the 80% "priority". I think it is the max. Used storage manager in windows :)
I was a bit worried when I started the online expantion because the array was full when I started :p:
It doesn't matter whether 80% or only 5% when your array idled ;)
9 hours is still boring :D
stripe size for 6x intel x25-m???
1 mb!!
Thanks for noticing steve...Quote:
Both nizzen and computurd have turned in some very high pcmark vantage numbers using sas controllers (areca 1680 and LSI 92XX).
With all the debate raging about the power of this controller raging on, i forgot to link that LOL number 13 in the world is nothing to sneeze at.
funny thing is i ran that benchmark before there were even windows 7 drivers available for this card, and i ran it in win7, also i ran that on the original firmware that came with the card. i am no hardcore benchmarker, my gpu wasnt even overclocked on that run.
seriously i just ran it. i was shocked.:shocked:
i wonder what i can do now that
A>there are win7 drivers
B>the small file performance has increased by a very very significant margin with latest two firmware revisions.
when i have some time we will find out....
@ FEAR
the intel controller you mentioned is merely a rebranded LSI 9260....it has the same BIOS, WEB GUI and everything as the LSI. the only difference is the label. i have already confirmed this with other owners of the cards on ocz forums. you can even use the firmware interchangeably between the same two controllers. testing is underway to see if the win7 drivers are any different in performance...doubt it though, these things are identical.
DAMN triple post!!!
@NIZZEN
the highpoint has pci-e 2.0 x8 in the future...
LSSI 9260-8i has it NOW, and why in the world would you even go with 3gb/s raid card right now??
Computurd im still waiting something from u :P:P come on man bench ur array in 4x :P:P:P i want to see how the controller works in diff. SSD method :D
I think one thing that might have really helped nizzen's vantage score was ocing the pcie - on my gigabyte extreme I could only get 101 (100 stock).Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Nizzen - what did you get you pcie up to? 108? 109?
@tiltervros..alright alright...i am using my array for 24/7 usage right now. i have a new, top secret device coming Tuesday, which i will have to put my array onto. i will run some benchs of 4x in the process. those numbers are extremely high for 4 ssd though....lordy that averages out to 269 per drive, i dont think my vertex's are up to that challenge:shocked: we shall see.;)
i made a script like napalm uses... lol its fun its really scary..!!! do u want to capture a video???
my numbers are extremely high for ur array??? lol!!!!!!! hmmmm ive seen the samsung ssd video... frame by frame.... computurd have u seen the last 10 seconds frame by frame??? plz do it and tell me what u r thinking of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26enkCzkJHQ
4.04 till end
no i mean they are high for four drives LOL, did you use a nested array? LOL nice!! i have seen the last four seconds of samsung video before, and what they did is soft raid two controllers. you can also do it with ich10r and a controller. i dunno been awhile since i looked at it. those nested arrays are fun stuff though, and ultra fast:hump:
nested array=? sorry about that
like a 'software' raid between two controllers. a raid array made up of two separate controllers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels
nope my array is on the LSI. 4xintel M series
wow. nice job! my 30 GB vertex top out at 230 each, so you probably have me on that one. that is impressive for four drives!!
:rolleyes: here you go
nice, what controller properties are you using? direct i/o? also, have you found NCQ to work better in your usage? i get higher speeds by disabling NCQ...
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/a.png
NCQ is always disable... see my post above ;)
some say that its a crup... some say that it is just for boys...
ALL I KNOW is LSI 9260i8..........
i wonder where is ARECA :D:D:D hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah haahhahaahhahahaha
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?se...#entry14306468
i could not agree with you more tiltervros LOL man when the areca 18XX sas/sata cards come out in march we will be having fits testing these like madmen!!
dx11 is to nvidia as
6gb/s is to areca???
:rofl::rofl:
Can anyone try this card on a Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 please?
Cause I heart that it doesnt work on some MSI boards and LSIs reply to that is: "buy a server board"... :(
The 9260-8i works great on the UD5 so it should work on the UD7.
All this talk got me tempted so ordered a LSI 9260-8i as well expect it to be better than my current Highpoint 3520LF raid controller :D
Does anyone have benches without cache?
yes..here is a vantage run with no cache used, ran direct. it is number 10 :D
Hall Of Fame
and still not available in the Benelux :(
I think I better move to Siberia or Antartica... They'll probably have it sooner then here :down:
New firmware and drivers for the 92xx series controllers. (dated 2010-01-29)
Link
Bug Fixes and Enhancements:
===========================
Firmware:
This is a major update with numerous bug fixes and enhancements.
Maybe this is the one...
----------------------------
Oh boy, you better install, looks like its getting very close to the 9211 :)
Hmmm, its a bit of both, +20' iops at small blocks (512B-4KB @ QD64) and down a bit on larger block sizes according to my initial tests. (still testing)
update:
- They've released a new version of the MSM as well. (6.50-11, release 4.3)
Does anyone know if compatibility with AMD boards improved with this FW? Can anyone try if he has AMD board available ?
Thank you.
Wait somebody actually uses AMD and Hardware raid controllers?!
lol just j/k :D
Yeap, solution found...compatible board according to user "MustangGT" from sweclockers.com and secondly to user "SLK320" from OCZforums is ASUS M4A79 Deluxe...
This board works with LSI 9260-4i...
Looking at perhaps picking up a 9260 ..
Is the 4i PCIE X8 just like the 8i ?
Also what is the difference between these 9260-4i SKU's ? besides price ?
MRSAS9260-4I/SGL
MRSAS9260-4I/KIT
I am going to be using this with an AMD board .. namely Gigabyte GA-790FXTA-UD5, have been told on another forum that this board will be just fine with LSI based raid cards.. any further thoughts here ?
The first SKU refers to single controller package, while the second to a Kit, which includes an SFF-8087 to 4-SATA cable.Quote:
Originally Posted by S1nn3r
I think trans am has tested the board you're mentioning, but i think that the controller was not recognised... investigate further before you purchase it...
Hm that is a bit troubling to my grand plans for this build..Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
The post im refering to is this one i made on oc.net regarding compatibility with LSI cards on the 790FXTA ..
http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherb...ml#post8291111
The answer to your post is about the Dell Perc5i/6i cards with LSI FW loaded.
Here's the post from trans am :
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...0&postcount=13
He actually tested the 9260-4i on the GA-MA790FXTA-UD5, but no go with current bios available.
Oh crap, well now im a bit stuck then it seems, what are my options aside from the LSI 9200 series in terms of inexpensive (<-Ģ300) well regarded RAID cards for 2+ SSD RAID 0 use ? i did look at some Intel controller based ones (Highpoint i think ..) but they were all fan cooled and id want passive as i suspect those little fans are very noisy ..Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
Also I guess if the 9260 didnt work there is not much chance of its little brother the 9211 HBA working ?Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
My storage strategy for my new build is now a huge mess.. realy dont know what to do as the appeal of the AMD build i had in mind was extra money to do something extra special on the storage side vs the Intel build as the price difference was enough to get the 9260 and faster/more SSDs.
Now im stuck..
Quote:
Originally Posted by S1nn3r
Have you already bought the Gigabyte board? If not you can get the ASUS M4A79T, which i think works with the LSI, at least the DDR2 version of the board does, that's why i got it. I don't have the controller yet, but i was informed by MustangGT @ sweclockers.com who has this setup and i saw a guy "SLK320 @ OCZforums that also has this setup.
You can try to contact trans am and see what his conclusion for the GA-MA790FXTA-UD5 was.
PS : As for the SB750...the reason it does not behave as the ICHXXR's is the lack of WriteBack setting in it's configuration.
You can set it only in WriteThru mode and that way the same SSD array underperforms in small-file-size read rates...
you can browse the oczforums and see various results.
But (there's always a but), its performance is not something that is complete crap.
You can see for example the SB600 performance on 2 Vertex 30GB here,
SB710/SB750 is almost the same, maybe a little better in small-size reads.
Meaning -> While an LSI9260+SSD configuration is superb, a simple SB750 Raid setup with SSDs is not something with same performance to HDD raid arrays.
Ive been talking with trans am via pm about the situation. And im working on rethinking some aspects of the build.Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
The kit with the cable in it was my understanding is not the same as this though - http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Highp...-to-SATA-Cable ...Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
Which to my understanding would be the cable i would need. I am not planing on using any fancy backplanes or hot swap or anything.
In the LSI's product selector guide here (pdf) saya that the cable bundled in the Kit is One mini-SAS to 4 SATA, so normally this is the one you need.
yes it can be confusing with cabling... just make sure to get good quality cables, do NOT go cheap, you will live to regret it.
The one bundled in the Kit version of the controller is ok or should get better quality ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
I've got the KIT cables and they are working just fine.
yea the kit cables are fine
LSI Announces Advanced Software Options for MegaRAID 6Gb/s SAS/SATA Adapters
LSI Corporation (NYSE: LSI) today announced three advanced software options designed to greatly extend the performance and data protection capabilities of LSITM 6Gb/s SAS/SATA MegaRAID controller cards. The new MegaRAID FastPath and CacheCade offerings help to optimize application performance in direct-attached storage environments configured with solid-state drives (SSDs). The MegaRaid Recovery option enhances data protection through new snapshot functionality, which enables rapid file and volume-level data recovery.
LSI MegaRAID FastPath optimizer software provides high-performance I/O acceleration for SSDs connected to a 6Gb/s SAS/SATA MegaRAID controller. The technology is designed to dramatically boost transactional application throughput, delivering up to 150,000 I/Os per second (IOPS). The software supports full optimization of SSD and hard disk drive (HDD) virtual disk groups to deliver a 3X improvement in read and write IOPS compared to MegaRAID controllers not utilizing FastPath technology.
"We’ve found that MegaRAID FastPath technology enables Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 to maximize the performance of SSD storage using non-parity RAID levels," said David Powell, Director of SQL Server Performance Engineering at Microsoft. "We’re blown away by the performance results we’re seeing from LSI – up to 150,000 8KB IOPS in SQL Server benchmark testing, and easily 2X faster than comparable RAID solutions for online transaction processing (OLTP) database workloads. Any business looking for cost-effective performance and scalability should try SQL Server with MegaRAID SAS RAID controllers, LSI FastPath software and today’s high-performing solid-state disk technology."
LSI MegaRAID CacheCade cache tiering software enables SSDs to be configured as a secondary tier of cache to maximize transactional I/O performance. Utilizing SSD devices as cache can deliver up to a 50X performance improvement in read-intensive applications, such as OLTP and file and Web server workloads. The solution is designed to accelerate the I/O performance of HDD-based arrays while minimizing required investments in SSD technology.
Enhanced data protection is provided by LSI MegaRAID Recovery, which uses snapshots to enable rapid file and volume-level data recovery capabilities. Users can capture snapshots of source volume data at designated points in time and restore data from those points should accidental or malicious data loss or corruption occur. MegaRAID Recovery is designed to satisfy the growing need for more frequent restore points and reduced recovery times, providing IT organizations with new levels of data protection and business continuity.
Based on the latest LSI F/W and new S/W which should now be better for acards - 9260 or 9211?
When I last tested - the 9211 scored better in vantage - would that still be the case?
If the simplist raid is best for SSD wouldn't that be doubly true for acard ramdisks?
For comparison - below is the most I think I can wring out of the 1231ML4G - this is with i7 @ 4.5, 1720 6-6-6 1T memory, 12x acard 9010 R0, pcie 119.
So much of this is inflated by cache - however note the iometer run at the bottom.
I would think both the 9260 or the 9211 can beat this in 4MB seq iops but what about 4K random read/writes?
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3...ardpcie119.png
wait till next week i will get my 9260 8 port and i try some test for u. if u promise to fix my xls file ;) :D