How often do you do a single atomic operation :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
No I haven't found a good way to trace QD.
Printable View
How often do you do a single atomic operation :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
No I haven't found a good way to trace QD.
One Hertz
Everytime I load or save a single file to/from my editor.
The point is that if the stripe size doesn't match your common file size one ends up not utilizing more than one SSD.
(one cannot tell which SSD a file is stored on and in theory all of your 10MB small files could be on one of the SSD's, using a small stripe size one is guaranteed that the file is distributed on more than one SSD)
If you are working with a single small file then the time it will take to read/write it is already in the ms range. Say 32kb. The time to read it once the seek is complete is roughly 0.16ms on one 200mb/s SSD. Total with seek on a fast SSD is around 0.26ms. Who cares at this point? Don't forget that with smaller stripe sizes your seek time will rise because every SSD has to do the seek and the highest seek time will be the one that you wait for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
Having all 10MB small files fall on a single SSD in an array is basically impossible... And even then 10MB will be in the near instant range on a modern SSD.
I decided to chime in for the Areca team and just made my first PCMark Vantage HDD Suite run with 2x degraded Intel X25m's not the best needs improvements:Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
E8600 duo core + Areca + Intel X25m = 71151 points
Compare url:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcmv=261161
Wow Jor, great score!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jor3lBR
Is that with 12xx or 16xx controller and with just 2 drives?
Hey SteveRo, thanks I just upgraded my storage setup and it's been a pleasure so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
It's the 1231ml + only 2 Intel's X25m. Blows my mind away.
wow jor3lbr, 624 mb/s for windows media, thats 312 mb/s each drive. damn near the limit of sata2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Cache is king :D
if you look in the resource monitor, use the disk tab up top, then navigate down to the storage bar, windows will tell you queue depth. i am not sure how accurate it is, but hey the operating system is telling you so i dont know how much more accurate it can get :) funny thing is when you load games queue depth never goes above 1, or vary rarely. I have wondered before if queue depth is not going up because the system is so fast. maybe queue depth only goes up on slower systems during ceratian usage? maybe if the OS is waiting it stacks quqe depths? but if it is being 'served' fast enough it doesnt raise QD? however, when you load i.o meter and run queue depth at whatever file sizes windows shows the perfect amount of queue that the benchmark runs. so must be accurate.
The result cached is higher then the one I sent to Futurmark. Usually the second run. The first run after reboot is more accurate but still cache plays a roll on it. I am trying to compare apples to apples like SteveRo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nizzen
What did you use as for an array blocksize?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jor3lBR
I have heard that can make a big difference also.
yes, and i dont see the problem with a cache run tbh...hell if you have it, use it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Thanks Computurd! Here's my PCMark05 legit no cache or tweaks that are forbidden by HWBOT like the ones we saw on that other thread (Dis-consider the windows xp start-up test I had to do it while using the array to copy a 650Mb file at the same time the test where running to be under the 220Mb/s limit):Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2174341
I believe it was 128K but I have to double check that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
that is a very good link and has a lot of very good info thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by audienceofone
i did note however that he was mistaken when he replied, and he acknowledges that he was refering to raid 5, not raid 0, and they even go on to mention some stripe size recommendations for ssd and raid 0. you have to listen until 49:30 when he acknowledges his mistake and then they start talking about hte raid 0 again, and one of the guys even brags about his 500 mb/s on his raid 0 array at home :) alot of it is also that he is not referring to the concept or usage of raid itself, but the fact that the current (at the time) hardware raid controllers and software are not optimized for it with raid 5(or probably parity in general, he is talking about redundancy because he mentions that the image of the drive is a better backup system) i do not get video on that link, only audio , but i am going to listen to the whole thing later. captivating!
when i was talking to titlervros in msn about the 9260 i had told him once about how i used to use the windows 2008 drivers before they released the win7 ones because they gave better performance.
NOW this whole time i have been trying to figure out what the :banana::banana::banana::banana: is holding back my array and me and him talked about it a few times but it turns out he used the windows 2008 driver for the 9211 and that is what unlocked his sequential performance with 64k. and i will be goddamned cause i put the card back on, and sure enough i just went over 1300 with a degraded array. i hadn't been able to get over 1100 with a fresh array before. oh well looks like i am running the numbers again, as these better drivers may effect the game loads and definitely my little chart.
this goes to show the immaturity of this controller, it is so new the win7 driver needs major work.
@jol3br- ya know it just hits me how good that pcm05 score really is, and how youve been floating around for the longest time trying to find the best solution for that specific application, i cant count how many times you've mentioned it! i am very happy to see you get a kick ass result at those HDD scores with pcm05. man, what a achievement! i see great things for you with this! keep up the great work your patience paid off:clap:
You are soooo right and after all those PM's and noob questions that you patiently answered. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Between you, SteveRo, Napalm, OneHertz and lowfat's posts I was able to figure out just the right combo for the setup I needed.
Thanks again for all your great feedback on these arrays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audienceofone
Thanks for the link. Listening to Session 4 now. :)
dude i was watching the live webcast of the sandy bridge presentation during IDF and they actually answered a question that i submitted in real time...even said my name! lol it was about if pci-e 3.0 will be implemented into the sandy bridge chip. dude i was so thrilled that they answered it RIGHT then. it was like the highlight of my geeky career as an overclocker :) god im a nerd!
@jol3br..man you list some big names there, lots of top guns on this site when it comes to storage! you are definitely one of them, and you are learning just like the rest of us, so never hesitate to ask anything! it is great to be on a site with this much experience and talent, even though we all rarely agree on anything :)
@Computurd
Dr. Busch is a consultant that makes money from system engineering in context of putting parts together that deliver the optimum yield. He is more interested in putting a system together that works optimally. Intel on the other hand want to sell lots of ssd's. The Q&A seemed to get a bit awkward at that stage.:rofl:
Will Akin talks about tiny strip sizes and a max of 64K. :shocked: Yet smaller strip sizes with iometer do not benchmark as well. :shrug:
I just don't get why raid 0 shows no real benefit for real apps in desktop use. Benchmarks show near perfect scaling but that is not reflected in real app use. Marios & Computurd have shown that significantly more writes are occurring on one drive within an array so how can the benchmarks show near perfect scaling? Then there is the added randomness of writes that occur in raid and raid overheads etc. :shrug:
I'm hoping GullLars will shed some light when we (hopefully) get to see his graphs that show performance at different qd's.
ok here is something to see... LSI 9211i8 windows 2008 drivers and 7 intels-m
there is a 20% off because of overhead i dont know how to make it lower but this is the best that my mind can think :(
the first on is 256k file seq. on 32outstandings IOS
the second one is 4k file seq 1 oustanding ios
PCIE latance at 89 (best result) and PCIE packet @ 128
this is the best result that i can take from the 5520 chipset :(
Well I finally got the damn thing working. Thanks to Computurd. I wasn't able to get the gigabyte UD5 to recognize the card. I'm guessing it only reads VGA cards for now. The board is still new so maybe with a bios update the engineers can make it work.
Here's a before and after Crystal disk bench.
Before (using 64kb stripe on AMD sb750)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...Canddefrag.jpg
AFTER (lsi 9260-4i) 64kb stripe
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...lsmith/lsi.jpg
Trans Am- dude that rocks i am totally stoked for you! dont thank me man your the one who put in the sweat and frustration and im sure a few choice words there as well! i am sure it was worth it once you seen them numbers! get yer OS and some games on there and enjoy! awesome!!
now we need to get our aussie buddy up and going...
you make a good point, and that of course goes back partially to the difference between the benches/real performance. there is that in-between somewhere inbetween the two. for instance, i have run a 16k stripe on the 9620-8i and my game load times increased tremendously.Quote:
Will Akin talks about tiny strip sizes and a max of 64K. Yet smaller strip sizes with iometer do not benchmark as well.
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...6kstrizipe.png
on there i am doing some comparison to non-cache and cached runs of the games. nonetheless the point is the performance is there even though it doesn't look purty when you run some i/o meters, looks much worse than the 1 MB stripe. these times beat the 9211 load times. the stripe size on the 9211 is not changeable.
NOW consider that the 1231 only beat the 9211 by 2 percent in Vantage and the 9211 placed in the top 5 Hall Of Fame. that is power for sure, and vantage is a 'real' benchmark in the sense that it uses real apps and tasks as opposed to straight numbers. it actually runs video etc and measures the bandwidth, as opposed to i/o meter that just runs numbers in relation to a test file.
so now that i rambled, the point is that will atkins has a point, the tiny stripe sizes ARE faster!
so many different ways all of this goes, i thinks the only way to find the best setting is to test and do it with a targeted approach of a few games load times, then vantage HDD score and the low QD of each file size...find your perfect setting....
average user just get one disk:rofl:
Yeah man we got to get him in the game! I was up late last night as you know and I got to the end of my rope. I basically did the following to get this rolling. after so many raid0 partitions on different controllers I had figured it would be best to wipe the drives. I have no experience with hdderase so I stuck with what I know. Killdisk. Using kill disk I wiped the drives and meanwhile I made a 20gb windows7 partition on a raptor and installed the updates and drivers for the chipset. then I rebooted plugged in the lsi and booted into windows and installed the drivers for the 92604i and then did the flash with you. once it flashed successfully and you went to bed. I plugged in my clean ssds to the card and set the disk settings for native ide. since this board has 2 x16 slots I had to go into that bios setting that shows vga order. it usually says PEG, PEG2 PEG3, PCI and so on. since peg stands for the 1st x16 slot closest to the cpu socket, peg2 is the next x16 slot and so on. I set it to the one with the raid card. then I set my apci to s1 and gen2. rebooted got into webbios made the array using the auto config method (it was late/i was drinking) rebooted and installed win7 dvd. plugged in the usb key with the drivers/it doesnt ask for them but i did it anyway. installed windows finally no reboots. installed the drivers/updates. turned off indexing/ power options to performance/ disk drive shutdown to NEVER. etc. etc. installed the lsi mega raid manager. went in and made the changes i didnt make when I did the automatic config in web bios. I wanted to try the 1mb stripe cuz that sounds awesome but I just wanted to get it going as fast as I could. 64kb is fine for what Im doing or for now. I was thinking we should make a LSI motherboard data base that shows which boards work and which dont and what you need to get them working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
heres a toast! :toast:
I've got some gaming to do.
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...ppynewyear.jpg
Or just add the info you have now to Bikers list at the link below...Quote:
Originally Posted by trans am
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=230922
tilt those are some awesome results i cant match that with the controller...your latency on there is killer!Quote:
ok here is something to see... LSI 9211i8 windows 2008 drivers and 7 intels-m
there is a 20% off because of overhead i dont know how to make it lower but this is the best that my mind can think
the first on is 256k file seq. on 32outstandings IOS
the second one is 4k file seq 1 oustanding ios
PCIE latance at 89 (best result) and PCIE packet @ 128
this is the best result that i can take from the 5520 chipset
thanks for pointing this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkOrPn
Good morning and happy new year!
Game level load times by controller - below.
Results are likely to vary greatly from one system to another - there so many variables: disk array used, processor, mobo, memory, os, apps that the os decides it needs to run without asking.
Also keep in mind these results are for only one game - other games may provide totally different results.
Test configuration:
i7 965 (stock clock/ no oc)
Gigabyte x58 Extreme mobo
6GB memory at 1066
Disk array used was 8xAcard 9010 all set to Raid 0 (so 8xAcardR0) except for Ich10R which is 6xAcardR0 (mobo max).
Comments/summary/opinions: If these results are representative (a big IF) and could be generally applied to other systems and if the primary use of your system is Crysis gaming - stick with ich10R.
I suspect that Crysis level loading might be bottlenecked elsewhere - perhaps processing?
Different games might provide a totally different result.
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1555/zzzdj.jpg
@trans_am: what SSDs and how many is that? 4xIntel?
<deleted>
This PCIe latance and packet size you speak of...is this something you are setting in the BIOS? Furthermore, how do these numbers affect performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
Sorry if this is off topic.
in server motherboard is everything in manual mode... automatic or optimum is not an option... so u change the setings u boot u test and do the same thing again and again until u will find the golden cut. pci latance is the time that u r giving to ur PCIE lane to stick to the card and then change lane. some card need more latance to boost performance like LSI. the thing with packet size it that if u put a big number there like 256 then u chooke the card.
I think he mentioned once that he has 2 OCZ Summits, but not sure on that. Be nice if people would keep an updated signature of their current config so we could instantly see what they are working with. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Good afternoon and happy new year again,
Iometer results for the controller compare are below.
Remember this is on my setup – YMMV!
Some of the more interesting numbers are color coded red and blue.
Observations –
The LSI 9260-8i:
Performs much worse then the other controllers at small file random io – both read and write. I used the latest f/w and driver.
The LSI 9211-8i:
4KB sequential read is rather low at 215 MBps compared to the other controllers – including Ich10R (Ich10R with not 8 but 6 drives).
Seqential read at 128K chuck size is very good – 1318MBps compared to approx 1400 if perfect scaling was possible.
All large file xfers at 1MB and higher chuck size falls off significantly – how much (if any) xfers happen at this chunk size?
The Areca 1231ML-2G:
With the exception of the 9260, the 1231ML has the slowest 4KB random xfer speed - over 90MBps slower than Ich10R
All large file random reads at 1MB to 4MB size falls off a cliff – how much (if any) xfers happen at this chunk size?
Question:
Can anyone tell looking at these results that the highest scoring PCMark Vantage HDD score would be the Ich10R array (Ich10R with not 8 but 6 drives) and that the highest PCMark Vantage (overall) score would be using the 1231ML? I couldn’t tell.
Pics -
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1570/13387768.jpg
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2687/54947049.jpg
Thanks Steve! Results are as expected
Thanks a bunch Steve. Very interesting!
I noticed that the ICH10R and the 9211 follow the same patterns in benches such as seq. reads and random write. For example in seq reads, they both peak between 16K - 128K files sizes, then drop off quickly. The 9260 and 1231 don't suffer from this. I wonder if this is because of the cache? :shrug:
With the exception of large files sizes, I wonder why the 9211 does so much better than the 9260? :shrug: I thought I read somewhere that the raid processor on the 9260 was clocked higher than the 9211. :confused:
I think both LSI controllers will improve with f/w updates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler
At $233. I am particularly impressed with the 9211-8i
wow steve tons of results there GREAT job man! gonna take awhile to digest all of the numbers, however the game load times is where i want to start....
9620-8i price is roughly 500 bucks. the 1231 is $769 for 2GB and $1050 for 4GB.
in the load times the 1231 outperforms the 9260-8i in game loads slightly, less than a second, and also being last gen and pretty much maxed in firmware and software, i think it is a no-brainer that among the cards the 9260-8i is the best , especially considering it's forward mobility. i believe if you ran that at a 64k stripe or even 16k stripe the 9260-8i would beat the 1231 pretty easily, i have made tremendous gains with those stripe sizes, i am running some different tests for the 9260 at different stripe sizes and will give you numbers in the difference in load times shortly, before the end of the weekend. one of the largest differences is going to be the 16k stripe as it is at the other end of the spectrum from the 1mb of course. i do have numbers for that. basically about .5 sec faster with the 16k than the 1mb. doesnt sound like much but of course when load times are around 3 seconds on consecutive loads a .5 is a big deal.
the 9211's poor showing in game load times did not suprise me much, even though i would hardly call that performance 'poor'. hell for 230 bucks you literally cannot beat it. and considering that it is a virgin firmware AND driver jesus there is only one way to go...up.
the ICH10r is impressive, however i think the 92xx series will surpass it soon with future improvements,. and thats not even begging to mention sata 3 and sas2 devices. they will positively torch the ich10r. i am not surprised that the ich10r does better than the 1231. the 1231 was designed how many years ago? the ich10r is a more developed solution imo. hell it was designed when SSD's were actually on the market. im not sure when the 1231 was designed in 06 and released in 07. not sure.
that does bring into the equation that your results are using acards and not ssd....
one conclusion i can draw from the 9211 results for sure is that considering the 9260's 'poor' 4k random and the 9211's superb 4k random, the 9260-8i beating the 9211 could help prove that the 4k random is not as big of a determining factor as many think, especially in light of the fact that there have been other sources pointing to it as relevant, but not nearly the end-all performance indicator. people read far far too much into 4k.
(i have obtained warhead, last night off of steam, i am going to run it on the different controllers to compare to your load times with acards...i bet you smoke me)
thansk for your hard work and effort man.
Last but not least – FYI - AS SSD and CDM for all controllers.
Test configuration:
i7 965 (stock clock/ no oc)
Gigabyte x58 Extreme mobo
6GB memory at 1066
Disk array used was 8xAcard 9010 all set to Raid 0 (so 8xAcardR0) except for Ich10R which is 6xAcardR0 (mobo max).
Default controller settings and stripe sizes are used except 1MB stripe is used for the 9260-8i
Ich10R with 6xAcardR0 –
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6...sssdandcdm.jpg
LSI 9260-8i with 8xAcardR0 –
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5...sssdandcdm.jpg
LSI 9211-8i with 8xAcardR0, I could not get AS SSD to run the 4k/QD64 - AS SSD kept hanging –
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5...sssdandcdm.jpg
Areca 1231ML-2G with 8xAcardR0 –
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/741...sssdandcdm.jpg
Well you definitely proved what a lot of us has thought about games. Storage currently isn't the bottleneck.
i have been downloading crysis warhead from steam for several years now....goddamn it is slow.
I'm not sure if I did this correctly however I used the Win 7 Performance Monitor to find out the max MB/s whilst loading the last level of COD MW2. (I selected maximum on the report and histogram within the general tab on the Performance Monitor Properties. I then started the counter as I loaded COD. Once the level had loaded I closed it down and paused the counter.)
Results -
7200RPM HDD
Read Max = 44MB/sec
Load time - approx 10 seconds
Intel G2
Read Max = 96MB/sec
Load time - approx 6 seconds
The read seems to have maxed out on the HDD, but the read on the G2 is well below the theoretical max. Intriguing.
Now check out the AnandTech Storage Bench - Gaming Workload in this review. The Kingston SD Now (JMicron 602 - 170MB/s sequential read) is just as fast at loading as an Intel X25-E (250 MB/s sequential read)
Assuming it takes around 400MB to load a game and the load is predominately sequential reads the difference in my loading times between the hdd and ssd is close.
The question is why was the ssd read limited to 96mb/s? Neither the cpu or the ram broke into a sweat. :shrug:
EDIT:
L4D2 1st level.
Intel G2
Read Max = 108MB/sec
Load time - approx 7 to 8 seconds
Edit 1: and if I run AS Benchmark I get the correct read reading on the Performance Monitor so I think I am doing this correctly.
good question this is why i am wondering how queue depth is assigned, either by os or program. i have been told it is by the program by one individual, however i am not so sure. i am not entirely convinced of that.
IF it is assigned by the operating system, either by part, or in whole, if someone could somehow alter that to where things load automatically at higher queue depths....could be fantastic.
is there a way to alter QD and 'force' the system into doing it?
i think most coding is done for hdd, both at operating system and at program level. this sucks LOL. some applications however do use higher queue depths etc...interesting stuff.
maybe thats why raid cards work so well? delivering higher speeds at lower QD automatically? i dunno. it still would take a lot of convincing to persuade me that the storage aspect has no major involvement in loading times etc...
Look at the read speeds that SteveRo is achieving. Multiply the read speed (lets say 500MB/s) by the time it takes to load a level (lets say 27seconds) and if everything was working perfectly Crysis would have just loaded a 13GB sequential read file.
I don't know how many MB's load on a typical Crysis level but I doubt its 13GB.
If it was loading @ 100MB/s over 27 seconds it would be 2.9GB and even that seems a bit high. Even if it loaded 1GB that is only 37MB/s.
AnandTech got a load time 38 seconds with a G1 Intel. Depending on which level that was it is close to SteveRo's time on a storage system that is infinitely faster.
good points, but also you have to realize it isn't going to be a sequential load pattern in its entirety. it is going to be doing a mix of randoms and sequentials at different file sizes, so maybe how it is handling that loading has a lot to do with it. but even with a lower expectation as in your second example it still does seem off.
wish we knew what level they were loading with that in anandtech, the crysis levels load way faster in the first game than the second one. we need someone with a x-25m and the game to post up some load times. it is really going to depend upon which map i load the majority of them in under 20 seconds in game mode. none of them take over 23.
but also, you have to look at its impact of the games performance itself, that page you linked also shows the effect that the faster storage solutions have on FPS and the like. the entire purpose of fast storage does not begin and end with load times. it is a small easily measurable aspect, of course. but what about when you are actually playing the game?? your lower frame rates are where you spend alot of your gaming sessions at. that is where the performance really comes into play. that is where you are really seeing the performance truly.
load times can be too much of a focus of people, much like 4k. people just seem to focus in on it too much. most people dont drop the serious cash just for a few seconds in load times :)
people say that they cannot see the performance of their gaming scale as well with the benchmarks, in regards to raiding storage solutions etc. but can they really? or are they just measuring one thing? game loads?
what about scaling of the performance IN the game? you may spend a few seconds loading maps for a game. but how much time do you spend in that map?
I'm puzzled by that as well because once the game has loaded the disk activity drops to next to nothing and is mostly just writes. (Under 1mb/s!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
It's easy to see the disk activity in the Performance Monitor. Just change the view to "report" and set the "report and histogram" to Maximum.
I've got Crysis somewhere so I will install it to see how quickly it loads.
that is why they are focusing on the minimum frame rates. they usually occur when you are going into a new area of a map or something of that nature, that few seconds where your disk is loading textures. it is only a blip on the radar when it comes to ssd, however for hdd they drop frame rates considerably. these are the hangs and lags that you get in your game. non-existent with extremely fast systems.
again we are looking at an area mos people do not focus on. people always go on and on about maximum frame rates. however what percentage of your gaming sessions are at max frame rate??? barely any. the true performance indicator is the lower frame rates. they show the true weakness of any system.
Computurd,
The only application I can think of that lets you set QD is iometer :)
User selectable QD in normal applications is not possible, like One_Hertz says, it requires different "coding" and many applications would not benefit from this.
(due to the nature of how applications process the data)
On top of this, SSD's have changed the picture a bit, using HDD's the "CPU" was more likely to wait for the HDD than the other way around.
Today it is more likely that the "SSD" is waiting for the "CPU" to process the data.
note:
For an application to send "disk" commands in parallel it needs to be coded differently (multi threaded).
The only other possibility is that multiple applications run i parallel.
(of course it can be a combination of the two)
ty anvil :)
it will be interesting to see how some of the newer games use the system.
for instance supcom2
RTS is historically very demanding for CPU usage during gaming, so they have really focused on multithreading the app and running it across several cores. i dont know how much it will affect its utilization of the storage system but it is indicative of the forward movement towards better utilization of our systems as a whole. comes out in april i cant wait. of course im also a supcom nerd...
You're not going to believe this. (But I can assure you it is true).
New install of Crysis. Open for the first time. First level. Once the loading bar starts it took 16 seconds to load. (I timed only the period it took for the loading bar to complete.)
I closed it, re-opened it and it took 13 seconds to load.
I rebooted and opened again and it took 13 seconds again.
My system is nothing special. Far from it. ICH9. QX6850@ 3.6. 6GB RAM @ 1600mhz and a 4870x2.
The maximum read was 67mb/s.
what are you loading within the game? what level? measure using the tilde button. it has a built in timer it will tell you the load time.
I manually timed the first level. I started when the loading bar appeared and finished when the loading bar finished. How to I set the built in timer? I can't see an option to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
if you hit the tilde button, it is the button next to 1 on your keyboard...the little squille one.~~~~~ if you hit that button once the load is done it will bring up the mangament window which will tell you the load time automatically. does not need set up.
also type this in r_displayinfo=1 that will show you real time fps etc...
also are you loading into multiplayer maps or the actual levels?
i load mine with very high set on all options in video and also DX10
Level Island loading time 14.14 seconds. I managed to get a screen shot if you want to see it.
okay that rocks. is that in the multiplayer or the acutal single player? load up a multiplayer game then run it with the different maps see what you get?
my load time for the level island is 15.80 with the 9211, that is what i have on the computer now. i have not tested normal game levels when i did my runs i hosted multiplayer games and loaded the stages there. my chart is ^^^^^^
i will have the 9260 back on later today i can check with that.
level Multiplayer/ps/shore
First load = 16.02
Second load = 11.04
these are my multiplayer level loads. i think that they are the best indicator of true level load times because they are the same no matter what. i believe there is info attached to your level loads in single player like certain points, progress etc. i dunno. i DO know the multiplayer maps are the same always. thats why i use them :)
*cons are consecutive loads 1 2 and 3
*avnon is average of nonconsecutive loads (reboots inbetween)
*avcon is average of repeated runs
one side is with cache and the other is Direct (no cache)
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...6kstrizipe.png
Question for SteveRo, or for whoever knows the answer:
What is the boot initialization time of each of the three cards? I don't need the entire system boot time, just the time for each card to initialize?
From bios start to controller booted for the 1231ML is approx 35s, the LSI cards are certainly no worse than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler
Comparison results summary (links to the three way comparison - in this thread) –
Pcmark vantage HDD test for the LSI 9211-8i, Areca 1231ML-2G, LSI 9260-8i and intel ich10R (onboard raid) –
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=114
The vantage pcmark suite results –
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=116
Game level load times by controller -
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=229
Iometer results for each controller –
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=235
Last but not least – FYI - AS SSD and CDM for all controllers –
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=240
I will also put this in the first post of this thread.
That is all for now.
THANK YOU for the summary! lol
I was just about to post that I cant find gameload times if my life depended on it!
:D:D
And WOW the differences are almost non-existent if looked on average.
ICH still best way if you don't need huge sequentials.
Wold be interesting if you would OC at least one of the setups to see if it would do better. But I know it's probably to late.
Your welcome,Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Remember this is for one game and for one set up - YMMV,
The pcmark vantage suite runs were oc'd:
i7-965 @ 4.35 ht on,
mem @ 1848 8-8-8,
2xGTX295 (quad sli) oc'd to 690/1190
^even one game goes to prove: don't buy until you try! :)
Anyway investing that much cash should at least be accompanied by 30% better times to be worth while:up:
Or you better make money by playing games on that setup and officially promote the hardware to sucker others to buy! :D:D
for these types of setups yes at this point ich10r is better, however the 9260 and 9211 are designed with 6gb/s interface, which will toast the ich10r once the devices are there. also there is much room for improvement with these devices via firmware, the 9211 is still on virgin fimrware and drivers, there is a lot of possibilities there. do not hold your breath for ich11r either, they are already pushing back sandy bridge and associated chipsets, and you wont see ich11r until then at the earliest.
Computurd,
Have a look at this, the Crucial RealSSD C300 6Gb will be available for sale sometime in February.
Link to DailyTech
yes i know it is an exciting prospect i wish they would release pricing...also interested in a few others coming soon...microns...
did you happen to have a link btw?
Computurd,
I added the link to my previous post.
It is the Micron RealSSD C300 btw. (according to the article, Micron = OEM, Crucial = Consumer)
The price/GB should be on par with the Intel G2's, it's the same 34nm technology, well, time will tell :)
thanks anvil. i am holding my cards when it comes to the next gen drives...i dont think we have seen the best of them yet....jetstream where are you???
@stevie-
hope ya still got the 9211....this just in with the mail....
Paul,
New firmware should be posted either this week or early next week.
Best Regards,
Michaela Koert
Technical Support Engineer
Global Support Services
LSI Corporation
3718 N. Rock Rd.
Wichita, KS 67226
Phone: 1-866-625-3993
Fax: 1-316-636-8373
Email: support@lsi.com
im tellin ya this is gonna be it!!! this is gonna be the one to unlock this here card i can FEEL it!!:party::bananal::rehab::hump:
I sent it back but easy enough to get another one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Figures the day after I take it to UPS they finally release an update.
^hahaha, classic! :D
dont worry steve-o i will boldly go where no nerd has gone before...
ermm..
i mean test it!
Of course they have to say February! I finally get some money to pour into some more SSD's and I have to wait some more. Who knows though...those drives might not even be ready then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
I suppose waiting for firmware updates wouldn't hurt, or at least it seems to be a trend nowadays...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler
According to several websites Micron will start shipping to OEM's within January while the consumer drives (Crucial) will be available for purchase in February.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler
If you are in a hurry there's always the G2 :) and it won't disappoint you.
hey guys I got my indilinx supertalent ultradrives and latest ssd fw with trim and gc is on them. Since I am on p7p55d dlx I have 3 pcie x16 slots but if 2 are populated it goes to x8/x8 or I can do 1 x16 vga / 3rd pcie x16 slot is 4x for the 9260-4i. will putting the card on the 4x lane really make a big difference on my bandwidth? or should I do the x8/x8 I really dont want to run my 5850 in x8 but I also dont want to lose any bandwidth on the LSI. let me know asap so i can get going on this. thanks.
-alvin
witch LSI do u have? i4 or i8?
hey tilt yeah I'm on the 9260-4i its in my sig. everyone was complaining about not having my specs in the sig but i didnt want to get rid of that amazing tng lcars animation gif. I downloaded a gif animation freesoft and modded it with my specs.
i went ahead and built a quick 64kb stripe on the 4x windows is installing right now. I'll bench it quick and then move the card over to the x8 and we can all see the changes. be back soon.
u r not even close to the limit of 4x so no problem :D
thats what I was thinking but I took a huge hit on that x16 (4x) slot. Take a look..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiltevros
specs were:
lsi 9260-4i (latest fw and win7 64 drivers)
64 kb stripe
webbios LSI raid settings adaptive read ahead, disk cache enabled, i/o direct, ncq disabled, always write back cache, not sure what pci packet size was but default. in windows policy on lsi was enable write caching checked. (bottom one unchecked)
indexing off, power profiles PERFORMANCE, hard disk never turn off, enabled trim using cmd prompt. all other cpu and ram was untouched. i turned off all the win7 services crap in the ocz thread.
here we go:
last best bench on 2 summit 60gb (samsung controllers) drives 64kb stripe on amd sb750 and 9260-4i
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...mith/after.jpg
******Today*******
3rd 16x slot (4x mode) using 2 x 60gb super talent ME (indilinx barfoot controllers=identical to ocz Vertex) 64kb stripe and 9260-4i on i5 p7p55d dlx
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...superfetch.png
now heres the 2nd x16 slot (8x /8x mode) same config as previous (i just swapped slots)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...superfetch.png
my 4k read/writes bother me a bit. not sure why they would be lower than the summits on the same stripe size. I'm gonna rebench and see if it changes.
I'm still playing with it. You guys need to help me setup iometer so we can compare. I have no idea.
This has been beaten to death but those CM benchies do not show anything but your cache speed, which doesn't really matter. It would show you the same thing with one 5400rpm HDD.
okay I realize that but since that was the only bench I ever used on this card and wanted to compare to the AMD rig and the fact that I have no idea what I am doing in iometer.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
after that last ss I went back into services and shut off superfetch again. Not sure why but I benched with sf and without and the better one was with it on. but I went back and tried again and this time my 4k improved with it disabled. .
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...erfetchoff.png
i'll run as ssd bench next since thats easy.
okay here's a REAL test:
atto with same settings as last cdm in this post:
using x16 (4x slot)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...atto64kb4x.png
using x8 / x8
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...atto64kb8x.png
im gonna run a 3dmark quick on x16 and x8 to see the changes.
*****3dmark2006 16x/4x was 15893 no oc
x8/x8 was 15805
i think its safe to say i'm better off with x8/x8 rather than x16/x4
I'm very surprised. I thought for sure the vga hit would be much harder but the 9260-4i seems to use the bandwidth the best on this setup.
trans am when u r testing with crystal disk use 1000MB file because u r testing the cache speed of the controller... thats why u r not taking stady results. try to test big files like 500MB 1000MB and 2000MB to avoid the cache from the controller. U said that u have test it in 4x and 8x the speed of 4x is 2000MB/s in Ver.2 pcie and for x8 is 4000MB/s speeds that even i cant get... so u dont have any problems with that. now the cache speed yes may be diff. but this is at least of ur problems. Every benchmark that u r using needs a diff. setup to ur controller like in IOmeter u have to dissable everything to get maximum results in it. Just search the forum for each setup with benchmarks. Computard me and stevero have post some setups. take a look of them and make one new post to see what is ur problem each time. We r here to help u understanding this controller how it perfom each time :D
okay. so i see. heres atto again at 2gb max length. on x8/x8
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...4kb2gbx8x8.png
the x4 v x8 might only matter for burst speeds from cache. the top of x4 may be lower, however, if you have items in your cache that is what cache is for. faster reading from cached items.
so it DOES affect your card to go to the slower bus speed. everyone always downs cache but during usage there are gonna be periods of time where info comes straight from cache to your system. that is why they have it.
so if it affects your cache transfer speed....it affects your speed!
regardless of whether or not the info comes straight from the disk it is still info. going to your system. it is strangling your cache usage. thus your card is not operating at its highest intended usage.
however, it will not apply to all situations, probably a small percentage of use. depends upon your system usage.
okay. so i see. heres atto again at 2gb max length.
16x /4x
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...b2gbx16-4x.png
on x8/x8
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...4kb2gbx8x8.png
now i'm getting somewhere! Thanks onehertz for getting my ass in gear eventhough your flippant post didn't really tell me what was actually wrong. it was tilt that kindly explained it what was happening. thank you both. :toast: Now I kinda wish i knew this sooner when I had the summits on amd *not really) but it wouldve been nice to see a true comparison. I am so happy with this setup. it was so easy to get rolling on this intel compared to the amd chipset and samsung controllers. so after seeing this is it safe to say I can run on the 16x vga /4x lsi? the differences seem so marginal after about a 3rd of the way down. I think the greater loss would be running the 5850 at 8x. okay so now I have the board insulated and you helped me decide where i'll be running the add on cards. now i should prob start doing some air cooling benches to get used to my bios settings and new ram so I have the best chance of breaking the cpuz wr on i3 tomorrow night.
I could never get my Supertalent Ultra drives to work with 3ware 9690SA. After seeing this thread, I have order an open box LSI 9260 8i for $372 from Newegg.
Rather than spending 400 on new SSD, I hope this controller will give me the full speed of 4 SSD.
Goood Thread
Off Topic but for you guys with Vertex drives, Firmware 1.5 has been released today.
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=67815
Trans Am:
When you connect the LSI to your Supertalent SSD, do you get any kind of activity lights? (Drive access)
Thanks...just update my Vertex to 1.5. Drop in performance but does not care much about reaching max speed. I just wanted things on my main rig to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkOrPn
Yes my friend. I never noticed those red leds but they are both on the drives and they work flawlessly with the setup im on.Quote:
Originally Posted by minhgi
is it just me or does this seem insanely low for a 64kb stripe with my setup?
I saw a guy with a single summit on amd 750sb with a better score. wtf am I missing here?
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...th/asssd4x.png
The 8x benches are better for sure in those two charts, not sure if thats more important or not with respect to graphics card performance. I'd bet if you played with stripe size alittle bit you might get another 10-20% at certain file sizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by trans am
Could someone with a 9260i tell me if you can change the cache policy between read/write and say, only doing write back caching? I don't have access to one and I'm mulling over possibly getting one.
Also if you can disable Read caching on the controller Trans Am you might get better results with SSD.
So what would be the optimum setting for the SSD. 64KB Block /No read ahead/ Write Cache enable?
64/128/256 stripe, depends on what you want to tune for. I'd go with no Read cache since that gives me the lowest read latency but you would loose out on the cache burst if something happened to be in there and write back cache assuming you are on a UPS or have a BBU on the controller.
side note: new driver for 9211-8i out today!!
IC...I would just leave it on normal setting. Anyway, I will be using the SSD for my main rig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Levish
What would you suggest to install games on a raid 5 or 10 setting. Games that I have Crysis Warhead, Street Fighter 4, Haegemonia, and Sin of the Solar Empire. Hard drive are set of 4 Fujitsu 15K 3.5.
I should be getting the LSI today and will do a benchmark on 4 32GB Supertanlent Ultra Drive.
I be using ATTO and Everest.