$1500 for storage(SSDs)- what would you do?

^^
Thanks for that Napalm. I’m tempted to do some benchmark comparisons with a single X25 on hard raid and a single drive on the mobo to see for sure if it is the lack of ability of hard raid to fully utilise the quick ramp up of the X25 at 4k and less.

I’m also tempted to do the same thing for soft raid and a single drive so see what difference that has, if any.

It would be nice to have the IOMeter config that Areca/ Intel used. I’m also not sure how they extracted the results in the format that they used to display their results.

I say tempted as this will be a lot of work and I’m fairly sure anyway that the ramp up on hard raid is in fact slower. I think that what it shows is that a single drive at or below 4k is just as fast as a raid set up, maybe even faster, but anything above 4k will be faster on hard raid.

Assuming I’m right, the impact on typical real world usage patterns can be seen here.

(Taken from here )

http://www.audienceofone.co.uk/z.jpg

The next gen Intel will use a different controller and will have improvements in write speeds and a lot more capacity, so unless hard raid becomes more optimised for SSD I think I will switch over to a single drive when the new generation drives come out.

@ fear - thats what happens when you got 2 diff interfaces on the same controller.. one native the other has to be simulated

1680 better choice if sas ssd/ramdrive
1231-80 better choice if sata ssd/ramdrive

q is where are the sas ssds and sas ramdrives ?

just the last few weeks the market got flooded with new sas controllers but no sas ssd/ramdrive

---

@ audienceofone - yeh do that and see for yourself.. ill post 1x @ onboard/1x @ 1231/4x @ 1231 of my px ssd aswell

^^

Test with IOmeter? If so why don't we both use the same test config to compare results? It would be nice to be able to present the results in the sameway they have..... do you know how Areca/ Intel extracted the write speeds for each size file?

xls from Areca (Supertalent + ARC-1280 / 1680ix-8 / 1680ix-24)

http://www.picdo.net/Fichiers/3625b2...t_SDD_8HDD.xls

Note: There are 8 tests inside the xls (see below)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

q is where are the sas ssds and sas ramdrives ?

---

Here... ;)
I hope your money-bag is big :D

http://www.stec-inc.com/interface/sas.php


But the best linkage is fibre-channel (like Ramsan 440 or Violin 1010)

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-fastest.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

^^

Test with IOmeter? If so why don't we both use the same test config to compare results? It would be nice to be able to present the results in the sameway they have..... do you know how Areca/ Intel extracted the write speeds for each size file?

---

i got these here now if you want a quick compare heres crystalmark.. iometer later

1000MB - 1x @ ich10r/4x raid0 @ 1231/512mb
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7444/19601946.pnghttp://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5062/89851246.png

100MB - 1x @ ich10r/4x raid0 @ ich10r
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5222/91441038.pnghttp://img41.imageshack.us/img41/631...telcrystal.jpg

the 4x @ ich10r was prior to firm update.. post firm update its about ~20mb/s read/~10mb/s write

i got to redo 4x @ ich10r this is just to show/give an idea how my px ssd perform @ onboard/1231

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.

xls from Areca (Supertalent + ARC-1280 / 1680ix-8 / 1680ix-24)

http://www.picdo.net/Fichiers/3625b2...t_SDD_8HDD.xls

Note: There are 8 tests inside the xls (see below)

---

and thats 800mhz iop vs dual-core 1200mhz iop :)

still i wouldnt go for the 1680.. due to latency.. overall its no faster than the 1280

if you want to give the 1680 a try go ahead.. maybe youll get more out of the ramdrives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.

Here... ;)
I hope your money-bag is big :D

http://www.stec-inc.com/interface/sas.php


But the best linkage is fibre-channel (like Ramsan 440 or Violin 1010)

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-fastest.html

---

nice.. maybe bill gates would be generous enough to grant us some $

1680 is for real raid arrays, 5, 6, 50, 60, etc. It's an enterprise level controller with the latest intel raid 6 engine. That's its primary purpose, large parity raids. If data integrity combined with performance is your goal, it's the superior choice.

Found in a french forum...

http://www.nokytech.net/forum/3111559-post336.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNPPRhPV7y0

lol @ first linky - forget it.. acard 9010 ftw!

I definitely wouldn't knock anyone for spending money on their toys, but what are the tangible benefits of having uber fast arrays like napalm's and what type of workloads benefit from that type of a setup?

I am getting some interesting results when I pit my Intel X25-M raid 0 array against the OCZ core V2 Raid 0 array(both 64K stripe size). The intel array losses by a bit in read benches but there is absolutely no contest when it comes to writes. This was what I expected it to be, but what really is interesting are the ATTO results.The Intel array seems to win in both reads and writes by a fair margin when the file size is smaller and the Core V2 array wins for larger file sizes and Crystal also confirms this.It looks like I got some work ahead of me trying to find the right stripe size, for my kind of use, for my primary rig.Also I got to decide on the right combo(Ofcourse the OCZs on the ICH10R Raid 0 would be stayed away from,atleast for my primary rig).Since I do a bit of video encoding, I want keep my stripe size to 64K or 128K. Interesting times ahead.