Forum Vs Naplam - Fasted real world storage solution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Computurd

umm yea...you are.
doesnt take away from the fact that your system IS fast. other things do come into play here for uber loads, etc. nice job :)
however.
from a storage standpoint, yes that is all you are doing. do it with ich10r that fast and prove him wrong if that is your intention.

it is a nice trick though. very fast!

---

nice trick?? no tricks here

can you guys get anymore ridiculous/idiotic ??

you guys are clueless to what being cached is :up:

cached means i would have to have firefox running when launching 100x/500x ff.. then you could say its "cached" and even then since im using 512mb cache @ 1231 how the foock can it store 2.2gb ?? can you explain that ??

whether i load 500 ff right after bootup or reload 500 ff over and over the diff is ~2 sec (25-27 seconds)

you guys are total ignorants when it comes to systems/storage systems.. unfortunately you talk/act like you know everything when in fact you know kaka :up:

get this straight: youre confusing my vids with pcmark benches

napalm read post 400. i could not agree with it more. it is perfect.
you are using your cache, big deal bro. no one is saying it is bad or whatever or that your system is slow. take a chill pill. your cache is there to use, and you are using it with conjunction to a fast cpu gpu and ram. you also have a tweaked operating system and know your stuff, apparently.
i just dont understand why you are arguing about a simple fact!

Napalm always reminds me that you have to think on a system level and not at a subsystem level.

Will I ever open 300 applications in real life? Na, but it was mildly amusing to try it out.

For me it is interesting to see how insanely fast PC's are in a way that has some kind of perspective, which can easily be lost when dealing purely with benchmark figures.....I think what I try to say is that sometimes it is hard to appreciate how fast something is if you only go by benchmarks.

As for the results.......

Napalm can open 300 ff in 15 seconds with 4 ssd's in raid 0 using a 1231.

With a single SSD I can open 300 ff in 29 seconds.

Currently I use the ASUS U3S6, which bottlenecks my SSD performance and has no cache to compensate. Whilst my pc performed quite well in this task it was clear that my single SSD was the bottleneck as the CPU and RAM did not max out.

Later I will try to run a "multi-thread" batch setup and will monitor the QD when I run it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GullLars

try making a "multi-thread" batch setup, make one batch launching 10 other, and then have those 10 launch N instances of the program each, like 30 for a total of 300. Should be interesting to see if the QD skyrockets.

---

I made 30 separate bat files, each one opened 10 apps of FF followed by the execution of the next batch file of 10 apps etc.

It took the same amount of time to open this configuration as it did to open a single batch file 300 apps.

As for QD. Weird. I used Performance Monitor> Average Disk Queue Length> Scale 100. The Maximum reading I got for the 30 bat files was 0.004. For the single bat file I got 0.003.

Yesterday it seemed to be saying the QD maxed out at 60. Something must be wrong. Maybe the scales got mixed up or maybe the Performance Monitor can't be trusted. :shrug:

I've kept the bat files so if you know a better way to get a QD measurement I can re-run.:up:

i think its cause the QD is being served very quickly from the cache. so there isnt any QD..? or is it that the different threads being activated and requesting info separately is load balancing across cores better? curios as to gullars impressions on that one.

@ NAPALMthe reason it doesnt go over your cache amount mr napalm is that it loads the files into cache once, or maybe a few times, but it is reading the SAME file over and over and over.......
might be time to brush up on your storage basics :)

^ like i said clueless

belittle me all you want you dont belittle me :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Napalm always reminds me that you have to think on a system level and not at a subsystem level.

Will I ever open 300 applications in real life? Na, but it was mildly amusing to try it out.

For me it is interesting to see how insanely fast PC's are in a way that has some kind of perspective, which can easily be lost when dealing purely with benchmark figures.....I think what I try to say is that sometimes it is hard to appreciate how fast something is if you only go by benchmarks.

As for the results.......

Napalm can open 300 ff in 15 seconds with 4 ssd's in raid 0 using a 1231.

With a single SSD I can open 300 ff in 29 seconds.

Currently I use the ASUS U3S6, which bottlenecks my SSD performance and has no cache to compensate. Whilst my pc performed quite well in this task it was clear that my single SSD was the bottleneck as the CPU and RAM did not max out.

Later I will try to run a "multi-thread" batch setup and will monitor the QD when I run it.

---

thanks man :toast:

well audienceofone that 14 sec gap @ 300 ff will widen tomorrow when i receive 4 x25e :D

really looking forward to all the arguments :shakes:

rhys rhys rhys what you got me into..

I picked this up from a Win 7 forum. Not so straightforward.

The Avg. Disk Queue Length counter is derived from the product of Avg. Disk sec/Transfer multiplied by Disk Transfers/sec, which is the average response of the device times the I/O rate. Again, this corresponds to a well-known theorem of Queuing Theory called Little's Law, which states:

N = A * Sr

where N is the number of outstanding requests in the system, A is the arrival rate of requests, and Sr is the response time. So the Avg. Disk Queue Length counter is an estimate of the number of outstanding requests to the (Logical or Physical) disk. This includes any requests that are currently in service at the device, plus any requests that are waiting for service. If requests are currently waiting for the device inside the SCSI device driver layer of software below the diskperf filter driver, the Current Disk Queue Length counter will have a value greater than 0. If requests are queued in the hardware, which is usual for SCSI disks and RAID controllers, the Current Disk Queue Length counter will show a value of 0, even though requests are queued.

Since the Avg. Disk Queue Length counter value is a derived value and not a direct measurement, you do need to be careful how you interpret it. Little's Law is a very general result that is often used in the field of computer measurement to derive a third result when the other two values are measured directly. However, Little's Law does require an equilibrium assumption in order for it be valid. The equilibrium assumption is that the arrival rate equals the completion rate over the measurement interval.

Otherwise, the calculation is meaningless. In practice, this means you should ignore the Ave Disk Queue Length counter value for any interval where the Current Disk Queue Length counter is not equal to the value of Current Disk Queue Length for the previous measurement interval.

Suppose, for example, the Avg. Disk Queue Length counter reads 10.3, and the Current Disk Queue Length counter shows four requests in the disk queue at the end of the measurement interval. If the previous value of Current Disk Queue Length was 0, the equilibrium assumption necessary for Little's Law does not hold. Since the number of arrivals is evidently greater than the number of completions during the interval, there is no valid interpretation for the value in the Avg. Disk Queue Length counter, and you should ignore the counter value. However, if both the present measurement of the Current Disk Queue Length counter and the previous value are equal, then it is safe to interpret the Avg. Disk Queue Length counter as the average number of outstanding I/O requests to the disk over the interval, including both requests currently in service and requests queued for service.

You also need to understand the ramifications of having a total disk roundtrip time measurement instead of a simple disk service time measure. Assuming M/M/1, a disk at 50 percent busy has one request waiting on average and disk response time is 2 times service time. This means that at 50 percent busy--assuming M/M/1 holds--an Avg. Disk Queue Length value of 1.00 is expected. That means that any disk with an Avg. Disk Queue Length value greater than 0.70 probably has a substantial amount of queue time associated with it. The exception, of course, is when M/M/1 does not hold, such as during a back-up operation when there is only a single user of the disk. A single user of the disk can drive a disk to nearly 100 percent utilization without a queue!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

well audienceofone that 14 sec gap @ 300 ff will widen tomorrow when i receive 4 x25e :D .

---

Bring it on.:up: I can always switch back to ICH9 to give you a better run. :ROTF:

Seriously though, I'm really looking forward to seeing what you can do with 4 x E's.

@ comp. I picked this up in my search for how to measure QD and thought of you.

http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/christ...eue-depth.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Napalm always reminds me that you have to think on a system level and not at a subsystem level.

Will I ever open 300 applications in real life? Na, but it was mildly amusing to try it out.

For me it is interesting to see how insanely fast PC's are in a way that has some kind of perspective, which can easily be lost when dealing purely with benchmark figures.....I think what I try to say is that sometimes it is hard to appreciate how fast something is if you only go by benchmarks.

As for the results.......

Napalm can open 300 ff in 15 seconds with 4 ssd's in raid 0 using a 1231.

With a single SSD I can open 300 ff in 29 seconds.

Currently I use the ASUS U3S6, which bottlenecks my SSD performance and has no cache to compensate. Whilst my pc performed quite well in this task it was clear that my single SSD was the bottleneck as the CPU and RAM did not max out.

Later I will try to run a "multi-thread" batch setup and will monitor the QD when I run it.

---

Exactly which version of FF are you guys testing? I'm assuming the latest?

Ya know, this has me thinking...I wonder which is the bottleneck for a heavy request over time on my system. You said 300 FF didn't max out your CPU. Not sure which CPU you're using but I'm just on a lowly 720 BE so I'm interested to see if who will be waiting on who. I'll try and run the same batch file tonight for comparison. :up:

FF3.6.3 (The latest version) I will post the bat files later, but I use W7/64 so the directory goes to program x86. I have a old QE 6850 @ stock and 6GB of (underclocked) OCZ RAM - PC3 12800, that I want to get rid of ASAP.

FF-300.rar - run from wherever.

Multi thread.rar - Copy all files to the C drive and then run "Open me First"

Both bat files will only work with a 64 bit system. For 32 system bit remove (x86) from the code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

FF3.6.3 (The latest version) I will post the bat files later, but I use W7/64 so the directory goes to program x86. I have a old QE 6850 @ stock and 6GB of (underclocked) OCZ RAM - PC3 12800, that I want to get rid of ASAP.

FF-300.rar - run from wherever.

Multi thread.rar - Copy all files to the C drive and then run "Open me First"

Both bat files will only work with a 64 bit system. For 32 system bit remove (x86) from the code.

---

That's perfect as my batch files have to include the same paths. I too am on W7 64. Will test later tonight! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

I will post the bat files later

---

Count TerrorByte went to his castle to search for the bat files!

(image from storagesearch.com's article on "the petabyte SSD", looking ahead some years to what may be)

Is there really any point in running the "Multi Thread" bat list? What's Multithreaded about it? Looks exactly the same as a single bat file except at the end of the execution list it calls a secondary list in which it will process linearly as it did the previous for all 30 bat files. In theory it should actually be slightly slower as the disk is then having to access a separate list per every 10 executions the CPU is performing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GullLars

Count TerrorByte went to his castle to search for the bat files!

(image from storagesearch.com's article on "the petabyte SSD", looking ahead some years to what may be)

---

Great article GullLars! Thanks for posting!

In regards to a multithreaded batch file, I think something like this could be used. Or maybe a better deviation of something similar.

Code:

---

01.@ECHO OFF
02.(set drivestring=J K L)&(set childtemplate=thread.bat)&(set inputfile=computers.csv)
03.Set outputfile=.\log.csv
04.Echo.number,machine,ip> %outputfile%
05.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
06.:: Set variables above.
07.:: Make sure drivestrings reflect executing machine's available drives.
08.:: If common outputfile is used, make sure it matches in %childtemplate%
09.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
10.
11.set /P USERID=Enter your domain\userid:
12.set /P PASSWORD=Enter your password:
13.cls
14.
15.@ECHO OFF
16.MD logs
17.set strlen=0
18.for %%A in (%drivestring%) do SET /A strlen+=1
19.
20.SET count=0
21.
22.FOR /F "delims=" %%A IN (%inputfile%) DO (
23. call SET /A count+=1
24. echo.
25. call set comline=%%A
26. call :processmachine %%A
27.)
28.pause
29.goto :EOF
30.
31.:processmachine
32.  echo Processing #%count%: %comline%
33.  set newletter=
34.  @for %%D in (%drivestring%) do (
35.  @if NOT exist %%D.bat (
36.    @if NOT exist %%D:\nul (call set newletter=%%D)
37.    @if exist %%D:\nul Echo %%D: already connected. Skipping.
38.  )
39.  )
40.  if NOT DEFINED newletter (
41.  nul
42.  goto processmachine
43.  ) ELSE (
44.  @echo new letter = '%newletter%'
45.  type %childtemplate% > %newletter%.bat
46.  START "%count% -- %newletter%.bat" %comspec% /c newletter%.bat %count% %newletter% %comline%
47. )

---

Taken from:

http://caseelse.net/2008/05/22/multi...-1-an-example/

making their acquaintances

http://i44.tinypic.com/jhaam1.jpg

Looking forward to your tests :)

Should be a great setup.

Looking forward to seeing what those goodies will do.
Can we expect a couple of new videos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anvil

Looking forward to your tests :)

Should be a great setup.

---

thanks anvil

well so far total cpu limitation @ 4ghz q9650

as far as jmicron vs intel.. @ some points/in some cases the intels are faster and @ some points/in some cases the jmicrons are faster

as far as loading winxp/left4dead/firefox/notepad/calculator both are equally fast.. sometimes the intels are faster by sec @ firefox.. faster grouping/closing (probably where the iops come in handy) but not @ everything

as far as cache the jmicrons prefer the 512mb over 4gb the intels seem to prefer 4gb over 512mb

still testing.. figuring these intels out but i gotta go to 4.5ghz q9650

looks like getting the jmicrons back in nov 2008 wasnt too bad after all

NapalmV5,

The 10 channel Intel controller is superior to the jmicrons but it probably won't show that much in simple repetitive tasks or at sequential reads.
For reads you could have gotten the Intel G2's or one of the new SandForce based drives, for writes you've got the best available 2.5" SLC drive on the market in the X25-E. (imho)

Anyways, with your setup you are probably bound by CPU/Memory/MB... and not by storage :)
(if the jmicrons were holding you back you should have noticed just by making the switch to the Intels)

Going for the Intel E series was a wise decision in any case, they'll outlast any of the current alternatives + it's proven and stable technology.
The next E series is supposed to have MLC so the current E series could be the last chance of getting SLC NAND, within a reasonable price range.

I'll try the FF script this weekend on my UD7 using the Vertex LE's and my current X25-V raid setup and post my results, I'm not expecting anything but we just might be in for a surprise :)

What was your conclusion on W7, I noticed you're still referring to XP :)

Congrats Mr Napalm!
Excellent choice, I have read that the x25-e's go well with the 1231.
Did you say the x25-e array like 4gb cache an that the old array did not?
My experience has been - everything likes more cache - more noticed rather than measured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

thanks anvil

well so far total cpu limitation @ 4ghz q9650

as far as jmicron vs intel.. @ some points/in some cases the intels are faster and @ some points/in some cases the jmicrons are faster

as far as loading winxp/left4dead/firefox/notepad/calculator both are equally fast.. sometimes the intels are faster by sec @ firefox.. faster grouping/closing (probably where the iops come in handy) but not @ everything

as far as cache the jmicrons prefer the 512mb over 4gb the intels seem to prefer 4gb over 512mb

still testing.. figuring these intels out but i gotta go to 4.5ghz q9650

looks like getting the jmicrons back in nov 2008 wasnt too bad after all

---

It is all CPU limited...

You need to move on from the Q9650. I should get a new setup with an i7 860 today. It wasn't that expensive so I decided to give it a shot to see how much faster loading things would be with a faster cpu. Will take me all frigging evening to insulate everything again, get a good OC going, and make a new nlite image. Expecting 4.5+. I'll post how much faster 498 ff loads.

I'll probably hook up my Es to the ICH10R this time instead of the 9211.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anvil

NapalmV5,

The 10 channel Intel controller is superior to the jmicrons but it probably won't show that much in simple repetitive tasks or at sequential reads.
For reads you could have gotten the Intel G2's or one of the new SandForce based drives, for writes you've got the best available 2.5" SLC drive on the market in the X25-E. (imho)

Anyways, with your setup you are probably bound by CPU/Memory/MB... and not by storage :)
(if the jmicrons were holding you back you should have noticed just by making the switch to the Intels)

Going for the Intel E series was a wise decision in any case, they'll outlast any of the current alternatives + it's proven and stable technology.
The next E series is supposed to have MLC so the current E series could be the last chance of getting SLC NAND, within a reasonable price range.

I'll try the FF script this weekend on my UD7 using the Vertex LE's and my current X25-V raid setup and post my results, I'm not expecting anything but we just might be in for a surprise :)

What was your conclusion on W7, I noticed you're still referring to XP :)

---

lol i understand its hard for you guys to comprehend but these jmicrons are no slouch

i ran benches and thats what they would have me believe about x25e

repetitive.. i know thats why i loaded left4dead @ 4x and now 3x x25e/512mb and 4gb cache and its not one yota faster than the jmicrons

i expected the sheer x25e iops to help out 1231 a bit more but its not the case

from file extractions what these intels are superior @ is the writes performance which the jmicrons are jcraps @

ive been waiting for sandforce slc drives.. but since i needed extra storage now i had no other choice but the x25e and im not dissapointed

once im @ 4.5ghz q9650 will try win7 bootup :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

repetitive.. i know thats why i loaded left4dead @ 4x and now 3x x25e/512mb and 4gb cache and its not one yota faster than the jmicrons

---

Ofc it is not. Game loads are low queue reads. All SSDs are the same at that. ACARDs are a lot faster.

Btw in case you haven't seen it, I did some testing of jmicron vs x25-e over a year ago and came to the same conclusion as you:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...8&postcount=30

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveRo

Congrats Mr Napalm!
Excellent choice, I have read that the x25-e's go well with the 1231.
Did you say the x25-e array like 4gb cache an that the old array did not?
My experience has been - everything likes more cache - more noticed rather than measured.

---

thanks steve.. indeed excellent choice.. i got no problem walking all over you acards @ as ssd :D

ever since i got the jmicrons 512mb was always faster vs 2gb and later on 4gb @ real apps.. if 2gb/4gb faster thats what i wouldve used.. 2gb/4gb only faster @ benches

yeh they go very well together.. 3x x25e/4gb maxes 1231 out and thats why im @ 3x raid 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

It is all CPU limited...

You need to move on from the Q9650. I should get a new setup with an i7 860 today. It wasn't that expensive so I decided to give it a shot to see how much faster loading things would be with a faster cpu. Will take me all frigging evening to insulate everything again, get a good OC going, and make a new nlite image. Expecting 4.5+. I'll post how much faster 498 ff loads.

I'll probably hook up my Es to the ICH10R this time instead of the 9211.

---

i know but the sexcore is one expensive sex

best wishes on your new setup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Ofc it is not. Game loads are low queue reads. All SSDs are the same at that. ACARDs are a lot faster.

Btw in case you haven't seen it, I did some testing of jmicron vs x25-e over a year ago and came to the same conclusion as you:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...8&postcount=30

---

benches sure but reality would beg to differ.. they got very hard time against fast ssds

in my case 0 sec diff @ l4d.. havent had the time for other games but will get to that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

thanks steve.. indeed excellent choice.. i got no problem walking all over you acards @ as ssd :D

ever since i got the jmicrons 512mb was always faster vs 2gb and later on 4gb @ real apps.. if 2gb/4gb faster thats what i wouldve used.. 2gb/4gb only faster @ benches

yeh they go very well together.. 3x x25e/4gb maxes 1231 out and thats why im @ 3x raid 0

---

yes, it does appear you can overload the 1231 - 12xacard vs 5x or even 4x - the 5 and 4 R0 seems to be faster in pcmv.

With your new 1231/3x x25e have you tried reducing the stripe size?
I got a good improvement droping from 64K (areca default) to 4k stripe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

... make a new nlite image ...

---

Last time I used nlite it needed a lot of help to work with w7.
What do you throw out what do you keep - I would like to try this again if I had a better idea of what I should keep vs what i can get rid of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveRo

Last time I used nlite it needed a lot of help to work with w7.
What do you throw out what do you keep - I would like to try this again if I had a better idea of what I should keep vs what i can get rid of.

---

I use XP.

I spent 8 hours trying to get vlite to work with windows 7 so I could get rid of 90% of that bloated crap, but ultimately I could not get it to install. The POS kept saying it could not find my DVD rom as soon as I made any changes. I even tried installing from a USB stick without a DVD ROM plugged into the system and it still gave me that retarded error and aborted the installation. After wasting a full day trying to get it to work I nerd raged, deleted w7, microwaved the w7 install disk, and installed xp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveRo

yes, it does appear you can overload the 1231 - 12xacard vs 5x or even 4x - the 5 and 4 R0 seems to be faster in pcmv.

With your new 1231/3x x25e have you tried reducing the stripe size?
I got a good improvement droping from 64K (areca default) to 4k stripe.

---

still kept @ 64k but ill load l4d @ 4k stripe and see if its any faster thanks steve

posted a tube loading l4d @ 1080p default settings @ 4x25e/1231/64k stripe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80AUq8CwqeY

no faster than 4x jmicrons

this tube loading l4d @ 3x25e/1231/4k stripe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meDM0RKD7kA

maybe you guys can see diff between the two :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

I use XP.

I spent 8 hours trying to get vlite to work with windows 7 so I could get rid of 90% of that bloated crap, but ultimately I could not get it to install. The POS kept saying it could not find my DVD rom as soon as I made any changes. I even tried installing from a USB stick without a DVD ROM plugged into the system and it still gave me that retarded error and aborted the installation. After wasting a full day trying to get it to work I nerd raged, deleted w7, microwaved the w7 install disk, and installed xp.

---

If I treated my microwave that poorly it would probably catch my kneaded eraser insulation on fire instead of just sparking all over it!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

this tube loading l4d @ 3x25e/1231/4k stripe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meDM0RKD7kA

maybe you guys can see diff between the two :)

---

wow, I can't tell - their both so fast that you can't really see a difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

this tube loading l4d @ 3x25e/1231/4k stripe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meDM0RKD7kA

maybe you guys can see diff between the two :)

---

Are you using Firmware 1.48?

Looks like Areca is still good enough :up:

thanks guys.. yeh 1.48

heres one more.. tube loading l4d @ 2x25e/1231/4k stripe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3MZVDH4P3A

should i go for 1x25e ?? :)

Of course you should :)

lol oh man.. alright

tube loading l4d @ 1x25e/1231/4k stripe

still processing : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03wUn9pSHVE

well guys i sheat you not thats 4, 3, 2, 1x25e/1231/512mb cache vids loading l4d

the single X25-E is half a second faster than all the RAIDs lol. Surprise surprise, raid doesn't help loading times.

How do you explain that? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oj101

How do you explain that? :confused:

---

I think it could be explained like this:

You have 4 main types of wait:

Access Time
Read Time
Write Time
Processing Time

RAID has always excelled at providing substantial improvements in Read/Write and minus SSD's, Access Times. With a fast SSD, theres really little to no improvement in Access Time vs a single SSD. So, anything large in amount of access requests are going to be mostly limited by your Processing Time, or CPU.

Now,this would explain something like a batch file of 100 notepads or FF processes, but with L4D, I guess its CPU limited? Remember most of the CPU load is very dependent on a strong IPC ratio. Core count isn't always taken complete advantage of in these types of tests.

I would understand that if the times were equal, but a single drive BEATING RAID? Does the card introduce massive latencies or something?

alot of it is an overloaded IOP as well. the IOP 348 was not designed for anything even close to this type of speed. i believe the 1231 came out before ssd;s were even available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oj101

How do you explain that? :confused:

---

In part, due to low QD.

Most people will only see better I/O perf with RAID if they have moderate QD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Computurd

alot of it is an overloaded IOP as well. the IOP 348 was not designed for anything even close to this type of speed. i believe the 1231 came out before ssd;s were even available.

---

Overloaded IOP, maybe. Benchmarks show it pulling off 50-60K IOPS, 1 x25-E can do around 40K both read and write. Latency overhead on larger RAIDs will probably be in the range 10-100µs pr IO request (dependent on number of devices, stripe size, and QD), wich is minor for 4KB, and negligable for larger blocks.
To do the math, x25-E can do around 5-6K 4KB random IOPS pr channel = 1s/5000 = 0,2ms = 200µs. Worst case would give a rather large RAID 5-10% disadvantage over a single drive.


As for the IOP 348 being made before SSDs, not even close.
http://www.storagesearch.com/chartingtheriseofssds.html

Quote:

---

1976 - Dataram sold an SSD called BULK CORE which attached to minicomputers from Modular Computer Systems and emulated hard disks made by DEC and Data General. Each chassis held 8x 256k x 18 RAM modules and had a capacity of 2 megabytes.

---

>> Acard XD

I'll list a few other entries from the article linked above, just to show some interresting historic events.

Quote:

---

In 1978 - Texas Memory Systems introduced a 16 kilobyte RAM-based solid state disk
In the early 1980s - Intel's 1M bit bubble memory created a lot excitement as a new non volatile solid state memory technology.
1985 - Curtis introduced the ROMDISK, the first SSD for the original IBM PC.
In 1987 EMC introduced SSD storage for the mini-computer market
In 1990 - NEC marketed 5.25" SCSI SSDs using internal battery backed RAM.
In 1991 Digital Equipment Corp marketed the EZ5x family of Solid State Disk accelerators.

In 1995 - our SPARC Directory listed 2 SSD products aimed at the Sun server market.

* T8000 - was an 80MB, 10MBps SSD on a single slot SBus card, made by Colorado based CERAM. Units in multiple slots could be chained to appear as a single SSD upto 960M. Performance was 2,000 IOPs.

* SAM-2000 was a rackmount SSD upto 8GB, with 500MBps internal bandwidth- made by Texas Memory Systems. The transfer rate through the SBus adapter was 22MBps. Other bus interfaces included VMEbus and HIPPI.

In 1996 - ATTO Technology maketed the SiliconDisk II. It was a 5.25" form factor SCSI-3 interface RAM SSD with 64MB to 1.6GB capacity. Throughput was 80MB/s, and performance was 22,000 IOPS.

In 1999 - BiTMICRO launched an 18GB 3.5" flash SSD.

In November 1999 - the number of market active SSD manufacturers listed on STORAGEsearch.com had reached 11.

In June 2001 - Adtron shipped the world's highest capacity 3.5" flash SSD. The S35PC had 14 gigabytes capacity and cost $42,000.

---

wow they are older than i thought. but i was referring to mainstream usage. i would bet alot of money ssd was not on its compatibility list when released. he needs a faster more robust raid card...1880 maybe?

also of note....
on each of those videos only the first run done is really relevant. on the successive runs the data is already partially cached (program data, textures, etc...) which is why the second third and fourth loads are so much faster than the first. even if different maps are loaded in between. if you close out the program and load those levels from a restart, they would take twice as long, so this is not an entire indicator of the speeds of the drives. only the first level loaded is relevant.

^ blah blah blah.. bravo @ getting more ridiculous/idiotic :up:

third and forth loads :rofl: brilliant!

i guess the included video clip which is the reason why first load of any level takes longer is relevant.. go cry a river somewhere else

heres another tube this time loading crysis @ 3x25e/1231

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpzAM5LzeBI

your going to like it computurd i promise you :up:

its fast, dont get me wrong, but here is a challenge to you. make me a video of you loading the game, then after loading the game, directly load the death toll stage. load the stage in under 3 seconds, like it does with successive loads, and you will have proved me wrong. on your L4d level loading video that is how fast it was, after a previous map had loaded.
i have posted L4D speeds that match your load speeds here a few months back on this forum.
also, i have showed how loading other levels, after even a different first stage is loaded, is faster. i restart the application each time i load the levels for a accurate non-cached load speed.
but really who cares, cache is fast and meant to be used, it just means that others can do the same thing however, no matter what speeds their SSD's are, provided they have cache as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
those crysis loads are impressive though, nice job. what mod is used on those maps? i noticed that they are not asking for you to "press any key to continue" prompt is not showing up when the load is done like it does on both crysis and crysis warhead. went and found the loader you are using, too, and it still has the :press any key to continue: prompt once the load is done.
also, on your MESA load you can see the load bar go up to 82 percent, then go BACK to 81 percent, then go to 100 percent....strange. i have never seen my game load, then the bar go backwards, then jump to complete. i have never seen the bar go backwards, period.
once the level is done loading, if you could hit the tilde button for us, it will show the level load time that the game itself measures. (and just a note here, mine loads just as fast, the differences are milleseconds, thats why i would like to see the level load time :) )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to L4D:
question for you as well, genius. on the first video, with 4 x25e/1231/64k stripe, you loaded five stages, the last stage being no mercy. the first time you loaded no mercy in that string of loads it loaded in 6.70 seconds. the second time you loaded it, even though you loaded three maps inbetween, it loaded in 3.01 seconds. you have already proven what i am saying about consecutive level loads, but with your own video :) .but if you really want to prove something...answer my challenge, however, i want to see the game loading from the desktop, then straight to the death toll map.

or here would be an even better one, restart L4d each time, so that we can see the load screens for the game, inbetween level loads, then we will compare the times on all the maps you loaded. you might learn something :)

start loading some gta4 episodes from liberty city save games, those really are a pain to sit through on reloads ;)

Ok, you're ALL right, now less talk and more action please :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

^ blah blah blah.. bravo @ getting more ridiculous/idiotic :up:

third and forth loads :rofl: brilliant!

i guess the included video clip which is the reason why first load of any level takes longer is relevant.. go cry a river somewhere else

heres another tube this time loading crysis @ 3x25e/1231

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpzAM5LzeBI

your going to like it computurd i promise you :up:

---

from a standpoint of i dont care whats really faster i do see you make yourself look dumber and dumber every day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

It is all CPU limited...

You need to move on from the Q9650. I should get a new setup with an i7 860 today. It wasn't that expensive so I decided to give it a shot to see how much faster loading things would be with a faster cpu. Will take me all frigging evening to insulate everything again, get a good OC going, and make a new nlite image. Expecting 4.5+. I'll post how much faster 498 ff loads.

I'll probably hook up my Es to the ICH10R this time instead of the 9211.

---

ok I don't know what is wrong, but I changed my cpu, mobo, ram and all my results are much slower than my last setup.

I got a very good 860 which I can run at 4.7ghz prime stable, but all the real world numbers are 30% slower than my last 4.6ghz qx9650. 498 ff takes 38 seconds versus 30 with the old rig. L4D takes 14(WTF) versus 8 before.

Plugged my Es into ICH10 raid with 16k stripe. That may be the culprit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oj101

Ok, you're ALL right, now less talk and more action please :D

---

more action more arguments :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

ok I don't know what is wrong, but I changed my cpu, mobo, ram and all my results are much slower than my last setup.

I got a very good 860 which I can run at 4.7ghz prime stable, but all the real world numbers are 30% slower than my last 4.6ghz qx9650. 498 ff takes 38 seconds versus 30 with the old rig. L4D takes 14(WTF) versus 8 before.

Plugged my Es into ICH10 raid with 16k stripe. That may be the culprit.

---

what mobo ? optimal settings ?

Try a 4KB stripe on the E's, it could give you a real world boost.
Loosing some speed when removing a big cache should be expected for things that can be cached. The 100+FF test falls under this, L4D may have benefited from read-ahead, if you had that activated, since it would allow you to be cpu-bound more of the time and burst speed from cache when you're not.

tube loading 500 ff in 24 sec @ 4x25e/1231/4.5ghz q9650

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FNkl0tWBn8

fixed it... qpi link speed was bugging out.

4.82ghz prime stable :)

500ff loads in 22s, l4d is still slow at 10s.

Still at 16KB stripe size One Hertz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anvil

Still at 16KB stripe size One Hertz?

---

Yea lazy to reinstall. Maybe I will try back on the 9211 soon.

I've been doing some tests on 4-16KB stripe sizes using the X25-V's but it's not conclusive yet.
I have to include 32KB and 64KB to make sure that the trends are correct.

Great score for the ff 500 run, my 2R0 X25-V's did 300 in ~17 seconds. (920 D0 @4GHz)
The ff runs are mostly about OC, storage not so much imo.

@gullars....the 9211 One Hertz was using has neither cache nor read ahead. also only runs 64k stripe. cant change it. it is just an uber powerful IOP.

@Napalm...you didnt reply on yer succesive game loads or modified/stripped crysis levels. nice way to avoid it. next time be careful before you say things such as:

Quote:

---

NapalmV5
^ blah blah blah.. bravo @ getting more ridiculous/idiotic

third and forth loads brilliant!

---

but at least you learned something about caching on your GPU so i am happy. :)
the longest waits during game loads appears to be the loading of the GPU with game data....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Computurd

@gullars....the 9211 One Hertz was using has neither cache nor read ahead. also only runs 64k stripe. cant change it. it is just an uber powerful IOP.

---

Do you know if the 9260-8i has the same limitation on stripe size?

I was thinking of getting a couple of 9211's, but if the stripe size is fixed, they don't seem like such a good option after all.

AceNZ,

Stripe size for the 9260 series is selectable in the range 8KB up to 1MB.

I would wait for Areca 1880 reviews, I'm perfectly happy with the 9260 though.

@onehertz nice but thats it? no tube nothing? so this is how its going to be.. just me posting tubes..


ill be going forward with 3x25e @ 1231.. 500 ff still @ 24 sec

heres a new l4d loading @ very high shader instead of the default low

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lTtm-M2B6I

Fixed vs user definable stripe size should be unlockable with a firmware upgrade. Perhaps we should query LSI for the possibility of one? Especially with PCmark Vantage scores of lower stripe sizes with SSDs in mind. 16KB stripe seems to be a sweet-spot with Intel drives.

yes however all hba's are locked to a 64 stripe size so i dont think that they will allow it. i know of about five other people who have also asked, and i have, the answer is no-go.
the thing about it is that the controller is so blazing fast at 64k .....

So, is there some limitation imposed on ALL HBAs from any manufacturer that locks stripe size to 64KB, or is it something LSI has imposed on their own HBAs?
I won't argue against it being fast at 64K, just saying some SSD RAIDs like smaller stripes better, by a considerable amount (f.ex. X25-M can get up to 30-40% higher PCMV HDD scores).

acards like small stripe sizes also.

3x25e/1231/2gb/64k stripe/101mhz pcie

http://i43.tinypic.com/s0y2qb.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

3x25e/1231/2gb/64k stripe/101mhz pcie

http://i43.tinypic.com/s0y2qb.jpg

---

without any cache ;)

Mr Napalm, excellent - very nice numbers!
Try smaller stripe 16k down to 4k stripe on the controller when you create the array.
Also try "aggressive" read ahead on the controller
Also try default cluster and also 64k cluster when creating the partition.

Mr. Napalm.
Also make sure you have sata max transfer set to 300+NCQ (this should be the best for the e's).
Are you using xp? notice the "bad" is AS SSD? - it may or may not make a difference to align your partition to a 4k boundry.
There is a procedure posted somewhere to follow to do that.

Tilt - when are you going to write up our 9211 tuning guide?

give me some time to gather and put my notes in place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

3x25e/1231/2gb/64k stripe/101mhz pcie

http://i43.tinypic.com/s0y2qb.jpg

---

Looks like you already beat up your array haha. The access times on the X25-Es rise a lot when they are degraded. 0.069 for me when fresh drives are connected to ICH and like 0.15 when they get really degraded. Need to secure erase to get it back to normal.

Instead of starting a new thread, I'm going to drop the question right here :D

New OCZ Vertex range - yay or nay?

does the intel ssd tool box work on the e's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveRo

does the intel ssd tool box work on the e's?

---

Not that I know of...

Steve.

The SSD Toolbox works on the E but you can't TRIM an E series SSD, the E doesn't support TRIM.
You do get SMART and general health info.

Oj101
In my experience the LE is a great performer, as long as the Vertex 2 performs about equal it would be a great choice.

If you're willing to pay the extra $ per GB then go for it, otherwise the G2 is better value imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

@onehertz nice but thats it? no tube nothing? so this is how its going to be.. just me posting tubes..

---

Here you go. Filmed from an Ifone so quality is not that great.

40 apps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx8tNaldm2o

Boot up, load and close 300 apps of FF followed by 40 random app loads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQtz58yF5fU

Hardware:
X25-M G2 on Asus U3S6 (Bottlenecking the X25) with 6GB RAM & QX 6850 @ stock.

Tweaks: - Disable GUI at start up.
Superfetch disabled. Defrag disabled. System restore disabled. Search index disabled.

40 random app batch file:
@echo off
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 9.0\Reader\AcroRd32.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS3\Photoshop.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Adobe Bridge CS3\Adobe DNG Converter.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\BootRacer\Bootrace.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Expression\Web Designer\EXPRWD.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office12\EXCEL.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office12\OIS.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office12\OUTLOOK.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office12\POWERPNT.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office12\WINWORD.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Opera\opera.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\uTorrent\uTorrent.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Web Gallery Wizard PRO\WebWizard.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Live\Mail\wlmail.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Live\Messenger\msnmsgr.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe"
Start "" "C:\Windows\notepad.exe"
Start "" "C:\Windows\regedit.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files\ASUS Xonar D2X Audio\Customapp\AsusAudioCenter.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Security Essentials\msseces.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files\SyncToy 2.1\SyncToy.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files\WinRAR\WinRAR.exe"
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\taskmgr.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\taskschd.msc
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\cmd.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\colorcpl.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\control.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\dccw.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\dialer.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\mspaint.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\Netplwiz.exe
Start "" "C:Windows\System32\notepad.exe
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
Start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"

Not bad audienceofone

I normally use Camtasia for recording, I wonder how much it adds vs using a camcorder.

This was recorded using Camtasia, 60apps in 10 seconds.

No bad I guess.....but if it is real speed you are after ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tRVmiWy0mw
(my other hobby when I'm not messing around with pc's.)

I like the last one the best!

Shure looks fun audienceofone,

A competition bike, do you compete or is it just for fun?

I used to do enduro races but now I am getting too old. I've broken a few bones along the way and as you get older you don't bounce off the floor as well. Now I just ride for fun and the adrenaline buzz.

Riding motorcycles are great for the speed and thrill, i prefer on the road, and not off-road though.
I perfer country roads in unpopulated areas where the speed limit is 80km/t (about 48mph), since you can take the turns pretty low, and still have hope of surviving whitout permanent damage if you whipe out. So far, i haven't had any accidents on my motorcycle, and i'd like to keep it that way :P

no degradation so far they havent missed a beat.. the increased access time is from the mobo

i got back my hrr3520 and so far 3x/4x25e is exactly as fast @ loading 500 ff/l4d as 3x/4x25e is @ arc1231

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

no degradation so far they havent missed a beat.. the increased access time is from the mobo

i got back my hrr3520 and so far 3x/4x25e is exactly as fast @ loading 500 ff/l4d as 3x/4x25e is @ arc1231

---

If you put a single drive on ICH10 you should shave a fraction of a second ;)

yes the 3520 is a very good card as well. the cache speeds will remain same on the 3520 and the GPU as it does with the 1231. i do love the 3520 :) the 3520 only has 256 mb but it is enough for FF caching, and the main thing with the l4d is gonna be gpu being loaded. try timing the very first load when you start the game you should see the difference there.....the very first map you load after starting the game. the 3520 shouldn't be able to keep up with 1231 on that one the IOP341 isnt quite as fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveRo

Mr Napalm, excellent - very nice numbers!
Try smaller stripe 16k down to 4k stripe on the controller when you create the array.
Also try "aggressive" read ahead on the controller
Also try default cluster and also 64k cluster when creating the partition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveRo

Mr. Napalm.
Also make sure you have sata max transfer set to 300+NCQ (this should be the best for the e's).
Are you using xp? notice the "bad" is AS SSD? - it may or may not make a difference to align your partition to a 4k boundry.
There is a procedure posted somewhere to follow to do that.

---

thank you mr steve

it would take forever to test all stripe/cluster configs.. since i only use one array per system i always test/bench @ default cluster

4k stripe produced lower as ssd numbers but loading remained just as fast as 64k

yes always had/have @ aggressive/ncq+300

havent tried alignment yet.. ill test this some time today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Looks like you already beat up your array haha. The access times on the X25-Es rise a lot when they are degraded. 0.069 for me when fresh drives are connected to ICH and like 0.15 when they get really degraded. Need to secure erase to get it back to normal.

---

no secure erase yet and i wont secure erase till ill notice slow downs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Here you go. Filmed from an Ifone so quality is not that great.

40 apps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx8tNaldm2o

Boot up, load and close 300 apps of FF followed by 40 random app loads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQtz58yF5fU

Hardware:
X25-M G2 on Asus U3S6 (Bottlenecking the X25) with 6GB RAM & QX 6850 @ stock.

Tweaks: - Disable GUI at start up.
Superfetch disabled. Defrag disabled. System restore disabled. Search index disabled.

---

nice :up:

2x25e 64gb is all thats needed to satisfy most systems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anvil

Not bad audienceofone

I normally use Camtasia for recording, I wonder how much it adds vs using a camcorder.

This was recorded using Camtasia, 60apps in 10 seconds.

---

nice :up:

what intel put into their x25s cause they all blazing fast!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

If you put a single drive on ICH10 you should shave a fraction of a second ;)

---

:rolleyes: oh come on! lol

yeh thats what im doing next..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

no degradation so far they havent missed a beat.. the increased access time is from the mobo

i got back my hrr3520 and so far 3x/4x25e is exactly as fast @ loading 500 ff/l4d as 3x/4x25e is @ arc1231

---

3x25e @ 3520 exactly as fast as 3x25e @ 1231 loading crysis

extracting a 2040mb file is where 3x25e @ 3520 is slower by 1 sec than 3x25e @ 1231/4gb

as far as loading goes no diff between 1231 and 3520

x25 prowess!

though it takes 15 sec longer to extract the same 2040mb file..

1x25e @ ich10 not faster but just as fast as 3x25e @ 1231/3520 loading crysis/l4d

will load 500 ff now

sorry onehertz but 500 ff just as fast (24 sec) loading @ 1x25e/ich10

most benefit from raid0 = writes as far as x25e goes

my vedict: 2x25e 32/64gb should take any system to its max

whether @ ich10 or raid controllers.. i leave it up to you

:toast:

aww was expecting like 0.25sec faster.

Quote:

---

my vedict: 2x25e 32/64gb should take any system to its max

---

Yep... what else is new? :p:

since video encoding was requested..

dvd5 encoding the matrix in 34 seconds @ 3x25e/1231-4gb/4.5ghz q9650

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUwbce_JFV8

suggestions for diff video encoding ?

what video encoding you guys interested in/do ?

secure erase/trim/alignment/etc all crap! gimmie 150+mhz pcie

120mhz pcie/2gb/64k stripe/default cluster
http://i43.tinypic.com/alt5yg.png

120mhz pcie/4gb/64k stripe/default cluster
http://i44.tinypic.com/28chxsz.png