Printable View
And ordered two 32GB Intel X25-E SSDs. Ouch!
Will do a comparison to the two OCZ core V2s I have right now sitting on my adaptec 5405. Following this one:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3477611&postcount=24
I still have the image I used and everything. Should be fun!
Those are supposed to go down in price in a few days/week, I even have a confirmed price drop if I wait for dispatch that long :D
I wanted to go X25-E, but ... at this particular point, I am almost certain some new great SSD will come out just as I buy the X25-E - doh :(
Well your timing of purchase definetly is crazy! :D
Enjoy them!
Price drop to under 580USD/unit? That's how much I paid. I was under the impression the price drop just happened and the price beforehand was like 700-800USD :(Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Is it dropping by a lot?
edit: looked it up and the X25-Es just had a drop 2-3 weeks ago...
X25-E is 450 EYRO in EU now (with taxes), and will be 410e in about a week (though this could change due to EUR/USD exchange rate as the price is tied to USD, not EUR).
At this time, 580$ = 450EUR, but considering you're talking price without taxes, it's actually "cheaper" here LOL. There should be a new price cut, as I said.
Where did you find the X25-E at 450 ( VAT included ) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
The cheapest price I can find in EU at the moment is 510
Perhaps you saw the X25-M ?
You're right, I spoke too soon:
http://www.mercateo.com/p/c_c1002-19...SH032G1C5.html
That wasn't with VAT :( I should brush up on German, first.
oh a 50 dollar drop isn't too bad. I would be kinda pissed if it was 100, but not 50. And 450 Euro is ~600USD. I didn't pay for shipping also so not too bad :). Should have my drives today and should finish all the testing today. If not then tomorrow morning.
I just had a feeling that no amount of these OCZ drives stacked up in raid would even come close to the Intels in real world tasks, so might as well blow a bunch of money on real SSDs. We will see :)
RAID would not increase the random speed, except in special cases... where other cases would hurt.
So you're right about OCZ not catching up to X25-E :D
However, I am wondering how Vertex will stack up to X25-M. Price wise I would guess it would be a bit slower, but then... RAIDing several of them would probably yield better.
Won't catch up to X25-E however.
Yeah... Random speed is basically all that matters. It is sad how many people think that about sequential and say things like "oh I am going to raid a few of these cheap SSDs and have better performance than the expensive Intel SSDS". That kind of crap is all over OCZ forums and how they measure performance is HDTach :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:. I'll see for sure when I do the testing, but I think these X25-Es will give a much better performance/$ ratio than the current cheap MLC drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
I basically bought two drives because I can't live with just 32GB of space and I wanted to put my controller to good use :).
Can't wait for these tests!
Your last tests were real good indication on what to expect and why!
:)
Congrat$$! :) Also looking foward to your thorough, relevant testing (instead of the "regular" HDTune/HDTach LOL)
For me, the sequential tests are just a small picture of overall picture. I like your real world tests. An analogy is like 3DMark for games. Limited for usefulness...
Purolator decided to not deliver it today so I will be picking them up tomorrow morning...
Worst experience I've ever had with a shipping company to this date. First I call them at 4pm wondering where the package is(tracking says guaranteed today). They say that it will be there by 5pm for sure. 5pm I call them again. They say sorry, the driver is running a little late but will be there by 5:15. I stand in front of my building. 5:45 I go back up to check tracking just to see that the driver lied and put it down as a failed delivery attempt at 5:25 (I was standing there WATCHING at that time and nobody came for sure). Then I call them again. They say sorry again and say that it will be there by 6:15. 6:45 its not there and I went home because I was starving. I really hope for their sake that there is a very pretty girl there at customer service tomorrow morning or there will be a lot of trouble. I hate unions so much.
ouch............that really burns........
well, purolator screwed me once again. Went to their warehouse (30 min drive btw) and they said that "for some reason" (her exact words) the trailer my package was on, was not unpacked and they could not give it to me. I have no words for this kind of service. UPS is bad, but nowhere near THIS bad. I guess I am stuck without my drive until Monday :(
Are you sure you're not in Eastern Europe? :D (hey I am so I can make the jokes :D)
With such money I would buy a Perc 5/i and as much 16Gb Mtron 3500 series I could
I am 100% sure that would greatly outperform the overpriced intel ssd
Despite that, hope u r 100% satisfied with those beasts :)
Looking forward for ur results
Those are over 2x slower at random reads than the x25-E and they dont even publish their random writes... So if you get five of the SSDs you mention (for the same money as 2 X25-Es), the sustained rates would be the same (both ~500MB/s), but randoms still 2x slower, so that setup would still be far, far behind than what I am getting :)Quote:
Originally Posted by karateo
As far as I know, there isn't currently a better value/$ in terms of performance than the Intel drives. The iodrive is faster but its $2400 :(
Edit: The MOBI drives can only do ~60 Random writes per sec... The X25-E is 3300. No competition at all.
You are right about the IOPS
but do they matter in real life desktop use?
Aren't the sustained writes more important?
It depends... Look at the OCZ Core drives. Sustained writes are quite high, but the drive is overall very slow at writing. In real world, there is basically never a 100% sequential read or write operation, unless you do something like video editing of course. I'll be able to say a lot more once I play around with my new drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by karateo
Don't disagree, don't know :)
I just thought that high IOPS are more needed for server use.
Anyway, better to wait and see ur results :)
I am sure u will be satisfied even with just one :)
got my drives :D
212mb/s reads and 192mb/s writes when I just plugged one as a slave into my work computer hahaha. Will do proper testing tonight :D
If you want any benchmarks done then speak up and I will do them.
I would like a comparison with your tests found on the table in this thread
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=209515
if you can add a column with the results of the intel ssds it would be perfect :)
how long does it take to install windows? :D
That is what I intended to do in the first place :).Quote:
Originally Posted by karateo
Passmark tests were requested over PM to compare with the ioDrive as benchmarked here on page 9:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1683/print/index.html
Jealously awaiting results :D
+1+1+1
:d
WOW! Reads I can digg, but write - WOOOW. (and I don't mean world of of of warcraft :D)
I wonder how different stripe sizes will do for these in RAID, please try out 4K/16K/64K strupe with 4K/64K random reads/writes in IOMeter. (I can send the config file if you need it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
So Jealous!!!!!!! :)
Results already!!!!!!!!! ;)
ok, after many many hours I am done. Used 128kb stripe... any lower resulted in a good deal slower performance.
I am not too impressed tbh. The read IOPS are very laughable (que was 1 in my tests). If que is 32 then it gets around 33k 4k random read IOPS as advertised by Intel. Hitting CPU limits in a lot of places... all the game loading times scale linearly with extra cpu speed. Also as you can see by the last test doing multiple things to the array at once doesn't even slow it down at all... I should have been sleeping over an hour ago so I am done for today... will do more testing tomorrow.
Passmark results with same settings as the tweaktown review linked earlier in the thread. A good deal slower than the iodrive...
Passmark – file server - 181.86MB/S
Passmark – web server - 263.55MB/S
Passmark – Database - 219.53MB/S
Passmark – Workstation - 56.6MB/S
Everyone is free to use and repost the below image anywhere they want.
~4K random writes and ~12K random reads? Should that not be in reverse?
One_Hertz
Thank you man!
Well, according to my standards (low budget :)) I see a small increase in performance in real life applications, for the price of the Intel ssds.
Do you think that the intel ssds will have lower performance on the ICH9R?
I want to exclude any performance increase due to the controller.
Other than that, you system must be a rocket :D
That's what you would think but no... not in reverse. Tried it many times. The cache seems to be inflating the random writes number and the random reads are pretty sucky in a single user environment. Like I said before, add some threads and the random reads spring up to about 33k IOPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Realistically, I've found there isn't a lot of reason to get the Intels for a single user; at least at the current CPU speeds (and my CPU isn't exactly a slouch, 4ghz qx9650). Yeah, they are the fastest and RAIDing any number of the OCZ drives together won't make that array quite as quick (because it will still bog down here and there), but the difference currently isn't massive nonetheless. The biggest benefit of the Intel drives is that I can have lots of things going and all the tasks will be going at full speed (I don't even know why or how this happens). I can't bog the array down and make it slow down no matter what I do. It was very easy to literally freeze everything on the OCZs and I constantly had to adjust my usage patterns so that it wouldn't freeze up.
With all that said, I won't be returning the Intels because of how consistently quick they are. With the OCZs it was always a question of whether it will be fast or if it will freeze up on me. The Intels are always very fast regardless of the workloads.
If I was not the kind of person that would change every part in his computer every 6-9 months then I would have returned the drives...
I really don't see any purpose for faster storage devices. Everything that is important is limited by CPU speed right now in my system and adding more storage speed will do nothing to the system, so in a sense storage speeds are maxed out for the time being.
I still welcome any requests for benchmarks and will do everything that is asked.
It be interesting to notice the new ssd disks with new controllers and how they behave.
I use raid0 ich10r and I notice some freezing when doing writes, however my use of computer is light.
overall, works well.
happy with the raid0, going to get a raidcard to get the best out of the system tho
First of all, thanks a million for the very easy to read benchmarks. :up:
Seems to me that the raid controller offers almost as much value as the SSD themselves.
This comment is a little confusing. If you were the type to keep hardware for a while, why not keep the drives? They seem like top edge drives that offer the best performance that would stay top performers for a decent amount of time? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
One more comment...in general...under what reasons would you return the drives in the first place? Please don't tell me you return something just because it doesn't measure up to your standards? :shakes:
With the speed the SSD market is moving, it will be very easy to get matching performance (probably lower, but limited by the CPU speed anyways, so matching), higher storage, and for less $ quite soon. Which is why I said that people who like the keep their hardware should probably wait just because 32GB is very tiny and will be less useful by the time windows 7 hits off...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler
I would have returned them had they been slower. What's the issue with returning things anyways? The 15% restocking fee is there for a reason... not like anybody but myself would get hurt by the return. There aren't any decent benchmarks/comparisons on these drives anywhere on the internet so for me it was sort of buy it and try it.
Yep :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler
Although with traditional hard disks like slower 7200rpm SATA drives you won't see much of a difference but you can really uncork some performance with quality high performance drives vs. typical low cost onboard controllers.
...
Thanks for taking the time One_Hertz to do all those benches, those intel E drives are awesome. Hopefully SLC drives keep coming down in price as they're absolutely marvelous if you are latency sensitive in terms of the apps you use.
There must be something wrong in your PCMark05 numbers...
Here's my single X25-E on ICH10 (no h/w RAID cards etc)
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8058/pcmark05va4.jpg
That is very interesting. Could you please run IOmeter for me? Just 4KB random reads will do. I have a very strong suspicion that the raid card is adding a lot of latency to the drives and is making reads slower than they should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosen.
Thx for the testing One Hertz!
Here is some more info for comparison purposes (from the source listed below)
x25-e NV 780i
http://i43.tinypic.com/xmn5o2.jpg
x25-e ICHR9
http://i43.tinypic.com/fydg08.jpg
There are many other tests for you to compare with for single drive e.g. h2bench, atto, crystal diskmark, limited IOmeter testing...
x25-e NV 780i
http://forum.ssdworld.ch/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=84
x25-e ICHR-9
http://forum.ssdworld.ch/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=81
From chosen's results, looks like ICH10 >> ICH9 for these SSDs if we just look at PCMark 05
can you please answer the aboveQuote:
Originally Posted by karateo
and...
are you talking about the OCZs one the ICH9R or the hardware controller?Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Quite frankly at this moment I think the hardware raid controller adds a lot of latency to the Intel drives and it may even be faster on ICH9R. I will test...Quote:
Originally Posted by karateo
As for the OCZs - on the ICH9R it was plainly unusable for me. On the hardware controller it was OK as long as I only did one thing at a time. For example I could browse firefox fine as long as that was the only thing I was doing. If anything else was happening in the background then it would stutter. On the ICH9R it would stutter when JUST browsing firefox and nothing else. You have to understand how the drives work. When you send them a write request and then a read request they HAVE TO FINISH the write request BEFORE they can get to your reads, so a stutter is you especially waiting for it to finish its writing activities (which can take a noticeable amount of time on MLC drives with the jmicron controller).
Great great work! Thank you Very much!
Testing them on ICH9R like you plan will also be interesting to see!
I really hope you get your hands on some internally raided SSDs that are comming to the market as we speak as well as Vertex drives and do the tests on them to.
Those new drives will hopefully deliver what they promise for the mass consumer and not disappoint under test you are testing!
Try disabling every cache option (except disk cache), and rerun the IOMeter. The random writes should arrive at the right spot then at least, not sure of the reads. (and you don't really need the read-ahead on these).
~12K random writes @4K block = ~50MB/s, presuming 10 sec run time = ~500MB - just about right for the cache to influence it.
It can't add latency, otherwise the queue = 32 random reads would not surpass the 12K mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Exactly what I was already going to do when I got home. Great minds think alike :)Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
But idk about the latency part. HDtach/HDtune showed 0.2ms. These drives should have 0.075ms.
Edit: IOMeter was running ~25min for all benchies.
Edit2: Turned off all caching and random write IOPS are 1800 for queue of 1 and 4400 for queue of 32. Random read IOPS did not change. Will test on ICH9R later...
maybe, ""latency part. HDtach/HDtune showed 0.2ms. These drives should have 0.075ms"",
the above tools are not exacting enough to properly assess latency with this technology?
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Yep, random writes are now within of Intel specs.Quote:
Edit2: Turned off all caching and random write IOPS are 1800 for queue of 1 and 4400 for queue of 32. Random read IOPS did not change. Will test on ICH9R later...
I didn't expect much change for random reads, though.
The latency sounds right for queue=1 though, since at 4K IOPS = 1s/4000=0.25ms.
NCQ?
Did you try on ICHxR instead of Adaptec?
Most, if not all, SSDs are already internally raided. The Intel SSDs use a 10 channel/controller design iirc.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Yes :(Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
It got 6.1k IOPS... Same idea as with OCZ drives. The adaptec 5405 INCREASES latency by 30-35%... That is so depressing I don't know what to say.
I've done A LOT of looking around and it seems like ALL raid controllers do this. I am so surprised I have never heard people mention this! We need proper SSD raid controllers that don't gimp the latency!
Personally, I have used both SSD 2x mtron in RAID 0 and Velociraptor 2x RAID 0 and I couldn't feel any real difference. At least not where it counted. Sure, some minor things were maybe a wee bit faster, but overall I am firmly of the opnion that the people who rave about how much faster their new SSD array is over the better disk-based set-ups are mostly falling prey to the "It must be better because I just spent $$$$", effect. It "feels" so much better because they dropped so much cash nothing else would be acceptable. Everyone posts up HDTach and HDTune all the time but those benches are just misleading.
Desktop is faster using ssd, and I used velociraptor, and I aint talking about the number of data beeing read from the disks, but the snappy obviously felt sensation using ssd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speederlander
This is also similiar to some people who dont hear a difference between onboard sound and a new sound card.
some even pour coca cola into 18 year old single malt whiskey.:shocked:
For me ssd made an impact as much I wouldnt go back to drives with old tech.
I can redo those tests on my raptor if you want... I've done some already; it takes ~2x longer to load games, the copy/paste tests are 4-5x slower. I don't know how I can get more real world than that :shrug:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speederlander
One of the simple tests anyone can do to compare a HDD with a SSD is run a folder/file compression ( archiving with WinRAR for example ) and try to use the PC in heavy apps or multi-tasking ( i.e. WinRAR compressing, PhotoShop filters running, and editing HTML code in DreamWeaver ).
Editing HTML code in DreamWeaver?????????
I can do that with 4 DivX and WInRAR instances in the background LOL.
@Speederlander, note that you have Mtron SSDs, which even their fastest 7500 Pro line aren't really the fatest kind today... I doubt you'd have the same feeling even with X25-M, much less -E.
What I will love the most with SSDs is no need for cooling! That's not just less heat and noise, that's less dust in the room! (or ionized particles, whatever :D)
I guess you're missing some parts here.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Let me make it clearer:
Have a system with a Quad-Core, a reasonably fast HDD ( let's say Samsung's F1 1TB ), 3GBs of RAM, and Windows XP ( I'm not even dragging Vista in this ), and have a single ( or more as you wish ) WinRAR instances compressing data, at the same time have PhotoShop running some filters on a banner or sth, while you are coding & creating templates ( in both Coding & WYSIWYG modes ) in DreamWeaver.
Does your system feel snappy ? Is it responsive and fast ?
How long does it take to alt tab for example from DreamWeaver to a working ( in progress ) PhotoShop window ?
What kind of difference does a good SLC SSD do in this scenario ? ;)
Try the same with a single WinRAR instance extracting the data from an archive... ( yeah, it's getting worse :D )
I run a pair of the 7500 pros in RAID 0, soon to just break them up and use each for a VM. Those should be perfectly speedy to "feel" a major change. And that's my point, do you feel a slight improvement with SSDs? Yeah, sure. Is the vast benchmark improvement reflective of how they feel compared to the fastest (SAS and velociraptor) platter drives? No. At a certain point, when something gets fast enough, a lot of the improvement becomes undetectable.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Honestly. The only thing I use that really FEELS faster than a couple velociraptors in raid is my superspeed ramdrive. Everything is instantaneous. Blows away raptors and SSDs.
well youve obviously gone crazy. give me rejected ocz ssd so i dont have to listen to the raptors clicking.
Alt-tabbing is instant, the disk plays no role in this, unless you are so low on RAM that you get swapping to the drive (I have swap file turned off).Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Yes, alt-tabbing feels instant, the editing feels instant.
Is it responsive? Hell with 200% CPU usage, what do you expect? The disk is not a player in this case, trust me.
None:Quote:
What kind of difference does a good SLC SSD do in this scenario ? ;)
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15931/8
unless you're talking of Fusion IoDrive or X25-E only. From the page above, X25-M and non-X25-E SLC SSDs are slower than VRaptor during multitasking.
See link above. Mtron's are in the Samsung/OCZ SLC range, the X25-E would change the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speederlander
It seems you're doing mostly desktop use though, for that SSDs don't make a whole or any difference vs. VRaptor.
I'm running 2x64gb ssd's v.2 jmicron controller on a 5805 and happier than a pig in #$&*, replaced 3x 150ADFD raptors raid5
I heard Apex series 120gb nand is quicker than smaller config, not sure if this will apply to Vertex...............
That remains to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
I have all the hardware handy here, and shortly after I finish the tests for the BloodRage review I'll give it a shot and have a video camera recording the tests.
I'm willing to bet that the system will be way more responsive with the SSD.
WHICH SSd?:)That is the question.. not the Mtrons or alike.
Even a single Mtron 3500 series is going to make a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Just wait a bit and you'll see :)
You'll be unplesantly surprised...
We're going to find out later on today.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
If I were you... I'd leave my door open :p:
with all this testing I hope you guys aligned the partitions or you wasted your time.
vertex is an IO monster BTW but remember this is mainly cache induced, linear reads writes are not much better than Apex.
SSD testing needs a total revamp, none of the common HDD tests tell the truth OR give an end user any idea about whether a cheap drive will work ok on their system or they need a more expensive drive.
Here is a question for ya'll
What is the minimum IOP's you need 4K random write 10GB test file for 2 mins for a drive to work without causing the sata controller to pause and cause a stutter?
Not 1 review on a forum or a website yet has proven what is needed and what is not...lets see if you guys can actually come up with the answer ;)
I did a sector to sector copy when moving between drive setups so everything was EXACTLY the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
That's a good question on the minimum IOPS :up: :). It can be tested for but somebody is going to have to sit down a spend weeks doing that. If only I didn't have full time work and part time university :(. There is definitely a number of IOPS past which it just doesn't help any more. Same with STR. I know my X25-Es are well beyond the helpful IOPS number.
Exactly. This will get most SSDs... regardless of cache. I have a 13GB backup folder which I copy between multiple machines weekly at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
It has tons of small .jpeg's, tons of large .jpeg's, huge 700mb single files, and a collection of everything in between.
My Velociraptors would chew this thing up without thinking about it. Amazing write speed - as fast as my other WD6400AAKS could send it. When I went to copy this huge folder onto my new Titan SSD RAID0 array, it actually handled it amazingly well, but I did experience quite a few half-second pauses while writing. I use robocopy which shows me EXACTLY where the SSDs slow down during the write process. It's always when it gets to a folder with a ton of tiny little .jpeg's or similar.
The folder typically took just about 3 minutes to write to my 3 Velociraptors and it took about 4 1/2 minutes to write to the 2 Titans. Not bad, but clearly slower. There comes a point where, depending on what types of files are being written and how much of them, where cache or no cache doesn't matter. Cache gets saturated when the write requests keep coming after many seconds and certainly minutes. It fills up and then still has to wait on the SSD(s) to write it all. Now day to day multitasking? Yeah, cache is the answer.
Now I rarely ever write that folder to the SSDs - only during a system rebuild. It is always READ from the SSDs which is ridiculously fast (faster than my VR's could ever dream) for LAN backups.
thank you for bringing more common sense to the subforum.. it has gone randomly/ioply mad :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony
we need ssd friendly controllers/benchmarks/ultimately os/apps
not to hijack this thread, but how long does formatting to ntfs take on a ssd?
raid0 4x ssd @ 64GB takes less than 2 sec to normal format @ winxp install
I hope all this what bencmark is really important for whom stuff will get cleared up this year, cause Iget the feeling people are getting bored with looking at silly HDtach screens...
:)
Can you define a "stutter". How do you measure it? Is it a subjective experience for the user or can you objectively measure it? Would that "threshold value" be different for different users?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I think there is a high correlation from what many would describe as a "stutter" and IOmeter's reported "maximum write response time". But there I don't think there is necessarily a linear relationship between IOPS and "stutter". I don't think you can say "at this IOPS, you get stutter" . For example you can use a regular HD, and have very low 4K random write IOPS, but it's not the same perceptible experience as "stutter" on a SSD.
I think best tests are the ones that test real usage patterns/conditions
One_Hertz
After reading your test results, it seems that it is better to go with the on-board RAID controller over a hardware RAID card?
As for heat, I have seem reports that the SSD's get just as hot as a regular HDD.
For certain purposes...yes. Overall... no.Quote:
Originally Posted by dctokyo
Absolutely no way. You can tell simply by touching one in use. They are basically room temperature while being used to their fullest, whereas a normal HDD is always warm to the touch even if it's not in use ATM.Quote:
As for heat, I have seem reports that the SSD's get just as hot as a regular HDD.
Your actually thinking that highly of review sites and reviewers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I use salt, a pinch of finest highland malt as there is no way they know what they do.
Even a prominent site as benchmark review havent got to a good benchmark yet. And those guys should know the in and outs of harddrives.
just smack 1gb cache on your ssdīs and they run just fine.
1gb ram nowadays isnt that much in cost.
Much easier solution instead of using limited controllers.
Who ever made that decision to use jmicron should be shot.
It was a bad business decison.
IMO.
Since ssd are getting raided in all sorts of ways, we will see as your own tech simulation shows, a speed increase where its a must to get raided cards as sata 2 and then sata 3 is not enough for millions of users.
The train is about to leave the station and what do we get? sata 3 which is to slow for us.
If someone would be smart out there, they be doing such solution, providing ssd with pci-e out of the box.
ah yes, called fusion io drive.
The standards is to slow to adopt to the market.
SSD will simply explode this year and next, and what do people say when simply, this drive isnt any good to buy (vertex 2) since its limited by my motherboard?
Ah well, I get a raid card then ;)
PCI-e SSD is not a viable option really, a PCI-e SSD HOLDER is, i.e. something that can have replacable memory, so we can upgrade.
Micron and RunCore are on the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
If I were you I'd take that back.Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
There are several reviewers ( not necessarily working on the well-known sites ) that know lots of stuff, and some of them are even working in the industry and/or engineering labs and are college graduates.
I can name at least 5 of them, but for various reasons I won't.
Friendly,
Bill
So who will be first to offer 4port SATA3 RAID0 card especially for SSDs! :D
Definitely won't be Adaptec and the usual RAID gang...
equip :p: LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
1GB cache...performance Vs cost would mean no one would buy the drives...plus its the controller that dictates the cache and i don't know of one that will do that high yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
I was seeing 1XXX+ IOP's on vertex on the infamous AT 4k bench, thats well enough for day to fay use
I guess very soon after we put all this stutter issues behind us, the real question will be how much more through will make any noticeable difference in real life applications.
Like will we get any faster file copies on the drive?
Cause lets face it, waiting for apps to load is not really a big issue for 99% of users. They will not be sensitive enough to even faster overall system responsiveness after next gen SSDs to buy even newer faster SSDs.
They will need to get cheap faster than they will need to be faster... :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by saint-francis
Thanks for your input about the raid.
About the heat, this is what I read. So it looks like we really do not need to have fans blowing on them
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...&limitstart=10
Is this you or the OCZ R&D team asking? Because after that triple failure (Core, V2, Solid Series) I wouldn't be too surprised if OCZ was asking forum users for answers they couldn't find on their own :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
^lol :D
I would really like to see some single X25-E and X25-E RAID0 on ICH10R results if possible, thanks so much!
Would like to see some teast with a pair of X25-E RAID0 on ICH10R ..I wonder will it be OK or will I need to get a hardware card?
The ICH10R is limited at approx. 666MB/s.
Two X25-E's run fine in RAID 0 on the ICH10R.
It depends...Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
One question that I would like answered with reference to SSD performance is whether SLC SSD's are as prone to performance degradation as MLC variants if their partitions are misaligned?
I have a bunch of OCZ 64GB SLC drives on the way so I am more than curious about to what extent the slightly different technology and cache size has on this issue...
Edit:
Apparently SLC drives do not like being misaligned as well, but to what extent I still do not know...
@ One_Hertz
Do see a bandwidth-limit with the 5405?
IOP348 is only optimized for SAS-Drives - not SATA.
Not yet. I believe it is around 600MB/s. If/when I add another drive I will hit it for sure. I might change raid cards in a while if they can't fix anything with a firmware update.Quote:
Originally Posted by F.E.A.R.
I just ran into the same issue you are One_Hertz.
I picked up an X25-M and tried running it on an Adaptec 31605 and it benched like crap. Read/Write speeds were all over the place. With cache on, it did horrible, with cache off, it did not as horrible.
Plugged it into the ICH10R on my P5Q, and it was above intel specs. Ran great-
Needless to say, Adaptec needs to catch up with their firmware. It's actually kind of nice to see an onboard solution work so well. I am selling my Adaptec 31605 and 2x Cheetah 15k5 SAS drives to make up some of the of cost of the X25-M drives..
Intel actually tested their hardware on their hardware ;) I don't think SSDs had any popularity when Adaptec released even the series 5 controllers.
Though that is strange, since Intel made the IOP and the IOP also handles SAS part not just the XOR and such calculations, one would presume they'd test...
Mate, I'm catching cold from my open door, where is your proof? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Sorry to hear about your cold, feel free to close the door and turn on the heating/air condition :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
I was very busy lately ( indoors and outdoors ) and I couldn't waste any time in setting up a rig and trying things out.
Oh don't you just love it ;)