Doing an ICH10R SSD RAID0 comparison, thoughts?

Printable View

08-23-2009, 03:19 PM
lowfat

UPDATED w/ RESULTS: ICH10R SSD RAID0 comparison

All tasks were run on the following:
Core i7 920 @ 4.2GHz w/ HT off
4 x 80GB X25-M G1
6GB Aenon PC3-12800 @ 1600MHz 9-9-9-18
Gigabyte EX58-UD5
2 XFX HD 4980s
Asus Xonar Essense STX
1000W Antec Quattro

A system image was created. Then before each install on each setup, an HDDerase of all the drives was completed. I performed a reboot between every test. Superfetch & page file were disabled. All startup items were disabled through msconfig.

Results:

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8485/iometer4.jpg
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5642/iometer2.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5534/iometer1.jpg
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6384/results1.jpg

As was thought my many people here, RAID0 on ICH*R just doesn't benefit a lot of tasks out there. The best bet would to be to buy the fastest single SSD you can find. Buying multiple slower SSDs just shows no real benefits.
08-23-2009, 03:25 PM
Griff805

Do you have a hardware RAID controller available to test with?
08-23-2009, 03:37 PM
Darth_Penguin

great to here, I look forward to seeing the difference between the 3 setups. I take it you are using the X25s?
08-23-2009, 03:43 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff805

Do you have a hardware RAID controller available to test with?

currently no. Which is why the thread title says ICH10R :p:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Penguin

great to here, I look forward to seeing the difference between the 3 setups. I take it you are using the X25s?

Correct.
08-23-2009, 04:14 PM
XS Janus

Simultaneous file read and write performance!:)

Make a large 3GB+ Folder with lots of jpegs, and mp3s then measure the time it takes for it to duplicate each individual setup.
Timing how long it takes the setups to do the same with a large .mkv or .iso file would also be useful.
:)
THX!
08-23-2009, 04:34 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by XS Janus

Simultaneous file read and write performance!:)

Make a large 3GB+ Folder with lots of jpegs, and mp3s then measure the time it takes for it to duplicate each individual setup.
Timing how long it takes the setups to do the same with a large .mkv or .iso file would also be useful.
:)
THX!

what do you mean by this?

Just copy a 3gb+ folder of pictures/mp3's. And paste them to the same drive?
08-23-2009, 08:12 PM
Mic

+1 for the copy test
A large folder with a bunch of files in various sizes to same drive.
08-23-2009, 11:51 PM
Ao1

I split my raid 0 set up around a month ago and have only just rebuilt it. That was long enough to get used to how a single drive performed and having gone back to raid 0 I have noticed zero difference. Now that drives are getting bigger I don’t see the point in raid 0 for desktop use, although I know some people say they see the difference. I’d be interested to know where the differences become obvious, cos I just don't see it with my usuage patten.

I'd also like to see if the slightly better performance of a bigger drive gives any benifit in real life. A 160GB G2 is technically slightly faster that a 80GB G2 plus the data/ free space ratio is likely to be better on bigger drives so I'm wondering if a 160Gb drive would actually be better than two 80Gb in raid 0?
08-24-2009, 12:21 AM
tiro_uspsss

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

I'd also like to see if the slightly better performance of a bigger drive gives any benifit in real life. A 160GB G2 is technically slightly faster that a 80GB G2 plus the data/ free space ratio is likely to be better on bigger drives so I'm wondering if a 160Gb drive would actually be better than two 80Gb in raid 0?

the only thing the single 160-G2 *may be faster in is access time & thats it.. IOPs, MB/s etc, the 2x 80-G2 in R0 will totally lay waste to the single 160-G2 :yepp: :fact:
08-24-2009, 01:27 AM
Ao1

Hmmm...outside of benchmarks I see zero difference between a single X25-e and two X25-e's in raid 0. Tomorrow I will have a 80gb G2 to compare against two X25-e's in raid 0. I somehow doubt I will be able to tell the difference unless I benchmark.

Edit: AS Benchmark scores improve by 60% with raid 0, but that does not translate to faster real life performance.

Edit 1: Rather than install multiple programs would opening say 100 Photoshop files simultaneously do the same thing if the files sizes varied?
08-24-2009, 06:32 AM
aamsel

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

I split my raid 0 set up around a month ago and have only just rebuilt it. That was long enough to get used to how a single drive performed and having gone back to raid 0 I have noticed zero difference. Now that drives are getting bigger I don’t see the point in raid 0 for desktop use, although I know some people say they see the difference. I’d be interested to know where the differences become obvious, cos I just don't see it with my usuage patten.

I'd also like to see if the slightly better performance of a bigger drive gives any benifit in real life. A 160GB G2 is technically slightly faster that a 80GB G2 plus the data/ free space ratio is likely to be better on bigger drives so I'm wondering if a 160Gb drive would actually be better than two 80Gb in raid 0?

Especially with an onboard controller (I have ICH10R) I agree with you.
I just ordered a single 160GB G2 over the weekend for that reason. Also, I won't have to deal with array failure (should it occur) which I have had with RAID 0 in the past, and should get TRIM support under Windows 7 much quicker than I would for two X25-M's in RAID 0 on an ICH10R.

I have no doubt that two of them (or of the 80GB X25-M G2) will show much higher throughput and beat the single drive in most benchmarks, but doubt that I will see or feel any real world difference.
08-24-2009, 07:39 AM
tiro_uspsss

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Hmmm...outside of benchmarks I see zero difference between a single X25-e and two X25-e's in raid 0. Tomorrow I will have a 80gb G2 to compare against two X25-e's in raid 0. I somehow doubt I will be able to tell the difference unless I benchmark.

Edit: AS Benchmark scores improve by 60% with raid 0, but that does not translate to faster real life performance.

Edit 1: Rather than install multiple programs would opening say 100 Photoshop files simultaneously do the same thing if the files sizes varied?

then I'd say u dont do anything that maxes out the IOPs of a single SSD, hence why u cant 'feel' the diff of a 2nd in R0.. it definitely does translate to faster real life performance - if u require that much IOPs out of ur storage sub-system ;)
as for the PS idea.. yeah could work - its a whole lot of reading, something SSDs specialize in :) - do it @ same time theres a lot of writing - then u'll have some fun! :up:
08-24-2009, 07:56 AM
Ao1

^^ There is a big difference between the iops of a vertex and Intel drive, yet the view is there is no noticable difference between the two drives. This is why I think that iops over a certain value do nothing for desktop use. If the difference between a vertex and intel drive can not be noticed why would two drives in raid 0 be noticed? I'm not saying that raid 0 is not faster in theory, but in practice, at least from my usage pattern, it is not.
08-24-2009, 09:06 AM
Baron_Davis

Raid 0 is good for people who actually USE it. It's like someone complaining that their GTX 285 isn't that much faster than their old 8800 GTS in CS 1.6.
08-24-2009, 09:36 AM
cx-ray

I went from an X25-M to RAID 0 X25-M G2 160GB and definitely feel that my system has gotten faster. For instance, there's a noticeable improvement when opening the Event Viewer in Vista 64 or when generating thumbnails in Windows Photo Gallery (very basic examples).

When I initially switched from a Velociraptor 300 to an X25-M I was a little disappointed. Sure things were faster, but it doesn't have the snap that my system had now.
08-24-2009, 09:54 AM
Rhys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron_Davis

Raid 0 is good for people who actually USE it. It's like someone complaining that their GTX 285 isn't that much faster than their old 8800 GTS in CS 1.6.

Raid 0 only benefits large packet requests. i.e. when dealing with files at least double the size of the stripe. (You can see this more clearly with WBC off)
Thing is you won't perceive any benefit until you begin working with files that are large enough to be able to notice.

Also by some accounts raid slows down boot and app times slightly.

So lone wolf, with all your wisdom you spout, do you actually have any ssd's in raid 0?

Lowfat I would be very interested if you could make a large 10gb PSD file in photoshop and time how long it takes to save changes of the image.
And also how long it takes the image to load up by clicking it's icon from a cold boot with photoshop not open.

The above is where I would expect to see real world improvements.

Also just an idea, it may be worth doing some comparisons with wbc on and off to see which is really best and use the best method for the remaining tests.
08-24-2009, 09:56 AM
Ao1

I’m not complaining :) What does USE it mean? One Hurtz has posted a time of 12s to open 40 or so apps simultaneously with 2 x25-e’s. Low Fat does the same test with a single X25-M and does it in the same time. Griff ran a load of real world tests between a single X25-m and two X25-m’s in raid 0 and the differences were negligible if anything. What exactly do you need to be doing to see raid 0 become a benefit and how often is that going to happen in real life?

That’s a rhetorical question btw, I’m hoping that it is something that Low Fat can work out when he runs his tests.
08-24-2009, 09:58 AM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

That’s a rhetorical question btw, I’m hoping that it is something that Low Fat can work out when he runs his tests.

I'm open to some suggestions :)
08-24-2009, 10:09 AM
Baron_Davis

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

I’m not complaining :) What does USE it mean? One Hurtz has posted a time of 12s to open 40 or so apps simultaneously with 2 x25-e’s. Low Fat does the same test with a single X25-M and does it in the same time. Griff ran a load of real world tests between a single X25-m and two X25-m’s in raid 0 and the differences were negligible if anything. What exactly do you need to be doing to see raid 0 become a benefit and how often is that going to happen in real life?

That’s a rhetorical question btw, I’m hoping that it is something that Low Fat can work out when he runs his tests.

RAID 0 is good for high sequential reads/writes...

IE. videos, working with massive images, doing a lot of work with massive files, like copying gigs of data from one folder to another, etc.

Also good if you need a lot of IOPS for example a web server where there are a lot of read requests off the DB, and this is where the Intel X25-M benefits greatly, because it excels at small random reads and writes, exactly what a web server does.

When looking at real world or "common man" performance, you won't see a big diff from RAID 0 because it's just not that demanding. It's like the example I gave with CS 1.6. Until someone starts playing Crysis, they won't notice a big difference between their old graphics card and a current gen one.

Also, you have to realize that what people post in this forum is either e-peen stuff that doesn't reflect reality, or they're quoting synthetic benchmarks that may not reflect the real world performance BECAUSE you're not stressing your drives enough to see it.

So for example, when you see some guy say it takes him 18 seconds to load 1 billion apps, what he's REALLY saying is that compared to your average 1 SSD setup, he will load his 1 or 2 applications 1/10th of a second faster.

Bottom line, you gotta ask yourself. Am I a professional that needs very high IOPS or very high sequential reads/writes or am I just getting RAID to show off my e-peen and impress some forum nerds?
08-24-2009, 10:31 AM
Ao1

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

I'm open to some suggestions :)

I think it is worth a few people chipping in to agree what would constitute normal os use and what is more cpu or ram dependent. If it would help I could run the exact same tests on my system between 2xX25-e’s and one X25-M g2. (As long as it does not involve installing 40 apps ;)
I think it would also be really interesting to see if over clocking the cpu & ram makes any difference to read/ write speeds. (I’ve not noticed any difference but I can only get to 3.7 and 1600.)
I don’t do much more than; create ISO’s (rare). Create wave and mp3 files typically ranging from 6mb to 700mb. Zip/ unzip files. Play COD . Create/ save ps files (no bigger than 50mb.) Watch blue ray. Rip dvd’s/ blue ray. Rip cd’s. Create 3D images and render (rare.)
The only time I’ve noticed my drives suffer was when I copied 600mb of 4k files and that was with raid 0.

Edit: It would also help if people that have noticed a real world difference between raid and a single drive give some examples. Cx-ray, I'm not sure why you would see any delay in the items you mentioned. I've just opend a file with 1,600 mp3's with embeded artwork. If I switch to thumbnail view it is instant and the mp3's are on a 7.200 hdd!
08-24-2009, 10:37 AM
Ao1

Baron Davis I agree with you. I think it’s fair to say that ssd's scale well, but the benefit of that scaling is limited unless you have a specific high demand use.
In some ways it’s like sli (except the scaling)It makes me smile when the first question that 90% of people asks when they have first set up their cards is “how do I know it is working”. If it was something you could notice you would not ask that question. A case of emperor’s cloths.
08-24-2009, 12:35 PM
XS Janus

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

what do you mean by this?

Just copy a 3gb+ folder of pictures/mp3's. And paste them to the same drive?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.:)
Simple but real life scenario R/W test.

Just remember to save the folder, for future testing. So the results be comparable.
:)
08-24-2009, 01:31 PM
cx-ray

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Cx-ray, I'm not sure why you would see any delay in the items you mentioned. I've just opend a file with 1,600 mp3's with embeded artwork. If I switch to thumbnail view it is instant and the mp3's are on a 7.200 hdd!

I used specific examples. Not just thumbnails anywhere and I have no idea whether your files already had them generated before viewing. Another example of generating thumbnails that take time are the ones from in the Desktop Background, but only when they aren't there yet after a fresh OS install.
08-24-2009, 02:17 PM
Ao1

^ fair comment. I've just tried opening new folders with Photo Gallery and the thumb nails come up instantly. Tomorrow I will try that with a single G2.
08-24-2009, 09:34 PM
cx-ray

Many or perhaps even the majority of imaging applications save thumbnails together with files. Perhaps if you put a good number of movies in there you might see it generating, or Windows Media Center is another example.
08-25-2009, 10:59 AM
MpG

I'd like to see a lot of those tasks done, while an AV is running in the background. Maybe while a music player is playing a batch of 3-5 second audio tracks? The ability to run maintenance programs seamlessly, instead of scheduling them for times that you don't need the computer, is definitely a real-world application.
08-25-2009, 11:27 AM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by MpG

I'd like to see a lot of those tasks done, while an AV is running in the background. Maybe while a music player is playing a batch of 3-5 second audio tracks? The ability to run maintenance programs seamlessly, instead of scheduling them for times that you don't need the computer, is definitely a real-world application.

I can do the AV scan thing, but I don't have a bunch of 3-5 second audio clips.

Its also hard to measure something like that.
08-25-2009, 01:01 PM
MpG

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

I can do the AV scan thing, but I don't have a bunch of 3-5 second audio clips.

Its also hard to measure something like that.

I know it's hard to get that sort of thing consistent enough to measure, but I occasionally have Winamp hiccup on my WD640's in Raid 0 when I'm running numerous applications, including a BT client in the background. Granted, even a single SSD should do far better than what I have. I'd suggest a background defragger too, but that would be almost impossible to get consistent from test to test.
08-25-2009, 01:21 PM
lowfat

You don't defrag SSD's though :shrug:
08-25-2009, 03:14 PM
MpG

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

You don't defrag SSD's though :shrug:

Yeah, I know that. But you're trying to make the drives sweat under non-synthetic conditions, right? While it's a non-issue for SSD's, it would simulate a background HDD-intensive process. An AV program is probably the best option in that department, I suppose.
08-25-2009, 03:38 PM
Griff805

How do you determine if the "hiccups" are from the Controller or the drives? This is why I asked if you had another controller to use, so that when you compare, you can know for sure if the controller is having an effect on all four drives in RAID 0 versus a single drive.
08-25-2009, 04:30 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff805

How do you determine if the "hiccups" are from the Controller or the drives? This is why I asked if you had another controller to use, so that when you compare, you can know for sure if the controller is having an effect on all four drives in RAID 0 versus a single drive.

I am pretty sure it is a controller thing :shrug: I do plan on grabbing one of the newer LSI cards to try out once they are available in Canada. Once it is here I'll do a comparison with it as well.
08-26-2009, 08:13 AM
Ao1

Well my G2 arrived yesterday. I haven’t had chance to play with it enough yet, however my first impression is that performance (in the context of my un xtreme usage patterns) is generally the same as 2x X25-e’s in raid 0. I can hardly tell a difference, if at all, in anytrhing I’ve done to date and any differences are marginal i.e. mirco seconds. Boot up time, installation of the OS, apps etc. Opening apps is the same, as is loading time for the COD. I’m not singing praises for the G2, I’m highlighting that the X25’e in raid zero shows zero benefit so far in comparison. Maybe later I will notice some differences.

So, either my usage pattern does not require raid 0 or maybe the onboard raid is the limiting factor, however I doubt that as I used to have a 5405 with 500mb of cache and the drives work just as well if not faster without the 5405.
08-26-2009, 08:21 AM
Mic

That is with onboard raid?
08-26-2009, 09:47 AM
Darth_Penguin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mic

That is with onboard raid?

He said it was onboard.
08-26-2009, 09:50 AM
Darth_Penguin

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Well my G2 arrived yesterday. I haven’t had chance to play with it enough yet, however my first impression is that performance (in the context of my un xtreme usage patterns) is generally the same as 2x X25-e’s in raid 0. I can hardly tell a difference, if at all, in anytrhing I’ve done to date and any differences are marginal i.e. mirco seconds. Boot up time, installation of the OS, apps etc. Opening apps is the same, as is loading time for the COD. I’m not singing praises for the G2, I’m highlighting that the X25’e in raid zero shows zero benefit so far in comparison. Maybe later I will notice some differences.

So, either my usage pattern does not require raid 0 or maybe the onboard raid is the limiting factor, however I doubt that as I used to have a 5405 with 500mb of cache and the drives work just as well if not faster without the 5405.

This is very interesting, now that SSD's seem to be becoming more mainstream there are quite a few people that have had the same experience as you. its posts like this that keep me undecided as to whether I even want to deal with RAID. I think I may be leaning towards 1 larger drive. decisions decisions...
08-26-2009, 10:20 AM
Rhys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Penguin

This is very interesting, now that SSD's seem to be becoming more mainstream there are quite a few people that have had the same experience as you. its posts like this that keep me undecided as to whether I even want to deal with RAID. I think I may be leaning towards 1 larger drive. decisions decisions...

Yeh, it's not an easy choice.
08-26-2009, 11:30 AM
drakore

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Well my G2 arrived yesterday. I haven’t had chance to play with it enough yet, however my first impression is that performance (in the context of my un xtreme usage patterns) is generally the same as 2x X25-e’s in raid 0. I can hardly tell a difference, if at all, in anytrhing I’ve done to date and any differences are marginal i.e. mirco seconds. Boot up time, installation of the OS, apps etc. Opening apps is the same, as is loading time for the COD. I’m not singing praises for the G2, I’m highlighting that the X25’e in raid zero shows zero benefit so far in comparison. Maybe later I will notice some differences.

So, either my usage pattern does not require raid 0 or maybe the onboard raid is the limiting factor, however I doubt that as I used to have a 5405 with 500mb of cache and the drives work just as well if not faster without the 5405.

Where did you get your G2 from? I am dying for mine... unfortunately I live in Canada.
08-26-2009, 11:31 AM
Ao1

With 2 raps I saw a big improvement when using them in raid 0. With SSD I just don't see anything remotely the same. That is just me however. Obviously I am not xtreme. Other people have said they see improvements so maybe they have more intensive storage tasks than I do that can see benifits.

Edit: ^ from the UK. The box says "made in China with foreign content," so they most likely shipped from China not the US.
08-26-2009, 11:51 AM
Griff805

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Penguin

This is very interesting, now that SSD's seem to be becoming more mainstream there are quite a few people that have had the same experience as you. its posts like this that keep me undecided as to whether I even want to deal with RAID. I think I may be leaning towards 1 larger drive. decisions decisions...

It is nice to have multiple drives because you can always use them in different systems and lots of other things you can do with multiple drives. That of course only matters if you do much more than just run a single system with one OS.
08-26-2009, 02:40 PM
heavyengineerng

any results?
08-26-2009, 03:08 PM
lowfat

I had all the results for a drive. But something was wrong. I did iometer last and my results were awful. My system was stuttering again. I start my days off tomorrow so I'll have time over the next few days.
08-26-2009, 03:42 PM
lowfat

The applications that my 40-app test contains.

Code:

start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\ATI Technologies\ATI.ACE\Core-Static\CLI.exe" Start CCC start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\CCleaner\CCleaner.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\CrystalDiskMark\DiskMarkX64.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\eac3to\yr_eac3to_more_gui.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\EVODemux\EVOdemux628.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Foxit Software\Foxit Reader\Foxit Reader.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Futuremark\PCMark Vantage\bin64\PCMark.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\HandBrake\Handbrake.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Iometer.org\Iometer 2006.07.27\iometer.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\iTunes\iTunes.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office12\excel.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office12\winword.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\MKVtoolnix\mkvmerge.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\Firefox.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Thunderbird\Thunderbird.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Nero\Nero Burning ROM\Nero.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Adobe Bridge CS4\Bridge.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\oZone3D\Benchmarks\FurMark_v1.7.0\Furmark.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Quicktime\Quicktimeplayer.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Real Temp 3.0\Realtemp.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\RipBot264 1.14.3\Ripbot264.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\Steam.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\Zoom Player\zplayer.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64 Bit)\photoshop.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\ashavast.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\CPUID\CPU-Z\cpuz.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\DVD Maker\dvdmaker.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\MediaInfo\mediainfo.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Chess\chess.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Hearts\Hearts.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Mahjong\Mahjong.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\FreeCell\freecell.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Minesweeper\Minesweeper.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Solitaire\Solitaire.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\SpiderSolitaire\SpiderSolitaire.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\WinRAR\Winrar.exe" start "" "C:\Program Files\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe"

A vid of how the single x25-m performs doing it. Using a 5 year old point & shoot camera, so don't expect uber high quality. :p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ECFjInkBL0
08-26-2009, 04:32 PM
Griff805

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

Using a 5 year old point & shoot camera, so don't expect uber high quality. :p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ECFjInkBL0

Don't worry, I hit the HQ button in Youtube and it fixed it. ;)
08-26-2009, 05:25 PM
fritzman

That's cool... so essentially, there doesn't appear to be much need for 'general use' people to be using more than one SSD for their O/S & key apps drive? The 4 x 1Tb blacks I am presently using will end up being storage I guess, maybe in r5
08-27-2009, 11:08 AM
drakore

Sweet vid Lowfat! Where did you get your x25-m G2 from? Did you get it before the stop ship?
08-27-2009, 11:18 AM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakore

Sweet vid Lowfat! Where did you get your x25-m G2 from? Did you get it before the stop ship?

It is just a G1 :shrug:
08-27-2009, 11:38 AM
drakore

awwwwww damm... I am dying for a G2. Although the new agility ex looks alright. Shame the small writes still don't compare.
08-27-2009, 02:25 PM
XS Janus

lowfat, how many seconds would you say that was?
I'm lazy and I don't have a stop watch handy. :D
08-27-2009, 02:35 PM
lowfat

I don't know about that run, but the one I have recorded from a cold boot w/ zero applications opening on startup was 26 seconds. One of the applications was Avast, which runs a memory/startup files scan so it takes quite a bit of time to fully load.
09-13-2009, 08:21 PM
lowfat

added results to first post.
09-14-2009, 12:18 AM
XS Janus

Great stuff!
Thanks for the update and all the testing.
:)
09-14-2009, 12:35 AM
Ao1

Thanks for nailing that. :)

I have found that drives in raid 0 degrade quicker and take longer to recover, so the marginal advantages of raid 0, if you happen to be shifting 3gb files around all day, is not so clear cut.

The best option right now is the fastest single drive with the highest capacity possible.

EDIT: I’m surprised your reboot times are faster for raid 0. My system starts up faster and shuts down quicker with a single drive in comparison to raid 0.
09-14-2009, 02:01 AM
CedricFP

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Thanks for nailing that. :)

I have found that drives in raid 0 degrade quicker and take longer to recover,

Can you elaborate on this?
09-14-2009, 03:14 AM
Ao1

Quote:

Originally Posted by CedricFP

Can you elaborate on this?

I ran a series of benchmarks on a raid 0 and single drive set up. (10 number AS Benchmarks over 1 day followed by one every day for 7 days.) What I found was that as I progressively repeated benchmarks the results on the raid 0 set up deteriorated quicker than a single drive and did not recover as quickly on subsequent tests in the following days.

Why this would be the case I do not know, but at a guess it is because the strip on raid results in more writes and more table entries.

I should clarify that performance degradation is only something I have experienced in benchmarks.
09-14-2009, 05:07 AM
One_Hertz

Thanks for the confirmation! As I've been saying for a while, almost everything is CPU limited even with a single good SSD so adding storage performance will do nothing for you in most tasks.

What I am wondering is if adding a raid card helps real world tasks. Not because of the cache or anything like that, but simply because it decreases CPU load to around zero...
09-14-2009, 12:01 PM
saint-francis

Quote:

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Thanks for the confirmation! As I've been saying for a while, almost everything is CPU limited even with a single good SSD so adding storage performance will do nothing for you in most tasks.

What I am wondering is if adding a raid card helps real world tasks. Not because of the cache or anything like that, but simply because it decreases CPU load to around zero...

So you are saying that the reason our apps still take a moment to open is due to lack of CPU cycles? How is it that opening photoshop takes me a moment but my cpu load essentially doesn't increase at all in this time? Also there is no noticeable difference in opening photoshop when the CPU is idle and when it's under 100% load?
09-14-2009, 12:22 PM
One_Hertz

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint-francis

So you are saying that the reason our apps still take a moment to open is due to lack of CPU cycles? How is it that opening photoshop takes me a moment but my cpu load essentially doesn't increase at all in this time? Also there is no noticeable difference in opening photoshop when the CPU is idle and when it's under 100% load?

I don't have photoshop to try, but all my game loading times scale near perfectly with CPU speed.
09-14-2009, 12:45 PM
saint-francis

Quote:

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

I don't have photoshop to try, but all my game loading times scale near perfectly with CPU speed.

I just used photoshop as an example since it seems to take longer to open than anything else I have. I don't really play any video games. So here's the rub. I have seen no noticeable difference between the responsiveness of my system running on a Core v2 and a 120GB Vertex. If there is a difference, it's so small that I don't really notice it. And I still have to wait for the system to boot and for some apps to load. I know that things like installing software will go faster with higher write speeds and so forth but all I'm really concerned about is system responsiveness. Hell, RAID 0 of 3 Cores on an ARC 1210 installs software faster than the Vertex.

So what is it that's going to make SSD's faster. What is it that makes them so fast? It can't be all about access time or else these ridiculous arrays of 4 + disks on the LSI controller would be slower than a single SSD on ICH.
09-14-2009, 01:03 PM
Gogeta

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

A vid of how the single x25-m performs doing it. Using a 5 year old point & shoot camera, so don't expect uber high quality. :p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ECFjInkBL0

I haven't been through your results yet, but that is one sweet wallpaper. Do you mind sharing the source or image? Thanks!
09-15-2009, 06:28 AM
Ao1

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint-francis

I just used photoshop as an example since it seems to take longer to open than anything else I have. I don't really play any video games. So here's the rub. I have seen no noticeable difference between the responsiveness of my system running on a Core v2 and a 120GB Vertex. If there is a difference, it's so small that I don't really notice it. And I still have to wait for the system to boot and for some apps to load. I know that things like installing software will go faster with higher write speeds and so forth but all I'm really concerned about is system responsiveness. Hell, RAID 0 of 3 Cores on an ARC 1210 installs software faster than the Vertex.

So what is it that's going to make SSD's faster. What is it that makes them so fast? It can't be all about access time or else these ridiculous arrays of 4 + disks on the LSI controller would be slower than a single SSD on ICH.

Early gen ssd’s and hard raid with cache are a great combo. The (real life) benefits of gen 2 ssd’s and hard raid on the other hand have not materialised in the same way because they are so much faster and operate differently (improved write amplification etc.) They need a new generation hard raid solution to take advantage of the way they operate.
09-15-2009, 07:39 AM
Biker

Quote:

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Early gen ssd’s and hard raid with cache are a great combo. The (real life) benefits of gen 2 ssd’s and hard raid on the other hand have not materialised in the same way because they are so much faster and operate differently (improved write amplification etc.) They need a new generation hard raid solution to take advantage of the way they operate.

A SATA only new generation.... not SAS ;)
09-15-2009, 08:03 AM
Ao1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biker

A SATA only new generation.... not SAS ;)

OK fair point, but how many SAS ssd's are out there? I've heard that there is supposed to be a dongle coming out that will enable an X25-e to be be recognised as SAS, but what benifit that will bring I don't know.
09-15-2009, 12:40 PM
saint-francis

Gotcha. But, like I said, For general PC usage my Vertex seems no faster than my Cores.

What makes SSD's fast?
09-15-2009, 12:50 PM
Ao1

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint-francis

Gotcha. But, like I said, For general PC usage my Vertex seems no faster than my Cores.

What makes SSD's fast?

The Cores are fast...as long as you don’t overload them with too many small writes. You must see a difference if you are multi-tasking?
09-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Spoiler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biker

A SATA only new generation.... not SAS ;)

It would be nice to see a newer generation of SATA controllers, but in all honesty....

I would rather see more SAS SSD's.
09-15-2009, 01:58 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler

It would be nice to see a newer generation of SATA controllers, but in all honesty....

I would rather see more SAS SSD's.

I'd rather see native PCIe SSDs in all honesty. That way we have a much higher bandwidth cap,less overhead (I assume so anyways), and no have to spend $400+ on a good controller. Currently the Fusion-io doesn't have enough competition which is why the prices remain high.
09-15-2009, 02:08 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogeta

I haven't been through your results yet, but that is one sweet wallpaper. Do you mind sharing the source or image? Thanks!

http://yfrog.com/10vaderchopj
http://yfrog.com/5fvaderinj

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:32 PM.

XtremeSystems