8 x SSD @Raid 0 Controller with 1GB or 2GB Cache instead o 256MB = Accestime x 10 ??

ARC-1231ML Controller, default 256MB Cache.

I upgrade with

Quote:

---

KINGSTON 2GB DDR2 PC2-4200 533MHz CL4 (KVR533D2E4/2G)

---

like suggested from Arecra




8 x Mtron 7025 Pro Raid 0, 64kb Stripesize, 1MB Block WRITEtest, ARC1231ML with 256MB Cache

http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08281/raid0...e_256mb680.png



8 x Mtron 7025 Pro Raid 0, 64kb Stripesize, 1MB Block WRITEtest, ARC1231ML with 2GB Cache

http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08281/raid0..._2048mb197.png





8 x Mtron 7025 Pro Raid 0, 64kb Stripesize, 64kb Block WRITEtest, ARC1231ML with 256MB Cache

http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08281/raid0...e_256mb152.png


8 x Mtron 7025 Pro Raid 0, 64kb Stripesize, 64kb Block WRITEtest, ARC1231ML with 2 GB Cache

http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08281/raid0..._2048mb352.png





I have compared Raid 0 and Raid 5, its the same :
Speed goes a little bit down, but Accesstime is 4-10times higher with 2GB Cache.


I uninstalled the 2GB Cache for now hmmm :confused:



Here a little bit of my excel sheet
(yes i know, i forget to save the write entrys for Raid 5 lol :p: )


http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08281/vergleich825.jpg





PS:

And just a view of a 8 x Mtron 7025 Pro Raid 0, 64kb Stripesize, 1MB Block READtest, ARC1231ML with 256MB ;)

http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08281/raid0...d_256mb563.png




any suggestions / Ideas ??



.

Hmm, that is odd that just the memory would make that much of a difference. I was thinking since it was just around 600 MB/sec it might be because you were only using two of the miniSAS ports on the card and thus would hit that limit instead of using like 3/3/2 and using all 3 ports.

Here is the 2 GB DIMM I use in my arc-1231ML and have no problems getting over 800 MB sec (reads):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146525

I can get about 650 MB/sec writes and it will burst at about 1.2 GB/sec until it runs out of disk buffer.

Thanks for the answers.

For first: Trying to use all the 3 ports its an nice Idea!

Please beware, that the speed above are write speeds in most time, in read i get over 800MB/S.

But can you look, what accesstimes you have with read and write with your 2gb cache? :)

I tryd now other RAM Modules, good nice G.SKILL, non ECC but its working...
Accesstime is still very bad due writing.

8 x Mtron 7025 Pro im Raid 0, 64kb Stripesize, 1MB Block WRITEtest, ARC1231ML mit 2 GB Cache NON-ECC G.SKILL

F2-8000CL5D-4GBPQ
DDRII2GB PC2-8000
CL5-5-5-15 2.0V-2.1V

http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08282/raid0...r2-1000400.png



8 x Mtron 7025 Pro im Raid 0, 64kb Stripesize, 1MB Block WRITEtest, ARC1231ML mit 1 GB Cache NON-ECC G.SKILL


F2-6400PHU2-2GBHZ
DDRII1GB PC2-6400
CL4-4-4-12 2.0V-2.1V

http://xs229.xs.to/xs229/08282/raid0...r2-1000862.png



.

can you post hdtach benches since hdtune is just garble/whacky.. to me at least

i may be wrong but i believe that ecc mem worx best.. controllers just designed that way..

try arecas own 2GB ecc memory

from my experience.. the best/fastest controllers are the low profile ones.. soldered on memory/less circuitry/less pcb: lower latency: faster controller @ benches/real world

8-port low profile controller will give you better results

Hi,

the Kingston i use, was 2GB EEC Memory.

Quote:

---

KINGSTON 2GB DDR2 PC2-4200 533MHz CL4 (KVR533D2E4/2G)

---

The tests from today was 1GB and 2GB with non-ECC, but same result (only you can see, 1 GB Module the accesstime ist notSO high like the 2GB one).

Also i do some other benches with robocopy etc, the accesstime is real going up 4-10 times.

the one sided 256MB module = less banks/chips: higher/better performance

for ssd the less cache @ controller the better.. it just interferes with the ssd performance

i wouldnt want 2GB or 4GB cache on my controller when running ssd.. @ hdd its different

Those SSD are shiny up the performance now! We want to see HDTECH screenys :p:. BTW if you haven't notice, the new version of HD Tune is out!

... so, large cache is still good when dealing with hard drives right? Just not SSD's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orkan

... so, large cache is still good when dealing with hard drives right? Just not SSD's?

---

Yup, but still if you have a larger cache in normal spin disk drives you still won't really gain a lot of speed. :rofl:

So would it be worth it to go with 1GB or 2GB upgrade on an areca 1680ix-12 using 8 500GB western digitals in a RAID-6?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orkan

So would it be worth it to go with 1GB or 2GB upgrade on an areca 1680ix-12 using 8 500GB western digitals in a RAID-6?

---

For sure!:up:

I thought so. :) Would 2gb be only marginally better than 1GB... or would the 2GB be worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orkan

I thought so. :) Would 2gb be only marginally better than 1GB... or would the 2GB be worth it?

---

Follow your instincts//

In that case I'll use the same metality as if everyone in the room was naked.

Bigger is always better!

i had the 1680-ix also,

but this performance on SSDs is WAY slower for SSDs (- 30/50% for single Drives and Raid0/5, I tested +20hours...*)

but what I can suggest: if u use the 1680 for normal HDDs, u can put a 4GB Module on it! The 1680 support double the size of cache as the 1231ml :)

.



* look here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=193619
in the Excel sheet, you will see my tests for 1680ix and 1231ml (HD tune Pro, HDTach, IOMeter, and other tools).

.

Do some Raid5 tests, dude, so we see how the cache plays there.

as u can see in my first post (the picture which shows an excel sheet, row 4+5) I allready tested Raid5. Its absolutly the same bad accesstime.