Anvil's Storage Utilities

[One_Hertz]

Single HDD + fancycache. I think I win.

[Hondacity]

ultimate rams

[One_Hertz]

ultimate rams

Hey man it's just cache. Totally legit.

[Hondacity]

yeah super score bro! lol totally blew me away ..hahahahha

[deathman20]

My Results.. Not the best, not the worst but it works I should get my Intel's hooked back up after the secure erase and try them again.

[Tiltevros]

Hey man it's just cache. Totally legit.

mine is not cache :/

[Anvil]

X18-M 2R0 4K strip on PCH after SE

Could you check back in this thread for a special build, I'm trying to find out why some are failing on WMI.
Meanwhile could you post the MB, OS, tweaks (if any) and connected drives (all sorts of media)

almost 12.000 points with 4GB test file

Hi Tilt, long time no see
Same goes for you, I need to find out why it fails on WMI on your system as well so could you list just the basics.

Single HDD + fancycache. I think I win.

It's fully legal to use cache, as long as it's mentioned
Not very hard to tell anyways.

I'll display it as part of the info, shouldn't be that hard to detect.

So, what are the most known ones?

[One_Hertz]

mine is not cache :/

Yes, your result is largely cached. Run an 8GB testfile and watch your score drop. The larger the testfile the lesser part of the test is cached.

Anvil - it shouldn't be too hard to detect cache. For example, results over 92ish MB/s in QD1 4KB reads must be cached since nothing can do more than that. If it is not an Iodrive/ACARD then over 40mb/s is not possible unless it is a cached result. You could make the read results cache resistant by creating the test file, then making another 4GB testfile, and then testing the reads on the original testfile. This way the results should be real/represent the actual storage device instead of DRAM.

Or make testfile, ask for a reboot, then test the reads after reboot but that would be annoying as hell.

There isn't an easy way.

[Anvil]

I was simply thinking of listing it *if* a supplementary cache was installed.
(It is detectable in the registry)
I might do some extra level of testing for cache later though.

So besides Fancy-Cache what other popular supplementary caches are used?

[One_Hertz]

I was simply thinking of listing it *if* a supplementary cache was installed.
(It is detectable in the registry)
I might do some extra level of testing for cache later though.

So besides Fancy-Cache what other popular supplementary caches are used?

There isn't really any difference between controller cache and software cache like Fancycache; controller cache is just slower but it performs the same function. I doubt there is a simple way to detect controller cache, and how much of it is present. Or is there?

[zads]

Great work Anvil, looks like it has tons of potential!
But it seems like my results are strangely jumping around in performance compared to something like IOMeter..
Could use a few usability tweaks, and it always rewrites a test file when I run the test..
Do you have any more info on the program settings?

Anyway here's a result from single SF-2500:

[F@32]

Could you check back in this thread for a special build, I'm trying to find out why some are failing on WMI.
Meanwhile could you post the MB, OS, tweaks (if any) and connected drives (all sorts of media)

Here you go. I will get the make and model for HDD and DVDRW later.

ASRock P67 Extreme4 1.90
Core i5 2500K / no OC
G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 4x2Gb / no OC
HD6950 2GB / no OC
Intel Gigabit CT PCIe
M-Audio Delta 2496
Intel x-18M 2x80Gb
Hitachi 2TB SATA2 internal on Marvell
DVDRW SATA2 internal on Marvell
Fantom USB 2TB
Antec Quattro 850W
Antec 1200
Win7 64 bit

So, what are the most known ones?

http://www.superspeed.com/ is another one

[Computurd]

If it is not an Iodrive/ACARD then over 40mb/s is not possible unless it is a cached result.

9265 can do that @ QD1 R5. actually 54 @ QD1
these results with C300. I bet these 8 x 128 wildfires can beat this. only 512 cache on this card when test was done, and it is direct i/o anyways (FP uses no cache)
LINK
when i mention caching coming into play in the header above that, i am speaking to the seq write speed.

@Anvil- i would like the option to retain a static test file as well. This would be helpful. Even with the *now* well-known uber longevity of these drives, no need to speed along degradation in raid arrays.
-also one last wish 512B @ QD 128 so i can show 465,000 IOPS

doing some long-run tests this week for a article, but i will put the toys up and do some playing soon so i will post some results.

results over 92ish MB/s in QD1 4KB reads must be cached since nothing can do more than that.

The achitecture of RAID controllers and how they fundamentally operate, and thus low QD performance, are about to be turned on their heads.....12Gb/s plugfest is going to bring about a change in RAID controllers that is going to be just unbelievable.

I will say this...The Fusions/ I/O Extremes, etc, will soon see the playing field changed very dramatically.

[One_Hertz]

9265 can do that @ QD1 R5. actually 54 @ QD1 :

That result is partially cached. Iometer with a very large test file will not show those numbers. You can see from the latency that the real QD1 random reads are around 32MB/s for that config of yours. Edit: you even show yourself that the real QD1 RR number is 31MB/s later in the review...

RAID controllers are not able to increase 4k QD1 random read performance above what the SSDs themselves are capable of because it is impossible since we are just talking about raw latency here; i.e. the time it takes your devices to respond to a small block read command. The absolute best a controller can do is not add any overhead on top of that. It can not make any device respond faster than they are capable of no matter the kinds of voodoo magic you believe in

[johnw]

RAID controllers are not able to increase 4k QD1 random read performance above what the SSDs themselves are capable of because it is impossible since we are just talking about raw latency here; i.e. the time it takes your devices to respond to a small block read command. The absolute best a controller can do is not add any overhead on top of that. It can not make any device respond faster than they are capable of no matter the kinds of voodoo magic you believe in

Nicely explained. It is surprising how often people forget that simple fact.

[Computurd]

It can not make any device respond faster than they are capable of no matter the kinds of voodoo magic you believe in

even if i kill chickens?

[TV Addict#2]

use a heavier beater will get more better results maybe

[zads]

Single SF-2500 drive

[squick3n]

3x m4 128GB R0 settled state

I ran the test twice. Both times I got a "Not Responding" error right at the beginning, but the test started back up after about 10 seconds. Not sure what numbers I "should" be getting, so I don't know the effect of that brief pause.

Great tool otherwise. Amazing work Anvil.

[bot@xs]

here is mine

[bot@xs]

updating to the latest intel driver has a bit of a wow factor

thanks anvil for making this great tool

[bigretard21]

Just tried out the beta and had no issues running the benchmark with default settings. Nice benching utility Anvil.

C300 128GB running on Dell E6420 laptop:

[Computurd]

nice result you big retard!

sorry...had to say it once

[bluestang]

^^

[bigretard21]

nice result you big retard!

sorry...had to say it once

I'm a tard you're a turd. We're practically related.