Well, I've gone crazy

[One_Hertz]

There must be something wrong in your PCMark05 numbers...
Here's my single X25-E on ICH10 (no h/w RAID cards etc)

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.

[NeedMoMegaHurtZ]

Thx for the testing One Hertz!

Here is some more info for comparison purposes (from the source listed below)

x25-e NV 780i



x25-e ICHR9



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

[alfaunits]

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.

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.

[One_Hertz]

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.

Exactly what I was already going to do when I got home. Great minds think alike

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...

[alfaunits]

Exactly what I was already going to do when I got home. Great minds think alike

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...

Yep, random writes are now within of Intel specs.
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?

[One_Hertz]

Did you try on ICHxR instead of Adaptec?

Yes

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!

[Speederlander]

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.

[flopper]

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.
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.

For me ssd made an impact as much I wouldnt go back to drives with old tech.

[One_Hertz]

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.

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 .