$1500 for storage(SSDs)- what would you do?

[Ao1]

The boot up time of the x25-5 in raid took into account the boot initialisation of the 5405. It's not really testing how fast the X25-e is in this regard, but how slow the 5405 is at initialising.

"Ignore this one, folks. Our RAID setup may take more than a minute longer to boot than the rest, but it's also the only configuration that has to initialize the Adaptec RAID card, which takes its sweet time booting up."

[Rhys]

The boot up time of the x25-5 in raid took into account the boot initialisation of the 5405. It's not really testing how fast the X25-e is in this regard, but how slow the 5405 is at initialising.

"Ignore this one, folks. Our RAID setup may take more than a minute longer to boot than the rest, but it's also the only configuration that has to initialize the Adaptec RAID card, which takes its sweet time booting up."

But the times show normal HDD's booting XP faster than and x25-m.
From my experience these times look like BS to me.

[F.E.A.R.]

How often do you boot your system a day?
Is booting your hobby?

I´m not interestet in boot-time-benches.


@ tekjunkie

Try the "Ms" of Intel or Vertex/Supertalent UD ME


@ Xope_Poquar

14x 1TB-HDDs? To high consumption!
The 6x Samsung F1 of my Raid 6 consumes ~ 35W

[tekjunkie]

The X25-Ms have been shipped, should be here tomorrow.It should be interesting to see them on ICH10R Vs ARC-1231ML.

[Chosen.]

TR storage reviews are totally cr@p. I had hints before and the proof came with their ANS-9010 review in which they didn't even enable the ICH's caching option and gave RAID0 results lower than a single drive.
I just don't trust them anymore and therefore not even checking at their reviews.

[F.E.A.R.]

The X25-Ms have been shipped, should be here tomorrow.It should be interesting to see them on ICH10R Vs ARC-1231ML.

The Areca ist faster. See my comparison (Areca vs. Onboard)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=255


When you set the stripesize to 4k there is a great difference of performance between the Areca an Onboard
Btw: An extra controller gives you much more comfort (online-settings) and security.


@ Chosen.

Yes, the techreport-review is crap.
With many simultaneous acceesses every SSD collapse to a few of MB/s.
Not a Acard

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...21&articID=935 (see Conclusive Thoughts)

[moiraesfate]

I couldn't imagine spending that much money on SSD's. Just aint going to happen.

[jcool]

How often do you boot your system a day?
Is booting your hobby?

Usually? Never.
When I swap/test CPUs for stability though, it's 100x in a row easy. You can save a LOT of time there with 1-2 SSDs on the ICH10R, believe me.

Now as for Areca vs. onboard, the Areca will win overall especially at 4k random write/read like F.E.A.R. pointed out. Even though you probably won't "feel" much of a difference running most standard tasks.

[Arkangyl]

As many X-25M's or Vertex's as I can afford.

Considering the price scaling seems to be linear (60gb = $150, 120gb = $300) I'd make my choice based on the raid card, if it's 4 ports, get 4x80gb X25 or 4x120gb Vertex, if it's 8 ports I'd get 8x60gb Vertex :drool:

IMO the X25-E aren't worth it at all

[F.E.A.R.]

@ jcool, du Luxxer

Du kannst ruhig deutsch schreiben.
Wenn ich mein sys. teste (CPU oder Ram) nehm ich den Controller natürlich raus, sonst wird man ja irre

[NapalmV5]

1500$ ? yeh ill be going for new ~6x slc ssd soon

f.e.a.r itll put your ramdrive to shame

[Rhys]

Usually? Never.
Now as for Areca vs. onboard, the Areca will win overall especially at 4k random write/read like F.E.A.R. pointed out. Even though you probably won't "feel" much of a difference running most standard tasks.

I think we need some real world tests because the only advantage I can see with a raid card is cache for 4k writes. What about reads? They usually out number writes! Also the x25-m doesn't need any help in that department anyway.

I think benchmarks with drives on raid controllers give unrealistic performance promises due to cache affecting the benchmark.

Does the cache improve read performance?

@ One_Hurts perhaps you could chime in, as I know you used to use hardware raid.

[Rhys]

1500$ ? yeh ill be going for new ~6x slc ssd soon

f.e.a.r itll put your ramdrive to shame

What drives though?

[NapalmV5]

I think we need some real world tests because the only advantage I can see with a raid card is cache for 4k writes. What about reads? They usually out number writes! Also the x25-m doesn't need any help in that department anyway.

I think benchmarks with drives on raid controllers give unrealistic performance promises due to cache affecting the benchmark.

Does the cache improve read performance?

@ One_Hurts perhaps you could chime in, as I know you used to use hardware raid.

if you think cache is unrealistic/unimportant.. remove your cpu cache and then tell me cache is unrealistic

cache @ raid controller is just as important

may aswell remove your ram/cpu/mobo/os everything!

tell me.. what you left with???


goodness gracious theres so much baseless talking in the forum but little experience talking

[Rhys]

if you think cache is unrealistic/unimportant.. remove your cpu cache and then tell me cache is unrealistic

cache @ raid controller is just as important

may aswell remove your ram/cpu/mobo/os everything!

tell me.. what you left with???


goodness gracious theres so much baseless talking in the forum but little experience talking

Forget mentioning everything unrelated to Raid Card cache. Can you simply advise how cache on the raid card will be improving read speed?
Does the OS read from the drive or the cache?

[NapalmV5]

What drives though?

i wont say till i put it up

[NapalmV5]

Forget mentioning everything unrelated to Raid Card cache. Can you simply advise how cache on the raid card will be improving read speed?
Does the OS read from the drive or the cache?

oh so now forget? lol ok i forgot what cache does

[NapalmV5]

ill tell you this.. adding the areca 1231 to my q9650 @ 4.6ghz is like adding 100+mhz to q9650

i know.. im too naive for sharing everything

[Rhys]

goodness gracious theres so much baseless talking in the forum but little experience talking

oh so now forget? lol ok i forgot what cache does

[NapalmV5]

look man i dont have the time to spend all day/night on forums why/how this why/how that.. im not here to correct everything.. just to balance things a bit



anyways im not here to push/force raid cards down anyones throats

happy with no raid? stay happy.. if my raid makes you sad.. my apologies

[Rhys]

look man i dont have the time to spend all day/night on forums why/how this why/how that.. im not here to correct everything.. just to balance things a bit



anyways im not here to push/force raid cards down anyones throats

happy with no raid? stay happy.. if my raid makes you sad.. my apologies

All I want to know is, do hardware raid cards 'really' improve ssd performance, and if they (or some) do, then why?

I don't care about happy or sad right or wrong, I just care about the reality.

[NapalmV5]

cache = efficiency

thats what i mean by: remove cpu/video/ssd/raid/os/everything

remove all that cache and what are you left with ?


reality?? but of course areca 1231 improves ssd efficiency

otherwise id be stupid to spend loads of $

[F.E.A.R.]

1500$ ? yeh ill be going for new ~6x slc ssd soon

f.e.a.r itll put your ramdrive to shame

But only for 2GB, than your cache is full of data.
Let a Flash-SSD-Array run with many simultanious accesses and can see a big dropdown.
No Flash-SSD can beat the raw performance of DRAM-based SSDs (since 30 years)

See Ramsan 440 or Violin 1010

Forget mentioning everything unrelated to Raid Card cache. Can you simply advise how cache on the raid card will be improving read speed?
Does the OS read from the drive or the cache?

When you start a second run of a app (or whatever), you can read from the controller-cache. Max. 1600MB/s. is no problem for one controller.

[NapalmV5]

here we go again with the cache

not when its bound to sata

my only concern is whether youll believe the numbers ill post up

[F.E.A.R.]

You can´t get more than ~ 800MB/s. without cache and 1600MB/s. with cache.
I still waiting for results with IOmeter/Workstation of your Flash-SSDs.
I don´t believe you can beat DRAM-based SSDs.

Note: The Acard 9010 have in fact SATA 2, but they are bounded with PCIe x8 between Areca and system