Forum Vs Naplam - Fasted real world storage solution

[NapalmV5]

notice how your iso, program and game were faster on ICH10R?

all his results are acard+1680 (SAS) controller

and for goodness sake if as ssd benchmark is de facto measurement for you guys.. pity on you

[Rhys]

all his results are acard+1680 (SAS) controller

and for goodness sake if as ssd benchmark is de facto measurement for you guys.. pity on you

Perhaps he bought the wrong card, but it is STILL interesting how the 1680 added more mb/s in the benchmark (cache) but slowed it down to about half speed in the simulated real-world tests (ISO Game App)!
Obviously this is not definitive but if this is the start of a trend, then it could mean there are allot of people spending big £ to ruin the performance of their drives.

My current 'suspicion' is that if he used the same controller as you he would get better results than the 1680, but not as good as ICH10R.
I'm kinda thinking that you are seeing better results on Areca simply due to J-micron lack of cache. i.e. I don't think it will benefit other SSD's that now come with plenty of cache.

BUT as I have said before I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, so perhaps you can time some App / game level loads.

Does your array load COD MW levels as fast as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWCDch4YDPk

[SteveRo]

Perhaps he bought the wrong card, but it is STILL interesting how the 1680 added more mb/s in the benchmark (cache) but slowed it down to about half speed in the simulated real-world tests (ISO Game App)!
Obviously this is not definitive but if this is the start of a trend, then it could mean there are allot of people spending big £ to ruin the performance of their drives.

My current 'suspicion' is that if he used the same controller as you he would get better results than the 1680, but not as good as ICH10R.
I'm kinda thinking that you are seeing better results on Areca simply due to J-micron lack of cache. i.e. I don't think it will benefit other SSD's that now come with plenty of cache.

BUT as I have said before I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, so perhaps you can time some App / game level loads.

Does your array load COD MW levels as fast as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWCDch4YDPk

I do plan on sending back the 1680 but I wanted to TRY to make it work because in SHOULD be faster. The iop348 runs at 1200 vs 800 for the iop341 AND it can handle 4GB vs only 2GB for the areca 12xx. The 1680 could be much faster if the right f/w was written for it, will that ever happen? - who can tell - will I wait for it? - probably not.

[Speederlander]

I do plan on sending back the 1680 but I wanted to TRY to make it work because in SHOULD be faster. The iop348 runs at 1200 vs 800 for the iop341 AND it can handle 4GB vs only 2GB for the areca 12xx. The 1680 could be much faster if the right f/w was written for it, will that ever happen? - who can tell - will I wait for it? - probably not.

Which 1680? 12 port, 16, 24?

[SteveRo]

Which 1680? 12 port, 16, 24?

12 port - it went back to the egg earlier this evening -could only get it to work with the acards at sata I speed and with the Mtrons in maxed out on write B/W at approx 365MB/s -

[NapalmV5]

Perhaps he bought the wrong card, but it is STILL interesting how the 1680 added more mb/s in the benchmark (cache) but slowed it down to about half speed in the simulated real-world tests (ISO Game App)!
Obviously this is not definitive but if this is the start of a trend, then it could mean there are allot of people spending big £ to ruin the performance of their drives.

My current 'suspicion' is that if he used the same controller as you he would get better results than the 1680, but not as good as ICH10R.
I'm kinda thinking that you are seeing better results on Areca simply due to J-micron lack of cache. i.e. I don't think it will benefit other SSD's that now come with plenty of cache.

BUT as I have said before I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, so perhaps you can time some App / game level loads.

Does your array load COD MW levels as fast as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWCDch4YDPk

i dont need to prove anything to anyone

but you guys have your minds twisted by idiots who believe in iometer and who come up with mind degrading benchmarks like as ssd bench.. you guys fall for it so easy!

example: 2gb cache = .022ms write 512mb cache = .222ms write @ benchmark

which cache do you think is the fastest/offers the most performance @ most real world apps ?


alright atm i got other priorities.. but later tonight ill install cod mw/time the same loading.. ive timed his loading @ 6 seconds.. if you guys want to confirm on that..

you guys think 1231 slows down my system lol

[NapalmV5]

Does your array load COD MW levels as fast as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWCDch4YDPk

1231/512mb cache/pcie @ x4/2x raid0 slow ass jmicron ssd (275-295mb/s read)

cod4mw blackout loading @ 2-3 seconds!

you guys want me to install the game on the 4x and load it @ 1-2 seconds ?