Forum Vs Naplam - Fasted real world storage solution

[NapalmV5]

heres the last vid on 4x jmicron slc ssd.. am finally getting faster ssds

as promised: light loadup: 300 x firefox @ default home page "light" loadup

unlike all the other vids q9650 @ 4ghz only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHJ8i2D-NmQ

after youtube vid processing the vid dont look that great.. sorry about the quality

[SteveRo]

Good morning Mr Napalm, nice to hear from you and nice video!
What are you thinking of replacing your SSDs with?

[NapalmV5]

i redid/posted new better quality vid^

good morning mr steve thanks!

just faster slc.. nothing extraordinary.. not 100% on anything atm but ill be getting smtg this week

[Ao1]

Hi Napalm, looking forward to seeing the 4x jmicron replacement. I'm a little surprised you are buying now when the new gen SATA 6 drives will be out before the end of the year.

I take it the 1231 is staying for a bit longer?

Regarding your batch test. I tried it on my single ssd. Task manager tells me that 300 processes start up but only 29 instance of IE actually open.

I tried opening 300 copies of Notepad and that worked OK. It took 22 seconds. It used around 3GB of RAM and the CPU seemed to only max out at 65% (I guess because the SSD could not cope).

After opening around 100 copies the pc seemed to lock up for a few seconds before the rest opened. The QD seemed to max out around 60, so it would seem that the lock up occurred when the QD got too much to handle.

For anyone interested this is the code for the batch file to open one instance of IE. (Just repeat on separate lines to add more instances).

Start "" "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe"

To open Notepad:
Start "" "C:\Windows\NOTEPAD.EXE

[NapalmV5]

hi audienceofone.. sata6 drives/controllers dont budge me at all.. 1231 staying a megabit longer

try 100x/150x/200x ie probably certain apps are limited to a certain # of instances

notepad.. light loads i dont know how to do light loads.. wasnt gonna post light load vid/s.. but alright

ill post a vid of 100x/200x/300x firefox.. ill see how many notepad/iexplorer/calculator

100x ff = 5 sec
200x ff = 10 sec
300x ff = 15 sec

if you look closely at the vid youll see the 300x ff loading in 15 sec the rest of the loadup is loading the home page


lol @ onehertz - what are you going to be getting then ??

[NapalmV5]

i just uploaded one more vid.. still processing..

i tried ie6 @ 51x max instances and since im not using it didnt bother to update it

instead i did 100x firefox/notepad/calculator.. keep in mind there are two loadings going on since group similar is enabled

was gonna do 200x/300x/400x ff.. never loaded more than 400 so went as far as ff goes 498x firefox

here you have it 498x ff in 27 sec loadup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vyKUc7CVO4

no more 4x jmicron! onto faster ssd

[One_Hertz]

28-32sec for 498 ff for me. Seems to be a bit different every time I run it.

I will probably change to a dual port acard for the more important stuff and an x25-m for less important. All this raid business does nothing for me.

[jcool]

Hi Napalm, looking forward to seeing the 4x jmicron replacement. I'm a little surprised you are buying now when the new gen SATA 6 drives will be out before the end of the year.

I take it the 1231 is staying for a bit longer?

Regarding your batch test. I tried it on my single ssd. Task manager tells me that 300 processes start up but only 29 instance of IE actually open.

I tried opening 300 copies of Notepad and that worked OK. It took 22 seconds. It used around 3GB of RAM and the CPU seemed to only max out at 65% (I guess because the SSD could not cope).

After opening around 100 copies the pc seemed to lock up for a few seconds before the rest opened. The QD seemed to max out around 60, so it would seem that the lock up occurred when the QD got too much to handle.

For anyone interested this is the code for the batch file to open one instance of IE. (Just repeat on separate lines to add more instances).

Start "" "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe"

To open Notepad:
Start "" "C:\Windows\NOTEPAD.EXE

I just tried this on my laptop - bad idea
Even though it has a 120GB Ultradrive, its CPU and Ram weren't really up to the task

Hey napalm, you figure a few of those new Sandforce SSDs could beat ur setup? They should, considering the insane 4k random numbers...
I'm getting two of those tomorrow, will do your FF loadup test then

[GullLars]

I must state i have issues with a script simply opening the same program 100x times or more, it could simply be cached. If you want more of a challenge, try opening 50-100 different programs and timing it.
I did that on my 1,5 year old rigg with 2R0 Mtron Pro 7025 32GB off AMD SB650, Phenom x4 @ 2,8Ghz, and 8GB DDR2 800mhz. 60 apps (some heavy) loading in ca 40 sec. Prefetch and superfetch off, and recorded it in 1920x1200 (wich added 10 seconds, it takes ca 30sec when not recording).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCCPS0Hoe28

Anvil had to 1-up me, so he did a simelar thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sax5wk300u4
And then again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFY_JEEDlK4

If you'd like to demonstrate the superiority of your storage solution, I have an IOmeter config i'd like you to run. It's basically mapping small block IO, both sequential and random, read and write, and mixes of them.

[NapalmV5]

28-32sec for 498 ff for me. Seems to be a bit different every time I run it.

I will probably change to a dual port acard for the more important stuff and an x25-m for less important. All this raid business does nothing for me.

lol try it @ 4ghz/120 dpi/extra large fonts

i can loadup 498x ff in 20 sec @ normal settings/4.5-6ghz

but then what would be the point in getting faster ssd.. let me upgrade! lol

[NapalmV5]

I just tried this on my laptop - bad idea
Even though it has a 120GB Ultradrive, its CPU and Ram weren't really up to the task

Hey napalm, you figure a few of those new Sandforce SSDs could beat ur setup? They should, considering the insane 4k random numbers...
I'm getting two of those tomorrow, will do your FF loadup test then

sandforce faster huh ?? lol yeh show me tomorrow

[NapalmV5]

I must state i have issues with a script simply opening the same program 100x times or more, it could simply be cached. If you want more of a challenge, try opening 50-100 different programs and timing it.
I did that on my 1,5 year old rigg with 2R0 Mtron Pro 7025 32GB off AMD SB650, Phenom x4 @ 2,8Ghz, and 8GB DDR2 800mhz. 60 apps (some heavy) loading in ca 40 sec. Prefetch and superfetch off, and recorded it in 1920x1200 (wich added 10 seconds, it takes ca 30sec when not recording).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCCPS0Hoe28

Anvil had to 1-up me, so he did a simelar thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sax5wk300u4
And then again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFY_JEEDlK4

If you'd like to demonstrate the superiority of your storage solution, I have an IOmeter config i'd like you to run. It's basically mapping small block IO, both sequential and random, read and write, and mixes of them.

here we go again

FYI: its not chached.. look @ ram peak @ task manager

FYI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBKB2NndbI

FYI: i had this setup since nov. 2008

FYI: iometer ??

[One_Hertz]

If you'd like to demonstrate the superiority of your storage solution

That's the thing, we are not. It is pretty much a full system test. Who cares how fast your storage is if your rig is slow.

[GullLars]

True dat

From what i've seen, the Areca controllers coupled with a few SSDs are lightning fast for real world usage.

[NapalmV5]

That's the thing, we are not. It is pretty much a full system test. Who cares how fast your storage is if your rig is slow.

thanks onehertz

True dat

From what i've seen, the Areca controllers coupled with a few SSDs are lightning fast for real world usage.

gulllars lol now youve seen i never claimed superiority.. though ill go up against such "awesomeness" mostly for fun

[Ao1]

300 x FF = 29 seconds
900 x FF = lock up after 80 seconds, then lost track whilst trying to avoid reboot.

[GullLars]

If you insist on spamming one application, try making a "multi-thread" batch setup, make one batch launching 10 other, and then have those 10 launch N instances of the program each, like 30 for a total of 300. Should be interresting to see if the QD skyrockets.
I stilll suspect the ML1231 reads every FF instance afte the first 2-10 from cache, and thereby get cache speeds instead of disk speed, so you'd basically be benching the RAID controllers caching performance.

[FlawleZ]

I made this one for fun just to show a few n00b friends how much difference even a simple SSD setup makes. Includes startup from BIOS, 10 app Batch, and then shutdown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bndK-cbokU

I can do the 40 app batch that's posted earlier in the thread but kind of pointless since I'm just on a single Vertex.

[NapalmV5]

300 x FF = 29 seconds
900 x FF = lock up after 80 seconds, then lost track whilst trying to avoid reboot.

nice lol @ 900 ff wow

since your on win7 i take it.. idk how many max ff you can launch without issues.. start @ 498 and add a bunch more after each launch and youll reach a limit.. let me know what that limit is on win7

[NapalmV5]

If you insist on spamming one application, try making a "multi-thread" batch setup, make one batch launching 10 other, and then have those 10 launch N instances of the program each, like 30 for a total of 300. Should be interresting to see if the QD skyrockets.
I stilll suspect the ML1231 reads every FF instance afte the first 2-10 from cache, and thereby get cache speeds instead of disk speed, so you'd basically be benching the RAID controllers caching performance.

so all im doing is benching cache

that statement takes the cake!!

[NapalmV5]

I made this one for fun just to show a few n00b friends how much difference even a simple SSD setup makes. Includes startup from BIOS, 10 app Batch, and then shutdown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bndK-cbokU

I can do the 40 app batch that's posted earlier in the thread but kind of pointless since I'm just on a single Vertex.

nice indeed.. ssd can make any system fly.. and you dont need large number of ssds in order to enjoy an xtremely fast system

[[XC] Oj101]

heres the last vid on 4x jmicron slc ssd.. am finally getting faster ssds

as promised: light loadup: 300 x firefox @ default home page "light" loadup

unlike all the other vids q9650 @ 4ghz only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHJ8i2D-NmQ

after youtube vid processing the vid dont look that great.. sorry about the quality

I just tried this on a 5,400RPM drive

Here's something bone-shattering for you, watch the beginning of this video. I could feel the non-existant platters breaking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBvQuin7Y9w

[Computurd]

so all im doing is benching cache

that statement takes the cake!!

umm yea...you are.
doesnt take away from the fact that your system IS fast. other things do come into play here for uber loads, etc. nice job
however.
from a storage standpoint, yes that is all you are doing. do it with ich10r that fast and prove him wrong if that is your intention.

it is a nice trick though. very fast!

[GullLars]

Or he could disable the RAID controllers cache, prefetch, and superfetch.

The results are impressive, and i don't question the speed, just the point of opening 100's of instances of the same program.
BTW, did anyone try to run a multi-threaded version? either a batch launching 5-10 other batches wich opens the programs, or just making 5-10 copies of a batch lauching the programs. And could someone compare a single batch to multiple batches with regards to queue depth? I would like to see if it matters

[Nizzen]

If you run a program more than once, the program is loading it from the cache.

This way you can get 800MB/s + win xp load in pcmark 05. Too bad the 220mb/s? limit is there for valid score or not.

If you are running a benchmark like crystal diskmark or hdtune more than once and the testfile is smaller than cache, the benchmark is loading from the cache.

If it is not using the cache, why have cache?