Firmware updates? BIOS Updates? RAID driver updates for mobo? Drive sanitation stuff? What kinda speeds were you expecting? Links for other benchmarks?
CrystalDiskMark uses incompressible data, which does not bode well for SandForce controllers. Try ATTO, AS-SSD and other benches for different perspectives.
Unless I'm looking at the wrong part (link), your motherboard doesn't have SATA III ports. That's most likely your problem. The SSDs require SATA III for full speeds, even in a RAID configuration. You're getting near what I got for the Vertex 3 on a P67 motherboard, so your numbers would make sense for a 2xSATA II RAID-0 array.
Your ATTO score shows what your array does with compressible data. As you can see, it's in the ballpark of 525MB/s, as I anticipated. You're at the limit of SATA 3Gbps with those scores. If you want better, you'll need SATA 6Gbps.
Your ATTO score shows what your array does with compressible data.
ATTO and AS-SSD/CDM use entirely different types of data. ATTO is a "best case" test which uses very compressible data - something SSDs can very easily work with. AS-SSD and CrystalDiskMark use non-compressible data, presenting a "worst case" scenario. Real world usage will fall somewhere in the middle depending on the kinds of data you're using. It's the case for any SSD right now.
ATTO and AS-SSD/CDM use entirely different types of data. ATTO is a "best case" test which uses very compressible data - something SSDs can very easily work with. AS-SSD and CrystalDiskMark use non-compressible data, presenting a "worst case" scenario. Real world usage will fall somewhere in the middle depending on the kinds of data you're using. It's the case for any SSD right now.
seemed like marvell chipset ssds (like the crucial m4) seemed to rock those tests. to be honest i have 240gb raid 0 for $218 after rebate, so i really cant complain.
seemed like marvell chipset ssds (like the crucial m4) seemed to rock those tests. to be honest i have 240gb raid 0 for $218 after rebate, so i really cant complain.
That remids me... also make sure you're running on the native SATAIII ports, and not something connected to an add-in chip. My P67 board has two ports on a Marvell controller (different from the SSD controller). The performance is horrible compared to the Intel controller.
seemed like marvell chipset ssds (like the crucial m4) seemed to rock those tests. to be honest i have 240gb raid 0 for $218 after rebate, so i really cant complain.
Because Marvell doesn't use the same compression algorithms that SandForce does.
That remids me... also make sure you're running on the native SATAIII ports, and not something connected to an add-in chip. My P67 board has two ports on a Marvell controller (different from the SSD controller). The performance is horrible compared to the Intel controller.
its in the native intel sata one, i have my optical drive running on the marvel sata 6 and old sata drives on the sata 3 ports.
Comments
Configuration issues?
Also check partition alignment.
had 16K originally, had the same benchmarks thought something was wrong, re-did it with 128k just to see if there was a change.
okay. I've always done my Raid0's 16k/16k. Was just curious if times had changed
edit: looks good in ATTO, i guess AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark can suck it
seemed like marvell chipset ssds (like the crucial m4) seemed to rock those tests. to be honest i have 240gb raid 0 for $218 after rebate, so i really cant complain.
Because Marvell doesn't use the same compression algorithms that SandForce does.
its in the native intel sata one, i have my optical drive running on the marvel sata 6 and old sata drives on the sata 3 ports.
time to PLAY ALL THE BATTLEFIELD!
200 MB/s Seq again. Meh.
Edit: Somehow I forgot to mention I had a Z68 board and i2500K.
Edit: Looks fine in ATTO. fuck AS-SSD