SSD RAID0 - Y U NO GOOD TO ME?

waxwax the neroberg Icrontian
edited November 2011 in Hardware
Q9550
Foxconn Black Ops X48 Motherboard
2 x 120GB Corsair Force 3 (RAID 0 - Stripe Size 128K)

and . . .

SVAMO.png

tyuCt.gif

What the hell is going on here?

Comments

  • TushonTushon I'm scared, Coach Alexandria, VA Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    Firmware updates? BIOS Updates? RAID driver updates for mobo? Drive sanitation stuff? What kinda speeds were you expecting? Links for other benchmarks?

    Configuration issues?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    CrystalDiskMark uses incompressible data, which does not bode well for SandForce controllers. Try ATTO, AS-SSD and other benches for different perspectives.

    Also check partition alignment.
  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    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.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    He should still be in the ballpark of 525MB/s in the right circumstances. The X48 RAID controller is not that terrible.
  • waxwax the neroberg Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    so i should go get that 2500k and z68 board eh? :/

    OYov1.png
    H4FL8.png
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    reason for 128k stripe size?
  • waxwax the neroberg Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    fatcat wrote:
    reason for 128k stripe size?

    had 16K originally, had the same benchmarks thought something was wrong, re-did it with 128k just to see if there was a change.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    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.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    wax wrote:
    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
  • waxwax the neroberg Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    new hardware, same bullshit results (and yes, they are in the sata III/6 ports, latest drivers, etc)

    edit: looks good in ATTO, i guess AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark can suck it

    G1Sja.png
  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    wax wrote:
    new hardware, same bullshit results (and yes, they are in the sata III/6 ports, latest drivers, etc)

    edit: looks good in ATTO, i guess AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark can suck it
    Thrax wrote:
    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.
  • waxwax the neroberg Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    mertesn wrote:
    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.
  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    wax wrote:
    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.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    wax wrote:
    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.
  • waxwax the neroberg Icrontian
    edited November 2011
    mertesn wrote:
    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.

    time to PLAY ALL THE BATTLEFIELD!
  • waxwax the neroberg Icrontian
    edited November 2013
    BIOS updated to UEFI, drive firmware updated to latest version, bought a R9 290X and a shiny new Corsair AIR540. Reformatted and...

    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
Sign In or Register to comment.