Show us your SSD performance

pparks1 said:

whs said:

This is amazing. Over 500MB/sec transfer rate would correspond to about 5000Mb/sec - that is 5Gb/sec. I wonder how the Sata bus (3Gb/sec) handles that.

SATA bus handles it just fine as each SATA port gets 3Gb/s. So until SSD drives individually can push over 300MB/s the SATA 3.0Gb/s is more than adequate.

The entire drive controller obviously has some sort of limit, but I believe that with the Intel ICHxR controller can handle around 800MB/s in total.

I've heard that ICHR9 max is 600MB/s

pparks1 said:

whs said:

This is amazing. Over 500MB/sec transfer rate would correspond to about 5000Mb/sec - that is 5Gb/sec. I wonder how the Sata bus (3Gb/sec) handles that.

SATA bus handles it just fine as each SATA port gets 3Gb/s. So until SSD drives individually can push over 300MB/s the SATA 3.0Gb/s is more than adequate.

The entire drive controller obviously has some sort of limit, but I believe that with the Intel ICHxR controller can handle around 800MB/s in total.

Thanks for clarifying the "per port" capacity. I had genuinely forgotten that.

mpcrsc562 said:

for anyone who is running two drives in raid 0, in your opinion, does the benefit of the increased speed outweigh the fact that trim support is lost by running the array? what do you do to compensate for the loss in trim support?

If the Raid setup is used for the OS, I would prefer to keep my Trim. The added data transfer speed from a Raid is relatively irrelevant for the OS since it only reads small amounts of data. In fact I think, there is little to be gained with an SSD Raid setup for the OS all together. I single SSD has the same access time as the Raid - and that's what counts.
For a data disk, however, the situation might be different. But who can afford 2 SSDs large enough to accomodate masses of data.

I guess that some will take 2 smaller SSD drives and stripe them together to make a larger capacity drive.

I would not even do that in this case - unless the SSDs are puny. But a 30GB SSD is ample for the OS and a whole load of programs. If I had a second SSD, I would rather use it by itself as data partition. After nearly half a year of operation, my Win7 takes up 18GBs - and it is not a skimpy system, lots of programs installed

This is my new Intel X25-M 80GB, is my only drive in the system. Have two partitions on it, so far am very happy with it.

This is a CrystalDiskBenchmark immediately after installing Win7 and all my applications onto my new Intel X25-M 160GB SSD. WEI for SSD came in at 7.8.

Then later ran the AS-SSD Benchmark. Haven't done enough research yet to know how these number fair with the average Intel 160GB. However, I do know it's much quicker than the old spinner! But the "4K" numbers don't look very impressive for an SSD. garuda.

Wishmaster said:

Anyone have a Intel X25-V 40GB?
I've only found benchies for the 80GB version, and they look really good.

Im curious what kind of numbers these 40GB ones are getting as I might want to pick one up.

Wishmaster,
I found this at the Intel SSD Center webpage; hope it's not too late. garuda:

mpcrsc562 said:

for anyone who is running two drives in raid 0, in your opinion, does the benefit of the increased speed outweigh the fact that trim support is lost by running the array? what do you do to compensate for the loss in trim support?

Depends on what SSD you're using. Although Intel Rapid Storage Technology doesn't currently support TRIM in RAID (it might in the future), the Garbage Collection in the Vertex Firmware I'm running is more than sufficient to keep performance up over the 8 months or so I've been running RAID0. Complicated to set up? Not at all; I create the RAID array in the BIOS, install the OS (or restore an image) and it has run seamlessly. Nightly backups to my Windows Home Server alleviate concerns of the RAID array going sour but so far it hasn't.

I have similar W7 x64 images on a 2xVertex 30GB RAID0, a single Vertex and an Intel x25-Value drive and there is no comparison; the RAID0 array wins hands down by seat of the pants, by reboot times, and by benchmarking.
Tom