Show us your hard drive performance

[lie01234]

Here is my first gen ssd from G.Skill 64GB

 

[zrtom]

I tweaked my drive layout and settings and am finally getting good results on my Windows 7 RC-1 system.

• EVGA X58 A1 motherboard w/ Intel ICH10R controller
  .
• (2x) OCZ Vertex 30GB SSDs in RAID 0 (60GB vol.)
  .
• Latest Intel ICH10R drivers as of this post
• OCZ 1.30 Firmware updated on each Vertex SSD (no jumper used)
• SSD Write caching policy enabled in device manager
• 64KB Stripe size
• No write-cache buffer flushing
  .
• Intel Matrix software installed
• Write Back Cache enabled through Intel Matrix Storage Console
• No TRIM used

I originally tried these drives in RAID 0 on the JMicron RAID built-in controller and ports, but read times were not nearly as good with the Intel ICH10R controller when write back cache (WBC) is enabled. Interestingly enough, the JMicron controller was faster than the Intel RAID controller without WBC. But with the caching, the Intel controller truly shines. And it's real-world usage noticable too!

I used HD Tune to test everything (the Pro trial version) in order to do a write test as well. The write test was done without Intel Matrix software, and without WBC, but with the firmware and Intel ICH10R updated drivers. Many report that the sweet spot on these is three drives in RAID 0, but I am quite happy with two for now.

I have a similar setup on an ICH9R Dell. 2x30GB OCZ Vertex FW1.3 RAID0, 128KB strip, W7 x64 RTM. I was getting disappointed with my RAID0 benchmarks being not much better than single Vertex benchmarks until I saw your post and installed Matrix Storage Manager and enabled Write-Back Cache. Now things are better; fairly comparable to yours except burst speed. I wonder if that has anything to do with your 64KB vs. my 128KB strip size.....

Before enabling Write-Back Cache...


After enabling Write-Back Cache...


These have had no idle time for Garbage Collector to run. I'm going to let it idle for a few hours so Garbage Collector can do its magic and run the tests again.

 

[M YANCEY]

It seems to work faster if you log off and let it idle. I have tested strip size and 128kb works the best 64kb works the drive a lot but it tested faster on small files.
In raid it is not a lot you can do since you cannot run wipers.

 

[ciphernemo]

I wonder if that has anything to do with your 64KB vs. my 128KB strip size.....

I run 128KB strip size for my two current RAID arrays (4x SSD and 2x HDD). When I was running 2x SSD a while ago I used 64KB strip size to reduce wasted space. Now I don't need to worry about that.

 

[DRUNKEL]

Here are my scores for my 4-ssd drives in raid 0

these are my hard drive scores running windows 7.they are only slightly higher than when i was running vista.
i WAS RUNNING TWO RAPTOR DRIVES IN RAID 0 BEFORE I BOUGH THE SSD DRIVES AND I WILL NEVER GO TO ANY HARD DRIVE AGAIN OTHER THAN SSD DRIVES.
ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT TALK BAD ABOUT SSD DRIVES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
i HAVE THREE COMPUTERS I USE AND ALL HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO SSD DRIVES.EVEN MY DELL LAPTOP I RUNNING SSD DRIVES AND THEY WORK GREAT AND HAVE NEVER HAD ANY TROUBLE FROM ANY OF THEM.

 

[pparks1]

ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT TALK BAD ABOUT SSD DRIVES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Not everybody uses or abuses their computer in the same way. There are plenty of limitations and issues with SSD drives...especially the earlier models. While the problems may not directly impact you based on how you use your computer, that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Here is a great read to get you up to speed on what some of these issues are. I warn you, it's a long read, but very informative.
AnandTech: The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ

And here is a follow up post from today on these forums, linking to another article which is testing some of the newest drives on the market;
http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/21809-solid-state-drive-comparison-round-2-a.html

 

[ciphernemo]

As pparks mentioned and linked, there are plenty of limitations to SSDs.

And please, try to post without the CAPS!. <grrr>

 

[pparks1]

And please, try to post without the CAPS!. <grrr>

But the caps and bold allowed us to know that he was very serious and should be taken as an authoritative source. . I read that post and was like...WTF is up with the bold caps?????

 

[M YANCEY]

ciphernemo don't you get better performance when you change strip size from 64 KB to 128KB? I have tired both and for me 128 KB works the best.

 

[zrtom]

Not everybody uses or abuses their computer in the same way. There are plenty of limitations and issues with SSD drives...especially the earlier models. While the problems may not directly impact you based on how you use your computer, that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Here is a great read to get you up to speed on what some of these issues are. I warn you, it's a long read, but very informative.
AnandTech: The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ

And here is a follow up post from today on these forums, linking to another article which is testing some of the newest drives on the market;
http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/21809-solid-state-drive-comparison-round-2-a.html

That first article came along right about in the middle of my SSD research project; I tried a Vertex, liked it and now I run them on my desktop as well as M1330 lappys and Mini 10v netbook.

I've started at FW1275 on most of them and have tried FW1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.41B and 1.42B. 1.42B was just pulled from contention as final due to problems that popped up so I've dropped back to FW1.3 for now. 1.3 has Garbage Collection, although it takes longer than the later beta firmwares; and wiper works slower than death on x64 W7 installations (I run it from a bootable VistaPE flash drive). So far I've been able to "hard" flash back to FW1.1 and then "soft" flash up to where I was going without bricking any drives; it's only a matter of time, though, if I keep that up...

This latest Round 2 Article continues to be encouraging for those of us that jumped on the Vertex crazy train....
Tom

 

[M YANCEY]

Yea you are right about it takes for ever to run GC on FW1.30. I am like you I tried them all but the 1.41B seem to work better for me because of my raid array, GC runs some much faster in raid then the 1.30 did. You are luckly you have not bricked a drive LOL my luck is not that good! I don't like the 1.42B it was slower by 10% on my rig. I don't know where this maddness will end. Take care, and good luck..

 

[ciphernemo]

ciphernemo don't you get better performance when you change strip size from 64 KB to 128KB? I have tired both and for me 128 KB works the best.

I wouldn't be able to determine that. Because I was using a two SSD RAID 0 with 64KB strip size and a four SSD RAID 0 with 128KB strip size, so the performance is very different just by number of drives alone.

 

[rEnEeK]

Seagate 250GB

Seagate 1TB

 

[ceejay]

80GB INTEL 2.5i MLC Gen.2 SSD

View attachment 25492

Test was with 128k blocks. Also, I only have an ICH7R controller......

 

[FilthyDiesel]

 

[Zen00]

To save myself the need to post a screen, this is pretty much what mine was.

 

[kicker40]

My Laptop Hard Drive.

Here is my OCZ Vertex Turbo 120GB SATA II SSD.

 

[Nikkeli]

raid owns
But yeah SSds are quite nice when you got those newer ones, acces time is almost 5 times less and data rates around twice, if not more.

 

[ciphernemo]

But yeah SSds are quite nice when you got those newer ones, acces time is almost 5 times less and data rates around twice, if not more.

Access times for SSDs are actually 100 to 120 times less (0.1ms vs. 10-12ms). This is the deal breaker for mechanical drives.

 

[Nikkeli]

Access times for SSDs are actually 100 to 120 times less (0.1ms vs. 10-12ms). This is the deal breaker for mechanical drives.

Hahah yeah, obviously.
Was looking through acces times.... 10 ms and 0.2 ms.. thats 5 times less(yeah, 50)

Anyway which SSD pulls off 0.1 ms? new intel xm-25?

ps. cant wait for cheaper prices for SSDs so i can pull off a raid (of 4) for under 300 euros.