Show us your SSD performance 2

[garuda]

I was just testing this PrimoCache out, it certainly gives some impressive numbers.

With the recent discussion on the PrimoCache, I decided to bench my Ramdisk out of curiosity. I was a bit surprised with the results compared to what I remember from several months ago. I don’t recall the numbers being so disproportionate to each other.

If anyone has any insight as to why the numbers seem strange, please often your opinion. Paul's numbers seem to be more proportional to each other -- what you would expect. So I put Paul’s numbers in there for comparison. See photos below.

P.S. - the AS-SSD people need to change their font size or widen their numeric windows; I noticed both in Paul's and mine that whenever the numbers go over 9,999MB/s, the window truncates the "MB/s" suffix. They likely never expected the numbers to get so high.

 

[paulpicks21]

Can I ask how much RAM you dedicated to the Cache garuda? And did you alter any other settings apart from the amount of RAM used for Read/Write?

My results vary quite a lot from run to run. Here is a run with 12GB used.

 

[garuda]

Can I ask how much RAM you dedicated to the Cache garuda? And did you alter any other settings apart from the amount of RAM used for Read/Write?

I use a RamDisk program (and there are many out there), not PrimoCache. It depends on the project in determining how much RAM I dedicate. For large projects/files in Adobe Premiere or AfterEffects et al, my RamDisk is 50GB; for projects using Prem, AE, Photoshop, etc together, I can go up to 90GB RAM. For small stuff I scratchpad at 10-20GB. It all depends.

When using large files (over 20-40GB total, have cache assigned for preview files, and rendering --- lots of RamDisk is needed. Way more than I initially calculated. I have learned from many people much smarter than me: you can never have too much memory or too many cores. They were right. Enough preaching.

I should mention one other thing here, with this new Primo thing getting attention. A word of caution for those who have installed PrimoCache on their main computer. Romex has reported BSOD bugs with versions prior to v0.9.2 back in November. Version 0.9.2 may have fixed some of those bugs. It may or may not cause data loss when it blue-screens depending on what your level-2 cache settings are. I would not trust this beta version with any critical files, until they get the acknowledged bugs ironed out. Enabling level-2 cache can cause data issues or BSOD in some instances. It still seems to be in Beta and who knows when it will become stable. It may still have known issues that are unresolved.

Some have claimed that the PrimoCache developers have known about past BSOD bugs and yet failed to promptly warn customers about these unresolved issues. I would use caution in what files you address with this software until a stable version arrives. You can check the Romex forum for warnings, news, and updates at this link:
Romex Software Forum ? View forum - PrimoCache Section

 

[paulpicks21]

Can I ask how much RAM you dedicated to the Cache garuda? And did you alter any other settings apart from the amount of RAM used for Read/Write?

I use a RamDisk program (and there are many out there), not PrimoCache. It depends on the project in determining how much RAM I dedicate. For large projects/files in Adobe Premiere or AfterEffects et al, my RamDisk is 50GB; for projects using Prem, AE, Photoshop, etc together, I can go up to 90GB RAM. For small stuff I scratchpad at 10-20GB. It all depends.

When using large files (over 20-40GB total, have cache assigned for preview files, and rendering --- lots of RamDisk is needed. Way more than I initially calculated. I have learned from many people much smarter than me: you can never have too much memory or too many cores. They were right. Enough preaching.

I should mention one other thing here, with this new Primo thing getting attention. A word of caution for those who have installed PrimoCache on their main computer. Romex has reported BSOD bugs with versions prior to v0.9.2 back in November. Version 0.9.2 may have fixed some of those bugs. It may or may not cause data loss when it blue-screens depending on what your level-2 cache settings are. I would not trust this beta version with any critical files, until they get the acknowledged bugs ironed out. Enabling level-2 cache can cause data issues or BSOD in some instances. It still seems to be in Beta and who knows when it will become stable. It may still have known issues that are unresolved.

Some have claimed that the PrimoCache developers have known about past BSOD bugs and yet failed to promptly warn customers about these unresolved issues. I would use caution in what files you address with this software until a stable version arrives. You can check the Romex forum for warnings, news, and updates at this link:
Romex Software Forum ? View forum - PrimoCache Section

Thanks for the info.

I should have worded my question better, I was attempting to try and help with your disproportionate numbers.
What I should have asked was how much RAM did you have allocated when you ran the AS SSD test in your screenshot? I understand you are not using Primo, but my findings in Primo indicate the more RAM allocated gives higher scores in AS SSD. I figured if you were using a particularly large amount of RAM then this could explain the disproportionate figures. It's only a theory. Maybe try it with 4GB or 12GB allocated to see if there is any difference.

Paul.

 

[Britton30]

Garuda AS SSD says the alignment id bad for your RAM disk even though 8032K is divisible by 4. The alignment must be divisible evenly by for the structure of the SSD files system and how it addresses data. I don't know exactly how that translates to the scores shown though.

I can't say how it can be changed on a RAM disk. It could also be the way AS SSD reads it since RAM isn't the same as an SSD's NAND memory.

 

[garuda]

..... I figured if you were using a particularly large amount of RAM then this could explain the disproportionate figures. It's only a theory. Maybe try it with 4GB or 12GB allocated to see if there is any difference.

Paul, your question was fine, sometimes I don't interpret so good. I ran AS-SSD with both 50GB & 10GB RAM based on your theory earlier posted. But the numbers were very similar both ways: 50 or 10G; it was the disproportionate part that threw me. And thanks for your suggestion in trying different sizes, often that makes a difference as you found in your runs. I'm stumped on this one. I hope Britton has found the answer.

Garuda AS SSD says the alignment is bad for your RAM disk even though 8032K is divisible by 4. The alignment must be divisible evenly by for the structure of the SSD files system and how it addresses data. I don't know exactly how that translates to the scores shown though.

I can't say how it can be changed on a RAM disk. It could also be the way AS SSD reads it since RAM isn't the same as an SSD's NAND memory.

Good eye finding that. I have since checked Diskpart and it verifies that the alignment is bad. Since I think alignment relates to handling block sizes, you likely discovered the reason for disproportionate readings -- it handles different block sizes better than others when align is off. And this seems REALLY off: 8032K. Thanks! I'm putting together the documentation to send to RamDisk company to ask for their help on this. And yes, I checked for any settings in the RamDisk setup for alignment adjustment and found nothing. I'll have to see what the RamDisk company says.

 

[Britton30]

I just restored an image to this fresh drive, enabled Rapid Mode. Not as high marks as the 8840EVO but still impressive.

 

[whs]

Impressive indeed.

 

[rvcjew]

when mine gets to access time it gives me this. anyone know why?

 

[A Guy]

Something has locked access? A Ram drive, some caching software? A Guy

 

[Britton30]

when mine gets to access time it gives me this. anyone know why?

I have had the same error, I don't know why or what it means but when re-running AS SSD again it completed the run fine.

 

[sygnus21]

Any Windows 8.1 users here?

This is my second attempt to run AS SSD Benchmark I still get this error. This is after rebooting the system from the first attempt.



Anyone know what's going on

ATTO seems to be working though....



BTW this is with an OCZ Vertex 4, which is being replaced tomorrow by a Samsung 840 Pro.

Anyway can somebody help with the error.

Thanks

 

[Defender3]

I installed a 960GB Crucial M500 over the Holidays. Here's a comparison of the M500 to the M4 it replaced (Crystal Disk Mark for both; AS SSD for the M500):

 

[Britton30]

The M500 series looks like a really good performer Defender.

 

[Defender3]

The M500 series looks like a really good performer Defender.

Thanks - I think I'll keep it. I was looking at the Samsung, but the price of the Crucial was pretty good on Black Friday. Since I basically use the machine for home use and the occasional first person shooter, the performance advantage of the Samsung didn't justify the increased price.

 

[Britton30]

You're right, the Samsungs are not that much difference for the price.
My 840Pro 265GB. Nearly the same in 4K Read/Wrote which is the number important to the OS. Sequential scores are for the marketing departments but, buyers are getting smarter and want the 4K numbers.

 

[whs]

There is an interesting video about the Mushkin Chronos 240GB performance measurements on this Neweeg website.

Btw: This 240 GB (which is really a 256GB) SSD sells for $129,99 right now which is an excellent price. I paid $138 for it 3 months ago and thought it was a good price, lol.

 

[essenbe]

Wolfgang, I don't think you'll miss the $8. LOL. But, that is a good price for it. I've heard they are very good drives.

 

[whs]

Steve, not only are they good drives, but Mushkin stands behind their products,

I had a 2 year old 60GB Mushkin fail. Wrote a note to Mushkin and within 2 hours they agreed to replace it - which they did after I had mailed in the defunct drive.

 

[paulpicks21]

I forgot to give an update on my dead Crucial M4.

I updated the firmware and it is working fine again.