How fast is your Raid / HDD?

[kregoron]

my old raid setup before the burglar nicked it

Minimum transfer rate 362.4MB/sec
Maximum transfer rate 443.7MB/sec
Average transfer rate 401.3MB/sec
Average access time: 0.1 ms
Burst rate 552.1MB/sec
CPU usage 4.9%

Sadly they were on a bollox raid controller, i had planned to use a Areac PCIe controller at some point, should make it about 10% faster
taken from some old performance logs i had saved on the NAS

[Jabbs]

Is it really worth RAID'ing them? Mine does 185MB/s average, so why bother buying two, to get 13% more? :g:Or am I missing something?

I guess if you went for more disks in the array then if you gained 13% each time then it WOULD be worth it.  I saw a video of a system set up by a company (can't remember who they were at the moment - might be on these forums?) where they had LOADS of SSD's in the system and the speed was unbelievable!

Still, The SSD's are packing some punch anyway.

[Jabbs]

This Break video to be precise!

[Snokio]

my old raid setup before the burglar nicked it
 
Minimum transfer rate 362.4MB/sec
Maximum transfer rate 443.7MB/sec
Average transfer rate 401.3MB/sec
Average access time: 0.1 ms
Burst rate 552.1MB/sec
CPU usage 4.9%
 
Sadly they were on a bollox raid controller, i had planned to use a Areac PCIe controller at some point, should make it about 10% faster
taken from some old performance logs i had saved on the NAS

Was that your SAS rig? I'm guessing you had a few drives attached on that, all the same, thats very quick, shame you no longer have it :sad:
 

I guess if you went for more disks in the array then if you gained 13% each time then it WOULD be worth it. I saw a video of a system set up by a company (can't remember who they were at the moment - might be on these forums?) where they had LOADS of SSD's in the system and the speed was unbelievable!
 
Still, The SSD's are packing some punch anyway.

now imagine they used SLC's instead of MLC's :dribble: (and Intels instead of Samsungs :norty:)

[kregoron]

Was that your SAS rig? I'm guessing you had a few drives attached on that, all the same, thats very quick, shame you no longer have it :sad:
 

2 intel X25-m Gen2 raid 0 on a adaptec raid controller

[DannagE]

Ran it again after playing with a few settings. Dunno about the dips though :sideways:



HD Tune Pro: Intel   Raid 0 Volume Benchmark

Test capacity: full

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 200.8 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 498.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 401.4 MB/s
Access Time           : 0.2 ms
Burst Rate            : 1740.8 MB/s
CPU Usage             : -1.0%

Third times a winner!



HD Tune Pro: Intel   Raid 0 Volume Benchmark

Test capacity: full

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 365.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 496.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 403.4 MB/s
Access Time           : 0.1 ms
Burst Rate            : 1679.5 MB/s
CPU Usage             : -1.0%

[Snokio]

what settings did you change?

[DannagE]

Matrix drivers installed and write back cache enabled. Seems good to me

[TeaLeaf]

These look like the next big thing in SSD's

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702

Ok, I've wiped the drool off the keyboard and am now awaiting the arrival of March 2010 with way too much enthusiasm. :doh:

[Jabbs]

now imagine they used SLC's instead of MLC's :dribble: (and Intels instead of Samsungs :norty:)

Umm...yeah! :g:

What's the difference lol

[Snokio]

Umm...yeah! :g:
 
What's the difference lol

 
In basic terms, quite a bit,
 
One bench mark picked at random:
 
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/Desktop-Performance,938.html
 
Taken from wiki:
 
SLC versus MLC
Lower priced drives usually use multi-level cell (MLC) flash memory, which is slower and less reliable than single-level cell (SLC) flash memory.[8][9] This can be mitigated by the internal design structure of the SSD, such as interleaving and more excess capacity for the wear-leveling algorithms to work with.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#SLC_versus_MLC
 
Not always the case, but Intel seem to be the market leaders in SSD in terms of performace with their 'M' series (mainstream using MLC) and 'E' series (Extreme edition using SLC), SLC also has very fast write speeds, but all this is at a high cost :crying:
 
Kreg knows more on SSDs than me, and I may be a bit out of date :g:.

[kregoron]

In basic terms, quite a bit,
 
One bench mark picked at random:
 
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/Desktop-Performance,938.html
 
Taken from wiki:
 
SLC versus MLC
Lower priced drives usually use multi-level cell (MLC) flash memory, which is slower and less reliable than single-level cell (SLC) flash memory.[8][9] This can be mitigated by the internal design structure of the SSD, such as interleaving and more excess capacity for the wear-leveling algorithms to work with.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#SLC_versus_MLC
 
Not always the case, but Intel seem to be the market leaders in SSD in terms of performace with their 'M' series (mainstream using MLC) and 'E' series (Extreme edition using SLC), SLC also has very fast write speeds, but all this is at a high cost :crying:
 
Kreg knows more on SSDs than me, and I may be a bit out of date :g:.

sounds about right to me

tho if anyone decides to go for a SSD, remember to keep an eye out for gen 2 versions, especially intels ssd's as the gen1 are generally a fair bit slower

[Snokio]

I'm currently running a raid 5 (x3 250Gb SATA WD Hdd's)

Transfer rate:

Min 13.6 MB/sec
Max 89.3 MB/sec
Avg 52.2 MB/sec
Access time 15.4ms
 
Although I'm aware that a raid 5 has redundancy (parity), I did think it would be quicker, and just look at that graph, but in response to this bad performance, I order x2 samsung F3's for a raid 0, once up and running, I will post up the results.

And finally, here they are:
 
Currently running a raid 0 (x2 1TB SATA Samsung Hdd's)
 
Transfer rate:
 
Max: 276 MB/Sec
Min: 147.1 MB/sec
Avg: 217.3 MB/sec

Access: 13.7ms
 

 
Took awHile to sort it out as it started off with some spikes, which meant my minimum was hitting 30-40Meg/sec, and getting 202Meg/sec avg, this was caused by indexing (and to a lesser extent, old intel raid drivers), switched Indexing off and updated drivers and no more spikes or dramatic spikes