[QUOTE=B!N4RY;27449521]Yeah I know, but you should always RAID identical drives for the best performance, and to get the most out of both drives.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't even make sense. You should RAID identical drives as in drives with the same performance, not the exact same ones. You don't gain anything by creating a RAID array with the two exact same drives.
[QUOTE=Odellus;27458952]That doesn't even make sense. You should RAID identical drives as in drives with the same performance, not the exact same ones. You don't gain anything by creating a RAID array with the two exact same drives.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as "drives with same performance" unless it is identical. Even if they are similar, the performance will not be 100% equal.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;27460216]There is no such thing as "drives with same performance" unless it is identical. Even if they are similar, the performance will not be 100% equal.[/QUOTE]
No shit. Okay, "identical" performance then.
[QUOTE=drummerundrcovr;27402715]Does access time matter?[/QUOTE]
It does matter, though not much for a storage drive, which is why you get an SSD and a 7200RPM HDD.
[quote=macktastic;27401278]and this is my 1tb spinpoint.[/quote]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=376665&dateline=1292203135[/img]:respek:[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=283486&dateline=1290663739[/img]
3 terrabytes of spinpoint supremacy.
[img]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5930/hdd1c.png[/img]
[img]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1653/hdd2.png[/img]
[IMG]http://i903.photobucket.com/albums/ac236/TommyC225/Capture.png[/IMG]
A WD green that was in my old prebuilt
A SSD RAID dream:
[img]http://u.cubeupload.com/borsty/ssdraid.png[/img]
:psyduck:
Sadly.. they're not mine :C
Here's my RAID:
[img]http://u.cubeupload.com/borsty/mine.png[/img]
2x WD Caviar Black 640gb in RAID 0... 90% filled.. and the cpu was doing some work for some reason :S
[b]Edit[/b]
And here a 2nd run with A LOT less processes/services running... looks better :D
[img]http://u.cubeupload.com/borsty/mine2.png[/img]
I want to see results from a SSD
[QUOTE=Jaehead;27465741]I want to see results from a SSD[/QUOTE]
Look at the post above yours :rolleyes:
Western Digital Raptor 150GB SATA
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/WD150.jpg[/img]
Western Digital Caviar 320GB SATAII
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/WD320.jpg[/img]
Western Digital Caviar 160Gb.
[img]http://localhostr.com/files/1npoQW5/WDC160gb.png[/img]
Western Digital Caviar Black 500Gb.
[img]http://localhostr.com/files/jc6lSoK/WDCB500gb.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Borsty;27465664]A SSD RAID dream:
[img_thumb]http://u.cubeupload.com/borsty/ssdraid.png[/img_thumb]
:psyduck:
Sadly.. they're not mine :C
Here's my RAID:
[img_thumb]http://u.cubeupload.com/borsty/mine.png[/img_thumb]
2x WD Caviar Black 640gb in RAID 0... 90% filled.. and the cpu was doing some work for some reason :S
[/QUOTE]
you've got a pretty abysmal speeds
how did you set up your array?
I can't be bothered doing a bench now, but I've got a RAID5 array of SSD's that is well beyond the SSD result that you've posted, it's not really that impressive or hard to do
Yay, I beat ShaRose. :dance:
[img]http://files.rewindstudios.com/Screencaps/60GB-Vertex-2E-HD-Tune.png[/img]
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
[img]http://files.rewindstudios.com/Screencaps/60GB-Vertex-2E-HD-Tune-Benchmark.png[/img]
Jeeze why are the wd 500gb blacks so bad with throughput??
4-way 16k stripe w/ 4 80gb ide seagate drives. this pci sil 680 controller is so shitty I got the same results with a 256k stripe.
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/88f5G5.jpg[/img]
woop sorry bout that
This is my lappy:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/267vb.png[/IMG]
And that is the SSD my uncle gave me. Beats the everliving shit out of the old drive.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/UThXe.png[/img]
Not sure how to take this.
[QUOTE=waxrock;27472235]woop sorry bout that
This is my lappy:
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/267vb.png[/img_thumb]
And that is the SSD my uncle gave me. Beats the everliving shit out of the old drive.[/QUOTE]
Your uncle is cool as fuck.
Why is my burst time 3.3Gb/s?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/bL14p.png[/IMG]
I was wondering what the hell with the wacky results and noticed Windows update was running.
anyone have experience with a sil 680 pci raid card? transfer speeds never break 50-60mb/s, regardless of 2way or 4way arrays. transfer speeds actually go up with smaller chunk sizes, 16k & 8k
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
using raid 0
[QUOTE=drummerundrcovr;27482121]anyone have experience with a sil 680 pci raid card? transfer speeds never break 50-60mb/s, regardless of 2way or 4way arrays. transfer speeds actually go up with smaller chunk sizes, 16k & 8k
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
using raid 0[/QUOTE]
PCI shares bandwidth with other devices on the other PCI slots, depending on what other PCI components you're using it will affect the speed. Another factor is the SIL680 is a software RAID solution, instead of using a dedicated processor to deal with the calculations its offloading it to your CPU. Those are just a couple of things that can be a bottleneck, I don't really know anything else about the computer like the types of drives or the CPU performance.
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
Actually judging by these benchmarks you're getting pretty good speeds compared to what the reviewer got - [url]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/cmd680.html[/url]
I am currently torn between two things
1. I wait for about four months until I can get some money (my birthday is in four months, I get money) to buy Sandy Bridge or
2. I spend the money I have now on an SSD.
I really don't know what to do. I was thinking of just saying fuck it and buying the SSD.
[QUOTE=M2k3;27482699]PCI shares bandwidth with other devices on the other PCI slots, depending on what other PCI components you're using it will affect the speed. Another factor is the SIL680 is a software RAID solution, instead of using a dedicated processor to deal with the calculations its offloading it to your CPU. Those are just a couple of things that can be a bottleneck, I don't really know anything else about the computer like the types of drives or the CPU performance.
[editline]17th January 2011[/editline]
Actually judging by these benchmarks you're getting pretty good speeds compared to what the reviewer got - [url]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/cmd680.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Yes I know of the bottlenecks and conflicts that can occur on the PCI bus; The card's by itself. My raid card looks like this though
[img]http://pchistory.ru/wp-content/uploads/sd-sil680-raid.jpg[/img]
The reviewer of that article was able to reach over 100MB/s on sequential writes with 3 & 4 way raid0 arrays. I'm still stuck around the 50's :saddowns: Also how is this a software raid? the card has it's own bios and that's the only place where you can configure raids. unless maybe it still puts the load on the cpu....
:crying:
[QUOTE=Odellus;27482999]I am currently torn between two things
1. I wait for about four months until I can get some money (my birthday is in four months, I get money) to buy Sandy bridge or
2. I spend the money I have now on an SSD.
I really don't know what to do. I was thinking of just saying fuck it and buying the SSD.[/QUOTE]
So you can't afford SB on your birthday if you buy an SSD right now?
[QUOTE=thf;27484748]So you can't afford SB on your birthday if you buy an SSD right now?[/QUOTE]
I can but it won't be what I want, as in I'll probably have to get a 2400 or 2500 with a lower end motherboard.
[QUOTE=Odellus;27484790]I can but it won't be what I want, as in I'll probably have to get a 2400 or 2500 with a lower end motherboard.[/QUOTE]
What's in your rig right now?
[QUOTE=drummerundrcovr;27484982]What's in your rig right now?[/QUOTE]
A Q9400, Maximus II Formula and 4 GB of some mismatched DDR2 RAM.
i'm just using common sense, but games are still scaling pretty well with dual-core cpu's. I'd like to think it'd be at least another year/year1/2 before q9000's/amd 900's will be pressed to the limit. you can overclock if you need to too...
I'd say just get an ssd, they're not that bad with prices right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
