I'm trying to find out what the fastest performing SSD setup would be, irregardless of price and risk of data loss, limited only by technical considerations, for the purpose of scientific curiosity.
My rolling component build of an optimal system:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApzIz1YSh_e7dEZYb3RORFZxU21jUDh0MWRRSkhhcUE&usp=sharing
Enterprise spam: The fastest single unit is an enterprise PCI-e based SSD from OCZ, according to cpubenchmark.net (the OCZ ZD4CM88-FH-3.2T). My theory is that larger capacity SSD generally perform better than lower capacity drives, and has been reflected in a few benchmark tests weighing larger drives against smaller drives in RAID 0. I want to know if the ZD4CM88-FH can be set up in a striped array or not, since the controller would vary from the discrete card-based controllers used for SATA 6. If the controller is slower than a discrete card controller used for SATA 6 based arrays, than a multi-SSD system might be able to out-perform a system with multiple PCI-e enterprise SSDs in an array.
SSD spam: Another potentially faster build would be one that maximizes a motherboard's PCI-e slots for RAID controller cards, and outfitting it with what the fastest SATA 6 SSDs in RAID 0. This could potentially hamper overall system performance due to having to get a motherboard with more controller card capacity rather than multi-GPU support, or with those slots taken up by controller cards rather than GPUs. But again, this is a theoretical discussion on SSD performance, with overall system performance postponed until some comparative benchmarks are available.
HDD spam: After reading the thread in hardforum regarding builds with greater than 60TB of usable storage, I'm curious as to how a system running in RAID 0 might compare with one that uses the same chassis and number of drives, but replacing the large capacity drives with SSDs. houkouonchi's build is meant for capacity rather than speed, but if it were configured for speed it would fall into this category. Supercomputers used as renderers or non-real-time application don't count because they aren't a single system, and because they aren't for real-time applications.
non-RAID higher level OS arrays: The ones I've seen used on hardforum most frequently (although not exclusively) are unRAID, ZFS RAID-Z2, Synology Hybrid RAID, and Microsoft Storage Spaces. unRAID is best run off of a USB 3.0 drive, and apparently can't be run off of a SATA 6 or PCI-e based drive. Synology apparently requires a proprietary system, even though the software isn't proprietary. My theory is that most software based array management will be slower than a hardware based system. However, a large capacity array might perform faster than a smaller one by the same logic as two larger drives in an array out-performing two smaller drives in an identical configuration.
On a side note, the most difficult benchmark for a real-time centered system I can think of (but have not heard any analysis) for a single system would be running ARMA III at max settings at 8,192×4,320 in 3D (if that's even a supported resolution), streaming uncompressed at a minimum of 144fps using Open Broadcaster Software, recording mic audio separately from in-game audio in 256DSD, and recording video at 10-bit 4:4:4 YUV uncompressed h265.
My realistic system is probably just going to be walking the rope without a net, a five year old 750GB drive and a 1TB drive for game and application storage with occasional optical media backups of documents and game saves whenever I get around to it. But this isn't about my rig or budget. It's about SCIENCE!
My rolling component build of an optimal system:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApzIz1YSh_e7dEZYb3RORFZxU21jUDh0MWRRSkhhcUE&usp=sharing
Enterprise spam: The fastest single unit is an enterprise PCI-e based SSD from OCZ, according to cpubenchmark.net (the OCZ ZD4CM88-FH-3.2T). My theory is that larger capacity SSD generally perform better than lower capacity drives, and has been reflected in a few benchmark tests weighing larger drives against smaller drives in RAID 0. I want to know if the ZD4CM88-FH can be set up in a striped array or not, since the controller would vary from the discrete card-based controllers used for SATA 6. If the controller is slower than a discrete card controller used for SATA 6 based arrays, than a multi-SSD system might be able to out-perform a system with multiple PCI-e enterprise SSDs in an array.
SSD spam: Another potentially faster build would be one that maximizes a motherboard's PCI-e slots for RAID controller cards, and outfitting it with what the fastest SATA 6 SSDs in RAID 0. This could potentially hamper overall system performance due to having to get a motherboard with more controller card capacity rather than multi-GPU support, or with those slots taken up by controller cards rather than GPUs. But again, this is a theoretical discussion on SSD performance, with overall system performance postponed until some comparative benchmarks are available.
HDD spam: After reading the thread in hardforum regarding builds with greater than 60TB of usable storage, I'm curious as to how a system running in RAID 0 might compare with one that uses the same chassis and number of drives, but replacing the large capacity drives with SSDs. houkouonchi's build is meant for capacity rather than speed, but if it were configured for speed it would fall into this category. Supercomputers used as renderers or non-real-time application don't count because they aren't a single system, and because they aren't for real-time applications.
non-RAID higher level OS arrays: The ones I've seen used on hardforum most frequently (although not exclusively) are unRAID, ZFS RAID-Z2, Synology Hybrid RAID, and Microsoft Storage Spaces. unRAID is best run off of a USB 3.0 drive, and apparently can't be run off of a SATA 6 or PCI-e based drive. Synology apparently requires a proprietary system, even though the software isn't proprietary. My theory is that most software based array management will be slower than a hardware based system. However, a large capacity array might perform faster than a smaller one by the same logic as two larger drives in an array out-performing two smaller drives in an identical configuration.
On a side note, the most difficult benchmark for a real-time centered system I can think of (but have not heard any analysis) for a single system would be running ARMA III at max settings at 8,192×4,320 in 3D (if that's even a supported resolution), streaming uncompressed at a minimum of 144fps using Open Broadcaster Software, recording mic audio separately from in-game audio in 256DSD, and recording video at 10-bit 4:4:4 YUV uncompressed h265.
My realistic system is probably just going to be walking the rope without a net, a five year old 750GB drive and a 1TB drive for game and application storage with occasional optical media backups of documents and game saves whenever I get around to it. But this isn't about my rig or budget. It's about SCIENCE!
Last edited: