Search results

I was talking about striped RAID-1 (two drives), which mdadm calls RAID 10,f2. That works with 2 drives, 3 drives, 4 drives, etc.

And even if the Users area were on the SSD, most home users who only use a few office apps and such (i.e., not gamers) will not be close to filling a 64GB SSD.

Did you even bother to look at the pictures on newegg? B5 = K5 + USB adapter + screwdriver

There is no hassle! There is plenty of room.

Also, there is striped RAID-1 (technically it is RAID-10,f2 aka far, but it works with only 2 drives), which gives nearly double the read speed of a single drive for QD=1 sequential reads.

A system with an SSD feels more responsive than with an HDD. Even if it is just for Windows OS and a few applications. I agree with the OP. For about $100, an SSD is a better choice than a faster CPU. The SSD will make more of a noticeable difference.

Did you even read the OP? He said what he was using it for.

64GB is plenty for Windows 7 and a few office apps and itunes. If you disable the hibernation file and have a small (or no) page file, Windows will easily fit in 20GB. If you use another 20GB for applications and data, that still leaves more than a third of the SSD free if you want to increase...

I think your problem is most likely one of these: 1) power 2) cables 3) HBA I doubt it is the HDDs themselves, linux, or mdadm. Possibly it could be a bug in the driver for your HBA, depending on what HBA you have.

It seems you have other problems with your systems. I have been getting 80-100+ MB/s with linux Samba for a long time now, through various kernel versions and Samba versions. This is with Windows 7 clients (gigabit network, obviously). I did not do anything special to achieve those rates.

For a small SSD, your best choices are the 64GB Crucial m4 or the 64GB Samsung 470.

I thought it was rather incoherent and poorly written, myself. And repetitive.

It makes no difference at all on my server.

As you said, the solution is apparently to secure erase the SSD before doing the firmware update. However, I have seen some reports that the Intel SSD toolbox will not recognize the drive when it is in the 8MB state. Has anyone succeeded in secure-erasing an 8MB-bug Intel 320 with the...

You don't say? :rolleyes:

That is an ambiguous phonetic spelling. I think "say-ta" (or say-tuh, as the case may be) is clearer. I tend to pronounce it "saw-tuh" myself, but I have heard it other ways.

I just ran CDM on a linux 3.0, samba 3.6 server and got 83 MB/s sequential read and 100+ MB/s sequential write. That server has been through several kernel revisions and samba versions during 2011 and the speeds have always been about the same. It is running SMB2 now, but the speeds were the...

It is not a problem for the linux samba servers I have used. I can get 80-100MB/s reads and writes from Win7 clients to linux samba servers.

If you want to avoid burning a CD and boot the ISO from a USB drive, I found that the firmware update runs fine from a YUMI formatted multiboot USB: http://www.pendrivelinux.com/yumi-multiboot-usb-creator/

Wow, only 4 days behind the times. http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037628767&postcount=37

Some of your 4KiB random read scores are low. You can probably increase them 30% or more if you disable CPU C-States in the BIOS.

Yes, I thought the same about the 320, based on the X25-M being very reliable. It is disappointing that Intel did not do more thorough unsafe shutdown tests on the 320, since they just added power-loss-protection capacitors and presumably modified the firmware accordingly. For a drive rated for...

Intel promises firmware fix "within the next two weeks" in message dated Sat 13 Aug. http://communities.intel.com/message/135752

This is certainly one of the most amusing threads in this forum. Slapstick comedy, hardforum style.

It is a now well-known bug in the firmware of the Intel 320 series. Many people have had the problem. Just google "8MB bug Intel 320 SSD" for more information, or look for the thread about it in this forum. It is not your fault. My best guess is that there is a probability of between 0.01% and...

You have probably been bitten by the infamous Intel 320 8MB bug. There is a thread about it here, and on Intel's forums. Does the SSD show up in the BIOS during POST? If so, is it shown as only 8MB capacity? Some people have had success with secure erasing the SSD to get it back to full...

I think that is a good approach. I will not be buying any more Intel 320 SSDs until they release a firmware fix (and probably for some time after that, to see if anyone has problems with the new firmware).

Most 24 drive hot-swap systems have backplanes with molex 4-pin power connectors.

This problem seems quite rare, but there was someone who had a similar problem last year, except that he found it depended on which SATA port he used: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1552974

I agree, but it was somewhat entertaining.

Where did you buy the HD204UI drives from? What was their manufacture date?

First, no, it does not. And second, you showed a benchmark for a 60GB vertex 3, not a 120GB.

I just skimmed through this thread, and I have to say it is hilarious. But to be serious for a minute, there is nothing odd here. All the Sandforce-controlled SSDs I have seen always advertise much higher write speeds than are actually achieved. For a 60GB Sandforce drive, 70-80MB/s write speed...

Maybe 2Xnm flash prices will drop a little. IMFT has had the 2Xnm flash market for SSDs mostly to themselves for about 6 months. But as the other flash suppliers start producing 2Xnm flash, competition may drive prices down. But I would not expect anything dramatic.

I do not think that is the right conclusion to draw from the data and this discussion. See my other post for more detail. Basically, the data from tweaktown is not ideal for the comparison. What we really need is a 100% used (no TRIM) measurement of an SSD half the capacity. That will obviously...

You are looking at differences of a few percent, which are in the noise. I am talking about differences of around 50%. Big difference.

By the way, note that in the counter-example I have been talking about, we are comparing a 75% full SSD to an empty/TRIMmed SSD of the same size. A single counter-example is enough to disprove "ALWAYS", so I think the matter of "always" -> "not always" can be laid to rest. But it may be...

They specifically said they deleted the files and emptied the trash. With Windows 7, when you empty the trash, the TRIM commands are sent. Besides, the data makes no sense if there was no TRIM. After filling it up to 75%, how could the benchmark get much faster after deleting the files, unless...

No, I am making minimal assumptions. Try to follow the simple logic. A claim was made that RAID-0 of two SSDs was always faster than a single larger SSD with TRIM. I linked to data, and used simple reasoning, to show a counter example where RAID-0 of two SSDs would not be faster than a...

No, that is not what I am assuming. What I am assuming is that SSDs work the way they work with and without TRIM, and then apply basic logic. It is not difficult to understand.