Decent Raid 0 performance on 2x older SSD's?

R

RogueTrip

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
2,881
Hi. I recently bought a 2nd G.Skill 64GB SSD to pair up to raid 0. This is the older Jmicron controller with no build in cache. Spec is rated with 1 drive to be read 155mb and write 90mb.

I just reinstalled the raid 0 with 128k strip. Performance is up a few mb but not much. Using the SB750 raid off my Asus M3A78-T.

With Crystal Mark 3.0 beta1 my performance is:
---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 240.279 MB/s
Sequential Write : 104.847 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 226.024 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 56.596 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 18.004 MB/s [ 4395.6 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.704 MB/s [ 415.9 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 40.549 MB/s [ 9899.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 3.021 MB/s [ 737.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 14.7% (17.5/119.2 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/14 1:48:46
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

This seems a bit low. Anything more I can do. I did do most of the tweaks recommended so far for these type of drives.

I usually hover between 7.1 and 7.2 WEI for the drive vs. 5.9 with just 1 drive installed.

TIA!!!
 
AMD chipsets are shitty when it comes to RAID and SSDs in general. This has got the be the biggest complaint I have about AMD platforms. You'll get much better performance, even with the old JMicron drives, by getting an add-in RAID card.
 
It could be that raid doesn't support trim so you'll get decreased performance if you delete and install files constantly.
 
SicKlown42012 said:
AMD chipsets are shitty when it comes to RAID and SSDs in general. This has got the be the biggest complaint I have about AMD platforms. You'll get much better performance, even with the old JMicron drives, by getting an add-in RAID card.
Click to expand...

I thought most of the issues were in the SB700 chipset, maybe I'm wrong.

Those benchmarks were with the Windows 7 default drivers. I got around to installing the older catalyst 9.11 Southbridge and Raid drivers tonight and re-ran the benchmark. Picked up a little bit.

Using 9.11 drivers:
---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 249.157 MB/s
Sequential Write : 131.797 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 222.768 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 65.948 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 19.426 MB/s [ 4742.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.920 MB/s [ 468.7 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 40.447 MB/s [ 9874.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 3.059 MB/s [ 746.8 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 15.2% (18.1/119.2 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/14 20:02:15
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)


I haven't played with the 9.12 drivers because I usually see more performance degradation on them for the SB/Raid drivers. I noticed it mostly with single drive before. Maybe if I get extra time i'll install the 9.12's again and bench.
 
RogueTrip said:
I thought most of the issues were in the SB700 chipset, maybe I'm wrong.

Those benchmarks were with the Windows 7 default drivers. I got around to installing the older catalyst 9.11 Southbridge and Raid drivers tonight and re-ran the benchmark. Picked up a little bit.

Using 9.11 drivers:
---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 249.157 MB/s
Sequential Write : 131.797 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 222.768 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 65.948 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 19.426 MB/s [ 4742.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.920 MB/s [ 468.7 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 40.447 MB/s [ 9874.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 3.059 MB/s [ 746.8 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 15.2% (18.1/119.2 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/14 20:02:15
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)


I haven't played with the 9.12 drivers because I usually see more performance degradation on them for the SB/Raid drivers. I noticed it mostly with single drive before. Maybe if I get extra time i'll install the 9.12's again and bench.
Click to expand...

The SB600/700/750 all share the same basic design. They haven't really done much work to it in the last couple of years(other than ACC). Hopefully, the next SB will focus on this and make the AMD platform that much more viable. As for drivers, I doubt you'll see any real gain. A few percent here and there is more likely to be variables in testing. But, all things considered, you do have a nice setup. It's still lightyears ahead of any mechanical drive, especially when you focus on the random scores and latency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top