Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'SSDs & Data Storage' started by Computurd, Sep 3, 2009.
Eight 30 GB vertex, raid 0...
Holy shit thats fast.
Not bad. Looks like bus limit. But I could care less about sequential numbers with unrealistic block sizes. Those numbers only happen on TSM servers.
Are there any other RAID controllers yet besides the 9260-8i that work with PCIe 2.0?
Areca 1680's may be firmware updatable to most of the 2.0a spec. I believe the ARM they're based on supports it at least partially.
Can you do some benchmarks where we can see what's the access time?
I want to see a full review of this, all the benchmarking suits and everything
just follow what Anandtech did recently with the SSDs and lets see how that array stacks up.
You think you can do that Computurd?
Nominate Computer for the "Fastest Array in the west" Tag. Ockie got competitions. Its like Bandit and Snowman... speed vs size
I have already done a very large write-up on this controller over at OCZ...http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60466
There is most of it as for latencies,..
Pic taken form forum in norway.. 7x Intel SSD MLC
Yeah, about what I figured. The random completely blows. It's slower than 7200 SATA, by a lot. Can't even muster reasonable IOPS.
LOL sorrry i shouldnt have attached the screenies above, a few of thosee were when i was trying to come to grips with this controller, a few different settings, cache etc...
4K run here
Has anyone tried this controller with late model hard drives and not SSD's? I'm looking to see how it compares with an areca...
Please point me towards the 7200 SATA drive that beats these 8 ssd on a raid card (at random access).
I'd like to buy one of those 7200 SATA drives.
Those numbers from "HD benchmarks" are meaningless. They don't push the SSD to their limit.
Check out the numbers from AS SSD or IOMeter. No comparison between second gen SSD and 7200 rpm drives.
yeah lol there is no realistic use for the speed of those 4k read/writes anyways, it is just like the idiots who say that ssd'd write slow, just because they dont write as fast as they read...never mind the fact that they write WAY faster than a HDD...you could raid 8 7200 and i guarantee this setup will absolutely TOAST them.
OH and the pic of the 7 intels doing that ridiculous number that guy linked above, yeah right! Thant would mean those intels are reading at 380 MB/s APEICE! Physically impossible! That was either A>borked run B>photoshop
Read Ahead caching
Yeah, their average transfer is 273 MB/s per drive, which is possible.
Since indlinix controllers max out at 252 MB/s, I guess this really shows they weren't hitting the real world SATA limit yet
nope, sorry, there isnt enough cache on that controller to pull that off...and you cant change the amount on the 9260's, also that is still of a magnitude of 100 MB/s over the rated speed of each of seven drives, which is 700 MB above physical speed of those intels. That is much more than even the 512 cache...eight intels would beat the vertex of course, but not by this magnitude.
so what did that setup cost you? Arm, leg, both? haha
oh i forgot to list MFT "optimization" as one of the possible ways they could pull those numbers off.....AKA cheating
I second that request!
want to buy this controller for 4 Seagate Barracuda LPs of 1,5TB