| Thread Tools |
15th January 2010, 15:42 | #1 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| RAID 0 Stripe Sizes Compared with SSDs - OCZ Vertex Drives Tested We all know that two is better than one, we have dual core CPUs, dual GPU video cards, and if you really want to get the most out of your storage, a set of SSDs in RAID will boost your performance noticeably. We tested 6 different RAID stripe sizes and 3 different RAID configs in 4 different storage benchmarks, some synthetic, others real world operations. More than 1200 benchmarks results summed up in a few charts. http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=976
__________________ |
15th January 2010, 15:50 | #2 |
Posts: n/a
| Good article. I'll be upgrading soon (or at least after you publish the new Cooler roundup ) and I'm undecided as to an OS drive. 260 Euro can get you a very fast, single, simple to use SSD. |
15th January 2010, 16:04 | #3 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| Do note I'm not saying that I'm in any way recommending 30Gb drives, or these specific SSDs; it's only an example of what it would cost you, so you can anticipate. For €260 you can get a 80Gb Intel G2 drive (for €219 in fact). Cost wise it's not as interesting for sure. But of course this does scale upwards, if you buy 3x <€100 drives (let say the value X25 drives, 40gb a piece, for €300 you'll have a 120Gb drive with write speeds up to 120mb/s and read speeds well over 400mb/s, and random IOPs will be crazy
__________________ |
15th January 2010, 23:31 | #4 |
Posts: n/a
| I don't even know where to begin -- there is so much incorrect, misleading, and dangerous information in this article. Even for the things that the author gets right, it is obvious that he doesn't actually know why they are right, or he has miraculously stumbled upon the correct answer from false assumptions and flawed logic. Please, if you are reading this article and you are a storage technology novice, get yourself informed elsewhere. If you are already in-the-know, then you will have already noticed the misinformation and no damage has been done. |
16th January 2010, 08:54 | #5 | |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| Quote:
never claim to be "an expert", nor is it a "definitive" guide to everything SSD and RAID. But hey, it's easy to make claims about "incorrect, misleading" without actually saying anything...
__________________ | |
16th January 2010, 23:59 | #6 | ||||
Posts: n/a
| Quote:
Let me give you some examples. MTBF means absolutely nothing and it should not be relied on as a specification. Using your "34/5" ratio isn't valid, and until SSDs have been in use for 5-10 years we can make no assumptions about their long term reliability. Also I happen to know that the operating temperature for SSDs is actually not that good. Keep them around room temperature if you can. Bottom line is, RAID-0 is dangerous regardless of the technology used behind it. Your bolded statement: Quote:
Next, some of your results are suspicious. You can't expect to get over 100% increase in any score between a single disk vs RAID-0 without raising eyebrows. Also, you mix up percentage increases and "x" multipliers -- for example a 200% increase is actually 3x not 2x. You hide the actual results behind percentages. Quote:
Next, your summary for the write-back cache results: Quote:
Your RAID-1 results are surprising. Possible, I suppose, but surprising. I wouldn't expect it to be so much slower. Again, I'd like to see the raw numbers instead of percentages. The graph on the top of page 5 is awesome and really answers the question that your article attempted to. Also I appreciate the raw values instead of percentages. | ||||
17th January 2010, 08:23 | #7 | ||||||||
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| Quote:
MTBF gives you but an idea of what to expect, not what you're going to get; since it the time between failures "on average" you can start off with a failure immediately and then get the specced MTBF until the next one, but that won't do any good now Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A long time ago I did some similar tests with HDD, raid 1 vs no-raid: http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...280&articID=69 ,pretty much the same outcome overall Quote:
__________________ Last edited by jmke : 17th January 2010 at 08:25. | ||||||||
18th January 2010, 02:00 | #8 |
Posts: n/a
| Ya have some fair point, but this one I find hard to believe. What SSD would you be referring to here? I've tested a few models and none even got warm after benchmark runs. |
19th January 2010, 05:11 | #9 |
Posts: n/a
| I don't mean they need their own cooling. They don't actually self-heat very much, just make sure they are not in a case with hot air from overclocked CPUs/GPUs or your data will float away! |
19th January 2010, 05:22 | #10 | |||||
Posts: n/a
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| |||||
Thread Tools | |
| |