Quote:
RAID-0 is dangerous regardless of the technology used behind it. MTBF means absolutely nothing and it should not be relied on as a specification.
|
I agree 100% with you, I would only consider using RAID-0 as a scratch disk or in a system which only purpose is "benchmarking" (
www.hwbot.org).
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:
You can't expect to get over 100% increase in any score between a single disk vs RAID-0 without raising eyebrows.
|
the Cache Write-Back on the Intel Storage Controller does boost performance significantly in the
sequential read tests , then add in going from single to RAID 0, and you'll have a performance increase more than just 2x for some file operations.
Quote:
Also, you mix up percentage increases and "x" multipliers -- for example a 200% increase is actually 3x not 2x.
|
thanks for this, will go through the article and correct this!
Quote:
You hide the actual results behind percentages.
|
never my intention to hide any results; but with the amount of raw data to process, I thought it best to focus on certain aspects with increase/decrease in % rather than sticking with the performance numbers; which will definitely change between SSD models & sizes.
Quote:
:your summary for the write-back cache results: You fail to either qualify your statement with "it won't harm performance",
|
well, the only area where CWB is "bad" for performance is the random read test of HD Tune, in all other scenarios there's a noticeable increase in performance.
Quote:
or at least mention the data loss possibility from using write-back caching.
|
"write caching" for HDDs is enabled by default in some OS, and most enable it afterwards too; the increase in performance is worth the possible "data loss" by a sudden power down during a write operation; the only area where we now disable it actively is on removable storage, USB disks etc, to allow easy removal without losing any data we copied to the disk.
Quote:
Your RAID-1 results are surprising. Possible, I suppose, but surprising. I wouldn't expect it to be so much slower.
|
I was expecting better read results, slower write results in the RAID 1 setup, so wasn't really surprised by the outcome. Write speeds are lower as data has to be written to two drives instead of one; sequential read speeds are higher as the data is gathered from two drives at the same time.
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:
Also I appreciate the raw values instead of percentages.
|
I'll see if I can make the source .xls somewhat presentable ;)