Guest John Lam Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 SSD Power !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinos111 Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) Congratulations on the result, but! Can you explain that with this small controller took out 1259 General Usage & 1703 Virus Scan. I mention this because neither Areca 1880 does not make this result with eight SSD. Edited April 15, 2012 by Dinos111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 55K is broken. Nice result! @Dinos: 1703 virus scan is easy with onboard raid. I've seen 2K virus scan with onboard, depends on mobo and RST. Virus scan is not exceptional, just very good. The general usage is 400 higher than the best gen usage on hwbot! Areca 18XX and Revo 3 X2 480 have done 900 gen usage... No known setup has been tested at 1300 gen usage before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Lam Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 @Dinos: This is Fusion-MPT 2.0 IO Controller , PCI-E 2.0 x8 , 8 SATA 6GBps , Max 4000MB/s Bandwidth and Max 320,000 IOPS in 4K Read !! easy to have 2K virus scan and over 2K gen usage ,setting and optimization is very important for RAID 0 SSD Array. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) The Areca 1882IX is specced at 4700MB/s bandwidth. It also supports 4GB DDR3 1333MHz ram for cache. The onboard ram cache is what yields high general usage performance... With 3x maxiops or 5x maxiops, it yields 800-900MB/s Gen Usage if configured correctly. Gen Usage does not scale with number of SSDs between 3 and 5, in my experience. This can also be correlated with Stevero's 1880 using 15x hardware ramdrives, or mikecdm running an older areca with 2GB onboard cache (slower ddr) - these sorts of cards can push 600-900 gen usage due to caching, storage disks matter very little. What is housing the Fusion-MPT 2.0 IO Controller? Is this an LSI card? I would love to see some ATTO/Crystaldiskmark/ASSSD screens from this puppy. This is all I have handy for the Areca in 3x RAID0: Edited April 15, 2012 by I.M.O.G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelaras Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Hi Mad222 , Please forgive me for questioning your great result ... From the picture , i can understand that this raid controller is an LSI 9211-8i . I can't get it how one old raid controller from 2009 can score better than one highend 1880X which has 4GB+ of cache . I'm confused ... Even the raid menu is the same with the 9211-8i . Also the specs that HCEPC wrote match exactly. It's a value controller priced around $250 . There are threads from many forums about this controller performance . http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?241712-LSI-9211-8i-versus-LSI-9260-8i-versus-Areca-1231ML-2G http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?240574-LSI-9211-8i It should be noted that this controller doesn't have onboard cache , so it doesn't support caching at all . Huge disadvantage over the other raid controllers . http://www.lsi.com/downloads/Public/Host%20Bus%20Adapters/LSI_SAS9211-8i_PB_032211.pdf http://www.lsi.com/downloads/Public/Obsolete/Obsolete%20Common%20Files/fusion.pdf I would like to make the same request as I.M.O.G. . Can you please show as an as-ssd bench of your array ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew pro Posted April 15, 2012 Crew Share Posted April 15, 2012 Wow crazy good general access!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluvocio Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 very nice mad222, crazy storage and GDDR scores ... WR is your... for now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRo Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I played with a 9211 for some time and even with 8xR0 acards I was never able to get these kind of scores out of it. - could be I wasn't set up correctly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Lam Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2274630_hkepc_as_ssd_benchmark_ddr2_ramdisk_317_points?recalculate=true Edited April 16, 2012 by HKEPC add photo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Lam Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2274639_hkepc_as_ssd_benchmark_ddr2_ramdisk_2463_points Edited April 16, 2012 by HKEPC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiltevros Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Really??????????????? Stop using Windows Compresion..... Its not legal its same as Dynamic Drive..... We re not fools.... Storage Sector feeds our home.... so plz dont post CPU/Ram sencitive caching things... LSI 9260 is limited to 76.000 IOPS in IR controler by its own it only perform more than that in Dynamic or IT frimware... whitch is the same us ES cpu's or custom Frimware... Do u want really to start doing this on WR's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad222 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Guys, thx for all your concern Please disregard the above ATTO/ASSSD tests provided by one of our members who actually wanted to prove its’ inaccuracy. In fact, Windows Compression can’t enhance the efficiency of PCMark HDD Screen Cap#1 No Windows Compression is used http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n568/madtse/NoCompress.png Screen Cap#2 Windows Compression is used http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n568/madtse/Compressed.png http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n568/madtse/research.png http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n568/madtse/research-2.png Yes, increased efficiency can be found in ATTO/ASSSD, but NOT in CrystalDiskMark as diff. testings are conducted. ATTO & ASSSD are OS based & CrystalDiskMark is I/O based Futuremark PCMARK 05 HDD Tests are based on RankDisk developed by Intel. It records the trace of disk I/O activity during benchmarking and bypasses the file system and the operating system's cache. If we compress the data, tMB/s and IOPS will be lower and PC Mark HDD score will decrease accordingly Our Lab has been conducting such study in the last few months & concluded some very interesting findings. As professional Overclockers, we hope we could look into things more in-depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.