RAID0 performance issue 4xSSDs

h0rm1 · Dec 18, 2014

Hello guys,

I have an Asrock Fatal1ty Z87 Killer motherboard and as i can see from the Manual it has 6xSata3 ports. I have 4 x identical kingston v300 ssds (120gb), another intel ssd and a conventional hdd so all the ports are filled. I have raid0 for all the kingston ssds (sata ports 1,2,4,5 - intel ssd which is the OS drive is at port 0 and the hdd at port 3).
In crystaldiskbenchmark tool i have about ~750MB read which is kinda low for 4 ssds. I saw another post of a guy who had 4xsamsung 840 ssds on z87 motherboard (i know they are faster but still) and he was maxing out the raid controller at ~1500mb.

Do you have any suggestions about what could be wrong ?
Maybe the IRST driver used ? Maybe some settings from the IRST utility ?

PS:
OS is windows 8.1 x64.
The array will only be used to store games so i really want raid0 as i don't mind losing the game files if a drive fails.
I haven't checked single/dual/3 drive performance yet.

EDIT: I`m currently at work now so i can't perform individual benchmarks on all of them but as i found out i could have bought some of the crappy ones which don't perform as good. I'll further test them when i get home, but for ~28$ each (it was a black friday deal)
i guess i can't complain.

photonboy · Dec 18, 2014

1) Only the LOAD times of the games is affected BTW, and greater than a single SSD is unlikely to be noticed even there.

For example, a game may start in 15 seconds instead of 35 seconds. With 4xRAID0 you might get 14 seconds (if 1500MB/second).

2) Maybe try testing each SSD at a time in case there is an issue holding back performance. Then test with 2xRAID0 and swap for the other 2xRAID0 and see how that compares.

*You can create a backup IMAGE to make your life easier. So:

a) create backup Image of Windows setup to HDD
b) create a restore DVD (i.e. using Acronis True Image Free for WD or DiscWizard for Seagate)
c) rebuild RAID array in BIOS
d) boot to restore DVD and restore backup

h0rm1 · Dec 18, 2014

photonboy :

Thank you very much for the answer, i will do just that when i get home. I won't be needing the backup image though because the OS is not on the RAID. I don't think there will be any problem with deleting and recreating the array because i just installed the OS with the RAID option selected in UEFI (even though the OS is not on the RAID). I'll keep the post updated in case i find anything of value

Thank you again !

photonboy · Dec 18, 2014

Personally, I'd SELL three of those SSD's then buy a 3TB Seagate HDD with the money (about $105 USD).

I assume you already have an SSD for Windows. Thus, I'd recommend a final setup like THIS:

SSD#1 - Windows + applications only

HDD#1 - Steam games, backup Image of SSD#1, downloads, media..

SSD#2 - used for the "2nd Steam folder" for games with frequent loads like SKYRIM (jumping around map, entering dungeons/buildings)

Other:
You can create a second Steam folder and put on a different drive. You can then MOVE games between the HDD folder and SSD folder (handy to free up space if game not played on SSD anymore).

1 - Create game backup in Steam
2 - Delete Local Content in Steam (removes game but not save files which are usually in the Documents folder on C-drive)
3 - Restore game but choose the 2nd Steam folder (create before starting this step)
4 - Delete backup to save space (I keep for SKYRIM though in case a mod screws things up and I need to put untouched copy back on and restore the mods)

Summary:
This may seem weird to you, but your RAID0 setup really isn't going to benefit you much for most games and is also not terribly reliable since failure of any of the four SSD's loses all your data.

Anyway, the choice is yours but this is what I'd do.

El Pelican · Dec 19, 2014

Which drivers are you using from your RAID 0 array?

h0rm1 · Dec 19, 2014

photonboy :

WOW !, thanks for the long and informative post. I know the ssd RAID0 config is mostly about numbers in synthetic benchmarks and almost no real world performance but i wanted to find out what's the limiting factor and i found out.

Apparently 2 of the 4 ssds are "lemons"

. It's kind of strange because i recently found a couple of other people on the internet with the same "problem". Let me explain:

The faster ssds have the 580ABBF0 firmware which strangely is found only on their hyperx series. These perform better than the usual V300 ssds with asynchronous mlc because in AS SSD i get 450 MB/s (seq. read) although on the Kingston spec sheet these speeds are specified only for compressible data (crystaldiskmark).

The slow ones with 541ABBF0 firmare which is also found on their hyperx series perform miserably ~180 MB/s seq. read in AS SSD and also in crystaldiskmark which is about 2.5x under Kingston's specifications of the drive.

This is why the 4xSSD array failed on the read speed, not because of the RAID controller but because of the slower ssds in the array. I created an array from the faster ones and as expected the speed was about ~900 MB/s seq. read.

Now i also tried to upgrade the firmware but because the 580ABBF0 firmware is available as an upgrade from 541ABBF0 but only for the hyperx drives it won't work with my model.

I don't know why kingston would put the firmware from their hyperx line of ssds into the slower v300 line without the possibility to upgrade it, is beyond me. I'll try and contact the customer support to see if they can supply a tool in order to upgrade the v300 to the 580ABBF0 version like the other 2 that i have.

@El Pelican i have the latest ones 13.2.4.1000, i heard that for windows 8.1 it's recommended to use 11.7 but in my case it's not the driver that's holding me back apparently.

Also the proof, i took this before i even installed them and found what the problem was:

Edit: The link won;t show apparently i don't know why.

photonboy · Dec 20, 2014

Not sure if you read THIS: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7763/an-update-to-kingston-ssdnow-v300-a-switch-to-slower-micron-nand

Personally, I'd write a very brief e-mail asking to swap yours for the faster versions. I had success with OCZ a few years ago swapping a Vertex 2 for a Vertex 4 for a controller issue.

I'm not even sure how this is legal since you have identical models (i.e. V300) so it's reasonable to assume the same specifications.

Kingston site: http://www.kingston.com/en/ssd/v#sv300s3

It says "up to 450MBps" and does not distinguish between firmware versions (which I'd tell Kingston in your e-mail). There's a superscript "2" but if you follow that it reads:

"...Speed may vary due to host hardware, software and usage."

This only refers to the users PC however not any firmware changes.

*Thus Kingston has no legal leg to stand on. To me it's not the cost but an issue of "sneakiness" which reminds me of when OCZ put less memory in later versions of the same 60GB model (I had 3xRAID0 and lost about 10GB).

Here's a quick tips on Technical Writing which I've found very useful over the years.

Dear XXX,
First statement quickly states the main problem and possibly what you'd like done about it.

Brief history. Include the LEGAL nature of the problem (false advertising basically).

Closure. Same as opening but place the final emphasis on EXACTLY you want them to do (swap for fast version of same model).

Search

RAID0 performance issue 4xSSDs

h0rm1

Distinguished

photonboy

photonboy

Titan

h0rm1

Distinguished

photonboy

Titan

El Pelican

Honorable

h0rm1

Distinguished

photonboy

Titan

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page