Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OCZ Vertex 2 60gb => WINDOW 7 SCORE=> 7.7..QUESTION!

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 2, 2010 1:19:10 AM

Hi guys,
I just brought OCZ Vertex 2 60gb

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

I ran window 7 index score and got a Primary Hard Disk score of = 7.7..

Is that sound correct for this kind of SSD?
a c 415 G Storage
July 2, 2010 1:51:15 AM

Sounds about right. That's the score I get with my Intel 160GB SSD.
m
0
l
July 2, 2010 2:07:15 AM

sminlal said:
Sounds about right. That's the score I get with my Intel 160GB SSD.


Whats your SSD read/write.. mine should be higher than yours..

Mine is:
Max read up to 285 MB/sec
Max write up to 275 MB/sec

Shouldn't score be higher than yours if that is the case?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 415 G Storage
July 2, 2010 4:51:57 AM

I haven't benchmarked my drive, so I can't tell you how it compares.

But I can tell you that transfer rates aren't the only thing that the Windows 7 score is based on. If that was the case then wide RAID arrays could score better than single SSDs, and they generally can't.

The Windows 7 score includes access times and it also checks to make sure that the drive doesn't "cheat" by caching writes without actually committing them to the media.

The upshot is that the Windows 7 score isn't a benchmark and you shouldn't fret too much about it.
m
0
l
July 2, 2010 6:27:24 AM

sminlal said:
I haven't benchmarked my drive, so I can't tell you how it compares.

But I can tell you that transfer rates aren't the only thing that the Windows 7 score is based on. If that was the case then wide RAID arrays could score better than single SSDs, and they generally can't.

The Windows 7 score includes access times and it also checks to make sure that the drive doesn't "cheat" by caching writes without actually committing them to the media.

The upshot is that the Windows 7 score isn't a benchmark and you shouldn't fret too much about it.


You sound like you have some experiences about RAID.. can I ask you..

I am planning to get another OCZ verterx 2 60gb and set it as RAID_0..would by doing so also improve my read/write on top of having a bigger storage..I read everywhere and it seem setting RAID_0 should improve your overall performance..what DO YOU THINK..
m
0
l
July 2, 2010 7:50:37 AM

To make a long story short WEI uses Winsat with a combination of random/sequential reads/writes and also a flush stat to come up with the number. Using Raid 0 on SSD will probably max your WEI HD score but as usual if one fails there a chance you might lose data on both drives. Those up to speeds are probably sequential reads/writes on a fresh drive. Depending on how close to full the drive is those numbers can drop drastically. I have an OCZ Vertex 30gb myself and if it gets close to 80% full my read/write speeds can drop drastically and have seen my WEI hard drive score go up or down a full point because of it.
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
July 2, 2010 5:49:40 PM

alricking113 said:
You sound like you have some experiences about RAID.. can I ask you..

I am planning to get another OCZ verterx 2 60gb and set it as RAID_0..would by doing so also improve my read/write on top of having a bigger storage..I read everywhere and it seem setting RAID_0 should improve your overall performance..what DO YOU THINK..

I administered a data centre for many years and RAID was a big part of that. Uptime is critical for a data centre, and RAID is a key tool in delivering it. But I avoid RAID on my home system because it adds a whole layer of complexity and administration which, for me, just isn't worth it. For example, a lot of people slap in disks into a RAID-1 or a RAID-5 configuration in the belief that they've protected their data, but when it comes time to replace a disk they haven't actually tested how to do it. They often don't even know how to tell which drive has failed. If your data is critical to you, you need to test and document all your procedures so that you're not flying blind when the time comes. And since I know that RAID alone can't protect my data from all risks, I focus my efforts on backups instead, which (if done right) are much better insurance against data loss.

In my personal opinion you're probably better off getting a larger drive than trying to RAID-0 two smaller drives together. The drives themselves essentially use RAID-0 internally to access multiple channels of flash chips. For example, the Intel 160GB SSD essentially has two 80GB SSDs in RAID 0 inside it. There are some bottlenecks because of the single controller (vs. two if you use two 80GB drives), but IMHO its not enough to worry about having to deal with RAID and loosing TRIM functionality.

Remember that RAID-0 can improve the transfer rates, but it doesn't improve access times, which is the most important metric for an SSD.
m
0
l
July 2, 2010 6:13:06 PM

sminlal said:
I administered a data centre for many years and RAID was a big part of that. Uptime is critical for a data centre, and RAID is a key tool in delivering it. But I avoid RAID on my home system because it adds a whole layer of complexity and administration which, for me, just isn't worth it. For example, a lot of people slap in disks into a RAID-1 or a RAID-5 configuration in the belief that they've protected their data, but when it comes time to replace a disk they haven't actually tested how to do it. They often don't even know how to tell which drive has failed. If your data is critical to you, you need to test and document all your procedures so that you're not flying blind when the time comes. And since I know that RAID alone can't protect my data from all risks, I focus my efforts on backups instead, which (if done right) are much better insurance against data loss.

In my personal opinion you're probably better off getting a larger drive than trying to RAID-0 two smaller drives together. The drives themselves essentially use RAID-0 internally to access multiple channels of flash chips. For example, the Intel 160GB SSD essentially has two 80GB SSDs in RAID 0 inside it. There are some bottlenecks because of the single controller (vs. two if you use two 80GB drives), but IMHO its not enough to worry about having to deal with RAID and loosing TRIM functionality.

Remember that RAID-0 can improve the transfer rates, but it doesn't improve access times, which is the most important metric for an SSD.


Hmm..reading your comments suggest that its wiser to get a larger SSD instead of going RAID_0 with two OCZ vertex 2 60gb..

- Problem is even with 1 SSD..I can't tell if TRIM is even on..I turned off Defagment etc.. that most SSD websites suggested..

I have another concern, its about my drive if you don't mind helping if you or anyone know the answer..(Thanks)

My drive manufacture SPEED claim to be 285MB/s and write 275MB/s...but when I ran Crystal Diskisk ..some benchmark program ..it claims my drive Sequential READ is 276.4MB/s and write is somewhere 264MB/s..

I updated firmwire from OCZ website..so question is=> is that speed from that benchmark reasonably according to the manufacture claimed speed..although its slower by 10MB/s???
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
July 2, 2010 6:52:20 PM

IMHO at those transfer rates 10MB/sec is a drop in the bucket and is probably explained by subtle differences in the motherboard implementation or the benchmark program.
m
0
l
July 2, 2010 8:13:26 PM

sminlal said:
IMHO at those transfer rates 10MB/sec is a drop in the bucket and is probably explained by subtle differences in the motherboard implementation or the benchmark program.


So, that's reasonable?
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
July 3, 2010 5:52:28 AM

Unless you're a lot fussier about the nth degree of performance than I am, then yes - it's reasonable.
m
0
l
!