Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Intel X25-M 80GB RAID 0 Performance VS TRIM + Which Contoller

Tags:
  • SSD
  • NAS / RAID
  • Intel
  • Performance
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
November 22, 2010 4:37:53 PM

Hi everyone. Does anyone have an opinion on which is faster RAID 0 or TRIM for my SSD. As im trying to squeeze more speed out of my puter :wahoo:  Currently i am using a 64kb sector size with onboard riad controller "Intel ICH10R". Although benchmarks may be quicker in RAID 0 (not sure) would TRIM be faster in say REAL LIFE performance such as loading up games etc etc....

Ive had these drives now for 3 months after a LONG search to choose which SSDs to get. They seem as fast as you can get to be honest but any opinions would be welcome. Is it true that deformance degrades seriously over time. If so how much time.

For you tech heads out there i have 2 contollers on my motherboard. One Intel ICH10R and the other "Silicon Image SIL5723 Drive Xpert Technology"
Currently using Intel. Shall i stick to the intel controller.

HD Tach:
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3217/tach1.jpg

Crystal Disk Mark:
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5920/cdm1.jpg

Thanks for viewing :) 

PC Spec:
Q8200 @ 3.16Ghz
4Ghz 1800Mhz Mem
2 x 4850 in Crossfire
Win 7 64 bit
Intel x25 m 80 GB x 2 in RAID0
Asus p5q3 deluxe wifi-Ap @n edition mobo

More about : intel x25 80gb raid performance trim contoller

a c 127 G Storage
November 23, 2010 12:00:03 PM

Intel SSDs degrade heavily without TRIM. You might try 50% overprovisioning; using only half of the SSD after a secure erase cycle.

You definately want the Intel controller over Silicon Image. Intel is the best windows fakeRAID controller and Silicon Image is the worst fakeRAID controller (alright not as bad as Promise!)

Your current performance looks very good. Please note that you have activated 'write caching'. This does mean a simple crash can corrupt your filesystem; so make sure you have a backup of important data. But it would lead to performance increases since alot of stuff happens in your RAM now. It also means that non-ECC memory has a decent chance of corrupting the filesystem when used in this setup for multiple years. When turning off write caching this issue is virtually non-existent.
November 23, 2010 1:36:52 PM

Thanks for the input mate. top stuff. As for the secure cycle erase. I have CCleaner would this be under the option drive cleaner and wiping free space.

Also how about a hardware raid controller i was thinking about buying a "Adaptec 1220SA" at £34. Worth it or not?

Cheers
Related resources
a c 127 G Storage
November 23, 2010 1:50:58 PM

Nah your onboard ports are fine. Hardware RAID also does not support TRIM and often is slower than onboard RAID, or rather it scales less high since SSDs are so fast. It may get higher sequential rates however; the Windows software RAID drivers are not that great. But Intel onboard RAID should be the best for SSDs.

By the secure erase stuff i meant to reserve 50% of the space, so for 2x80GB = 160GB that would mean performing a secure erase on both, then creating the RAID0 array, directly followed by partitioning the RAID volume as one big 80GB partition; filling only half of each SSD. This is all you can do to prevent the heavy performance degradation that is just a matter of time without TRIM. This trick only works when combined with the secure erase, and only if you NEVER write to the 'reserved' space since the last Secure Erase cycle.
December 6, 2010 8:13:32 PM

@ sub mesa:

I don't see much advantage to partitioning the RAID 0 array as only 80GB....as compared to not using RAID and using a single 80GB SSD w/ Trim support....especially if it's for the OS drive (since, as i understand it, you don't get much performance increase with an SSD RAID 0 as the OS drive due to the fact that it's mostly going to be doing random access R/W).....

your thoughts?