SSD Experts wanted: Low benchmark scores for OCZ Vertex 2 RAID0 setup.
Let me apologize, as there are a few things I should’ve tried before posting a thread, but I’m not on the computer in question at this time.
I replaced 2 Intel X25-V 40GB SSDs in RAID 0 with 2 OCZ Vertex 2 60GB SSDs in RAID 0. I upgraded the firmware to 1.29 before installing them as a boot drive.
The problem is that I have been noticing over the last two weeks of usage, the system is lagging (slowing at boot up). Now I have problem with Internet Explorer (hanging/crashing). I may reinstall the OS, and then upgrade to IE9, and monitor for any further issues.
I ran the AS SSD benchmark program, and the numbers are way off from what I think they should be. Sorry I don’t have a screen shot. They are not much better than my Intel SSD drives were. I should be getting reads/write close to 570/540MBps (theoretically). But, they are only getting 384/60, the 4K and 4K-64Thrd numbers and access times are lower than the Intel drives were. This is why Intel drives are so good, right? 4K reads/writes? **See Follow UP**
When I installed the OS (Windows 7 Home), I pointed it to use the new Intel RST v10.1 drivers for the chipset (from the downloadable Floppy files to use during a <F6> install). However, I have not upgraded the chipset (X58/ICHR10) drivers otherwise, by running the Intel RST program, which is what I think I really need to do, which updates the chipset driver, and gives me a GUI to monitor or change the drive settings.
But, when I installed the OS, I did not partition only 80-85% of the array, as I did for the Intel SSD drives. (i.e. only used 64GB of my 80GB size of the Intel drives for the OS/Programs, leaving the other 16GB unallocated and unused for drive self optimization.) I thought that the new SandForce 1222 controller could handle the drive optimization itself, and the drive is nowhere near full. I also know that TRIM is enabled, but not used for SSD drives in a RAID array.
I just wanted to know if anyone has any other tips or comments, before I run the Intel RST v10.1 program tonight, and monitor any changes.
I’ll give it a week, and if these drives just don’t meet my expectations, I’ll return them, and put my Intel drives back in.
**Follow Up** I just found this webpage: AS SSD Benchmark stating the following:
SANDFORCE Disclaimer::
This benchmark uses non-compressible completely RANDOM data, so Sandforce drives won't produce "super-fast" numbers like they do in ATTO.
Also writing a whole bunch of non-compressible data to the drive quickly has reportedly pushed a few Sandforce drives into "write throttled" mode, basically Sandforce users have been warned.
I’ll try to ATTO benchmark, as well as HDTune. But I know too many banchmarks can harm the drives.
Regardless, my system is not a fast/responsive as it was with the Intel SSD drives…
P.S. I had my CPU overclocked to 3.2GHz, and memory timing @ 1604 (8-8-8-24) at install, but I has put the CPU back to stock timing (2.67GHz), but left the memory timing @ 1600 (8-8-8-24) because that is what it should be, else it defaults to lower settings of 1600 (9-9-9-24), or 1333 (7-7-7-24).
Let me apologize, as there are a few things I should’ve tried before posting a thread, but I’m not on the computer in question at this time.
I replaced 2 Intel X25-V 40GB SSDs in RAID 0 with 2 OCZ Vertex 2 60GB SSDs in RAID 0. I upgraded the firmware to 1.29 before installing them as a boot drive.
The problem is that I have been noticing over the last two weeks of usage, the system is lagging (slowing at boot up). Now I have problem with Internet Explorer (hanging/crashing). I may reinstall the OS, and then upgrade to IE9, and monitor for any further issues.
I ran the AS SSD benchmark program, and the numbers are way off from what I think they should be. Sorry I don’t have a screen shot. They are not much better than my Intel SSD drives were. I should be getting reads/write close to 570/540MBps (theoretically). But, they are only getting 384/60, the 4K and 4K-64Thrd numbers and access times are lower than the Intel drives were. This is why Intel drives are so good, right? 4K reads/writes? **See Follow UP**
When I installed the OS (Windows 7 Home), I pointed it to use the new Intel RST v10.1 drivers for the chipset (from the downloadable Floppy files to use during a <F6> install). However, I have not upgraded the chipset (X58/ICHR10) drivers otherwise, by running the Intel RST program, which is what I think I really need to do, which updates the chipset driver, and gives me a GUI to monitor or change the drive settings.
But, when I installed the OS, I did not partition only 80-85% of the array, as I did for the Intel SSD drives. (i.e. only used 64GB of my 80GB size of the Intel drives for the OS/Programs, leaving the other 16GB unallocated and unused for drive self optimization.) I thought that the new SandForce 1222 controller could handle the drive optimization itself, and the drive is nowhere near full. I also know that TRIM is enabled, but not used for SSD drives in a RAID array.
I just wanted to know if anyone has any other tips or comments, before I run the Intel RST v10.1 program tonight, and monitor any changes.
I’ll give it a week, and if these drives just don’t meet my expectations, I’ll return them, and put my Intel drives back in.
**Follow Up** I just found this webpage: AS SSD Benchmark stating the following:
SANDFORCE Disclaimer::
This benchmark uses non-compressible completely RANDOM data, so Sandforce drives won't produce "super-fast" numbers like they do in ATTO.
Also writing a whole bunch of non-compressible data to the drive quickly has reportedly pushed a few Sandforce drives into "write throttled" mode, basically Sandforce users have been warned.
I’ll try to ATTO benchmark, as well as HDTune. But I know too many banchmarks can harm the drives.
Regardless, my system is not a fast/responsive as it was with the Intel SSD drives…
P.S. I had my CPU overclocked to 3.2GHz, and memory timing @ 1604 (8-8-8-24) at install, but I has put the CPU back to stock timing (2.67GHz), but left the memory timing @ 1600 (8-8-8-24) because that is what it should be, else it defaults to lower settings of 1600 (9-9-9-24), or 1333 (7-7-7-24).