Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

64gb SSD in RAID -Lowers my BURST, increases my average. Good or Bad?

Last response: in Storage
Share
October 26, 2011 9:04:47 PM

Alright, so my speeds before RAID 0 with 128 stripe was 267 average, and 2202 burst. Now that I put it in SSD with an identical hard drive, speeds are low-mid 300's average, and about 300 burst.

Is this normal? Whats the point of burst? Would I be better off switching back to two SSDds instead of the RAID configuration? Not really sure what BURST is? Testing using hdtach.


THE TWO SSDS are Crucial 64 GB m4 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive SATA 6Gb/s CT064M4SSD2
link to ssd
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004W2JKWG/ref=oh_o00_...

other setup..
2600k i7 intel
16gb corsair 1600mhz
sabertooth p67 mobo



So will this be slower running programs and startup speeds? Please explain burst and if I should go back to individual SSDs instead of RAID0.
a c 353 G Storage
October 26, 2011 10:14:38 PM

Use AS SSD for a SSD benchmark, Uses compressed data, not uncompressed data for benchmarks.

For a OS + Program drives Sequencial read write performance is the Least importan matrix, what is important is access speed and 4k random reads/writes. However Raid00 does very little to improve thes two parameters.

Screen shot of My M4 (With Firmware 0009) using AS SSD.





Burst rate is for how fast the cache is in a HDD - Opps, no cache in a SSD, unless you count what windows does in the background. Bottom line ignor burst rate for an SSD.
m
0
l
October 27, 2011 4:00:03 AM

Hmm I downloaded that program and these are my results



READ Write
SEQ ------- 725.96 201.49
4K ---------- 22.50 47.78
4K-64 Thrid 398.25 145.22
Acc.time .149 .163

score 493 213
938

Are those good for my SSD? Better than if I was using a single, not in RAID0?
m
0
l
October 27, 2011 10:00:59 AM

I am almost 100% positive windows booted faster with the one SSD. I used to barely see the windows logo start, but now I see the whole startup logo. My restart time is 53 seconds!

I've read so many mixed reviews about putting SSDs in RAID. I am thinking of just seporating the drives and making 1 for boot / web browsers / microsoft office, and the other for games. While a third 1tb drive for storage and other programs.

Suggestions? If I can be getting a faster system with them in RAID0, I would keep it. But I'm not seeing it.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
October 27, 2011 12:26:16 PM

The scores are very good, Problem is that benchmarks can be a little decieving when compared to user real life performance.
As I indicated the most important parameter is the 4 K read/writes, which are not improved by raid0.
The only real problem with Raid0 is the loss of trim support and therefore have to rely on Garbage Collection. Without trim you may experience periodic slow downs depending on how effective the CG is and when it runs. Marvel based tend to only run when system is idle. Some users have reported that they had to leave system on, but logged off overnight to restore performance. I think the SF2281 has a more active CG that runs in the Background, However when running and depending on what is being done at that time, user may experience a slow down.

Raid0 for SSDs is OK for a data drive working with large file types (High sequencial performance). Just not much performance boost for a OS/Program drive.
m
0
l
!