A Sexy Storage Spree: The 3 GB/s Project, Revisted

Status
Not open for further replies.

the associate

Distinguished
Jun 3, 2008
338
0
18,780
Overkill benches like this are awesome, I can't wait to see the crazy shit were gona have in 10 years from now.

[citation][nom]burnley14[/nom]How fast did Windows boot up out of curiosity?[/citation]

I'd also like to know =D
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
782
0
18,990
You can use super cache/super volume on SSD's or even USB thumb drives to dramatically improve the I/O and bandwidth at the expense of using up a bit of your system ram still the results are impressive and works on HD's as well, but they suffer from access times no matter what.

I don't even think I'd bother getting a SSD anymore after using super volume on a USB thumb drive and SSD the results are nearly identical regardless of which is used and thumb drives are portable and cheaper for the density you get for some messed up reason.
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
782
0
18,990
I'd be really interested to see super cache/super volume used on this raid array actually it can probably boost it further or should be able to in theory.
 

x3style

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
186
0
18,690
[citation][nom]abhinav_mall[/nom]How many organs I will have to sell to get such a setup?My 3 year old Vista takes 40 painful seconds to boot.[/citation]
Wow people still use vista? Was that even an OS? It felt like some beta test thing.
 
I suspect you'll all be VERY disappointed at how long Windows takes to boot (but I'd also like to know). Unfortunately, most operations in Windows (such as loading apps, games, booting, etc) occur at QD 1 (average is about QD 1.04, QD > 4 are rare). As you can see on Page 7, at QD1 it only gets about 19 MB/sec - the SAME speed as basically any decent single SSD manufactured in the last 3 years.
 

kkiddu

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2009
219
0
18,690
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]holy shit! thats fast. how about giving them as a contest prize?[/citation]

I WANT 16 OF THOSE !

For God's sake, that's $7000 worth of hardware, not including the PC. DAMN DAMN DAMN !! 3 gigabytes per second. And to think, that while on dial-up 4 years back, I downloaded at 3 kilobytes per second (Actually it was more like 2.5 KB/s).
 

user 18

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2010
363
0
18,810
[citation][nom]terasddd[/nom]"Albeit Risky" what made them risky?[/citation]

It's in RAID 0. If any one drive goes, you lose all the data on the array.
 

compton

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
197
0
18,680
Thanks for taking it "2 x-treeeemms"

Hmmm. I wonder just how reliable 16 MLC SSDs are. I know that wasn't part of the test, but I'd figure with sixteen of them working around the clock, how long would one of the take to start acting up?
 
G

Guest

Guest
This was apparent years ago - keep-it-up somebody has to push the envelope
 

Marco925

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2008
967
0
18,990
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]holy shit! thats fast. how about giving them as a contest prize?[/citation]
As if it will be available outside of USA
 

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
403
0
18,790
This would be something a large corporation may want to make and use, but instead of a RAID 0, they'd probably make a RAID 10 so that they have redundancy.

I could also see this being used mainly for read situations where you have data that doesn't change much, maybe just add to it, but you need to be able to get to the data quickly. Best situation I could think of would something along the lines of Patient Information for Electronic Medical Records.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I would like to know where the raid card becomes the bottleneck, how many SSD's can saturate that card? specially with the even faster SSD's.
And how about some raid 10 results? and while your at it raid 5,6,50 and 60 results? if you have the kit why not?
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,711
1
19,865
At what data transfer level can a single user detect the difference? Meaning for something like a professional workstation. A single SSD seems to be an improvement over a rotating hard drive, and some people use dual SSD's in a RAID configuration. Would it be worthwhile for a professional workstation to have a RAID with more than 2 SSD's?
 

cpuprofessional

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2010
4
0
18,510
Idk is it me or is this a pretty useless article? I don't know many people going 16 drives. There is enough confusion with picking one of the readily available drives on the market. I used to love this site but now it has become a joke. Best of media is a terrible idea and all the ads are simply getting annoying. A better review would be a roundup of current drives, your old one hasn't been updated. I'm just a little upset that I check this site daily for the caliber of information that you used to give and instead keep finding things that are of no use to the main consumer. This site used to be so much better. How about a round up the tastes spindle drives vs SSd, not the old article that was done before but something updated, like raptors vs revo drives, vs in vs vertex 3? That is something that is worth a read. How about a performance scaling with a SSd boot drive with an attached spindle raid, vs sing drive configurations. Sorry to rant, believe me I used to love his site, since the 90's but I think it is sad that I am finding better info from other tech sites.
Really let down by this article.
 

mayne92

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
743
0
18,980
[citation][nom]kkiddu[/nom]I WANT 16 OF THOSE !For God's sake, that's $7000 worth of hardware, not including the PC. DAMN DAMN DAMN !! 3 gigabytes per second. And to think, that while on dial-up 4 years back, I downloaded at 3 kilobytes per second (Actually it was more like 2.5 KB/s).[/citation]
While you could use conversion, network transfer is typically in bits notation...not bytes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.