Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

SSD Caching (Without Z68): HighPoint's RocketHybrid 1220

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
May 10, 2011 4:41:27 AM

This may be a dumb question, but why not go with two SSD drives? I could see using a fast 80 GB boot drive loaded with the programs/games you know will be used a lot and adding a cheap 40 GB SSD for caching so you don't have to constantly manage your system. Is this possible with Z68 or the HighPoint? Other than cost, is there a reason not to do this?
Score
0
Anonymous
May 10, 2011 5:20:12 AM

At this point, SSD caching is about as silly as Windows Vista ReadyBoost. It seems that if the same data was consistently being accessed at random, that even 4GB of cached should be enough to make a noticeable difference.
Score
1
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2011 5:24:36 AM

Hmm.. Highpoint isn't the only solution out there. SilverStone has been hocking the HDDBoost for awhile which looks less of a hassle than Highpoint's. Tom's Hardware should run a comparison on both to dispel any myths on performance claims. http://www.silverstonetek.com/products/p_contents.php?p...
Score
0
May 10, 2011 5:26:59 AM

$59 for a built-in feature on Z68 doe not sound appealing at all. Specially considering that you could get a higher capacity SSD and control which data to put in it.

I't good to see technology advancing, but if this is all ssd caching is about, I guess I'll stick to P67 on my new gaming rig.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 5:35:23 AM

Could the review be updated to include a few tests on a RAID-0 hybrid setup? Maybe just the tests that didn't improve when moving up from the base HDD, since they are strong candidates for the improved writes speeds.
Score
1
May 10, 2011 6:26:32 AM

Another alternative is eboostr4 a software alternative to readyboost, but persistent and configurable.

Im running a 16GB cache off a cheap 32gb ssd, photoshop cs5 starts in 5 seconds.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 6:29:36 AM

Zeh$59 for a built-in feature on Z68 doe not sound appealing at all. Specially considering that you could get a higher capacity SSD and control which data to put in it.I't good to see technology advancing, but if this is all ssd caching is about, I guess I'll stick to P67 on my new gaming rig.


Consider it another way: $59 for a feature you'll have to spend $200 for on a new motherboard ;) . There are use cases for both solutions, I'm sure!
Score
2
May 10, 2011 7:29:27 AM

Quite right. I don't see any real benefits from using this caching technology since you can today for little more money get a solution that is much more efficient. This caching solution would have had a bright future if it had come out some 5+ years ago. But when you can get a SSD that blows the performance out of the water for less than the motherboard is worth then I see little reason to use this frankensteinian solution.

Just get a SSD for the system drive and apps that need quick access, and squeeze everything else into a old tech platter drive.
Score
-1
May 10, 2011 7:30:18 AM

I'm confused. I was expecting to see 1) near-SSD performance, but it's just near-HDD performance; and 2) performance improvement from run1-->run2-->run3 due to caching of hot/frequently-used data, but no improvement whatsoever. What's happening here?

This article claims this is using the SSD as a cache, like Z68, but my suspicion is that RocketHybrid is simply a CONCAT of SSD+HDD. (Note: Highpoint's website makes no mention of "caching" ... just "Hybrid Technology" ... deceptive marketing?) But, if it's a CONCAT, I would have expected exact SSD performance in boot, program launch, etc.

What am I missing here?
Score
1
May 10, 2011 8:17:28 AM

I really am unimpressed with both the Z68 and the Rocket Hybrid caching - I agree that two separate drives are a better solution. Both almost seem like wasted efforts - especially in the Z68 platform.
Score
1
May 10, 2011 8:26:41 AM

Sounds like they have a few driver issues to work through. And honestly I can't blame them. What you guys are expecting is damn near impossible to pull off. What you have is a NTFS formatted file system residing on a regular HDD. The Highpoint driver is trying to intercept the windows file subsystem I/O calls and redirect them to the SSD drive for reads. I'm willing to bet that if they included some sort of utility to monitor hits / miss's we would see that the windows file I/O is reading off the HDD lots of times vs the SSD. Also how does it handle file I/O writes? If the windows file system writes to a file, even something as simple as modifying its accessed date (metadata) will the SSD automatically update its values to reflect, or will it have to reread the data from HDD first?

This concept is amazing as it allows a user to have a single large drive as their primary drive then specify exactly which folders to keep a cached copy on the SSD. You could have the C:\Windows, C:\Program Files and C:\Program Files (x86) folders residing on SSD but the C:\Users folders on the HDD. This would be amazing if they could figure out how to perfect the device drivers / file I/O sub-system intercepts. Maybe MS should be looking to add this base functionality to their OS, a capability to specify alternate storage locations to keep cached copies of system folders.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 8:41:56 AM

mayankleoboy1SSD caching does not make much sense to me. the speed up is not impressive in real world scenario. and writes arent affected at all.


The real SSD scenario isn't very impressive in the real world either though.
I'm sitting here with a C300 drive (laptop), and while it's nice to boot in no time at all, for most of the day I don't even notice the drive.
The only time I really notice it is when I get home to my gaming rig and wait forever for the drive queue to get below 5.

I'd still like one of those cards with a 64 or 80gb drive though. Just can't afford it at present.
Score
1
May 10, 2011 9:01:58 AM

Inexpensive and pretty much hassle free way to boost the performance of an existing single hard drive setup.

Otherwise, as was said, there are better alternatives for a new build. I would even go 2 7200rpm HDs in RAID 0 over this, cheaper and far more capacity, and judging by the Vantage scores not giving up anything in performance unless you are buying a high end SSD, which would negate the only value in the setup.

;) 
Score
0
May 10, 2011 1:18:18 PM

Hybrid HDDs failed? My Momentus XTs in RAID 0 beg to differ.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 1:35:46 PM

I thought my Falcon II SSD had died the other day but it was just the SATA cable got crushed ...

I got a Momentus XT drive and when the guy from the shop handed it to me I handed it back and said ... that's a laptop drive.

/facepalm.

I am giving it a go shortly once I rinse and shampoo the data off my ol Falcon II 60GB.

Could i use the old 110/210 Falcon as a cache and the XT as the main drive ... or would it be bettr round the other way ... I ask because I can just fit the Win7 OS on 60GB ... the XT is 500GB ... best for my games eh?

Sorry for the question but posters who like this article might have the answer.

Cheers

:) 
Score
0
May 10, 2011 1:39:19 PM

I plan to offering you proof read the first sentence of the article.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 1:43:28 PM

mayankleoboy1SSD caching does not make much sense to me. the speed up is not impressive in real world scenario. and writes arent affected at all.

If you want to assume a speedup, writes are _affected_ (influenced in an impaired way), they are not _effected_ by a switch from HD to SSD.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 2:45:29 PM

For the price of this HighPoint card plus a decent SSD, you're getting awfully close to the cost of a 120Gb SSD to use as the OS drive. For many people, 120Gb is enough for Windows, and you get the full benefits of SSD.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 3:01:39 PM

regtomRocketHybrid is simply a CONCAT of SSD+HDD.

I think you misunderstand the definition of concatenation.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 5:17:59 PM

I am guessing that a number of us already have several SSD's which will grow even more once the next black friday rolls around so for us it'll be ~Vertex3 for OS and older SSD(s) for games/apps/caching. My Steam folder alone is already >100gb and growing so I'd like to leave my games on a hard drive and leverage an SSD for caching rather than micromanage space.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 5:42:25 PM

I had this Rockethybrid 1220 and believe me...it was horrible.
The software MSU will not work. There's so many errors.
Check my youtube unboxing video (it's the only unboxing video on youtube for Rocketyhybrid 1220).

First of all, I could only create Hyperduo from their BIOS. After that, launching the MSU was a pain the first time. But then again, I managed to launch it, but with another headache to follow.

Everything inside the MSU software returns an error. There was nothing I could do about it. Even their customer service could not help me.
I tried choosing the folders manually so I can get that folders accelerated. But it always gave me an error message.
AVOID this product at all times!!!
Score
0
May 10, 2011 8:42:48 PM

sweatlaserxp... For many people, 120Gb is enough for Windows, and you get the full benefits of SSD.


I don't think people are quite getting what the function of this drive is really...

This type of drive is completely useless for accelerating a movie you watch once or accelerating writes to your HD or transcoding a video - just as it does not make chocolate chip cookies or hand-sew doggy booties on an organic fair trade sustainable farm in rural Madagascar.

Yes it can accelerate your boot times and overall make your Windows faster - if you choose to use it that way, but the caching feature is more useful as an accelerator for your frequently accessed files and programs.


FOR EXAMPLE:

My STEAM folder on my 2TB drive is over 240 GB. There is no way on God's green Earth that I am buying a 480 GB SSD for my programs and games... BUT, I can use a caching SSD in conjunction with a 2TB HD to accelerate only the programs/files that I frequently access - for example my STEAM folder, My Documents etc... that way only the games or programs I access frequently are automagically cached and accelerated by the caching SSD.

Every tool has a specific use - buy the right tool for the job.
Score
0
May 10, 2011 9:30:15 PM

jmvanderleeuwI don't think people are quite getting what the function of this drive is really... This type of drive is completely useless for accelerating a movie you watch once or accelerating writes to your HD or transcoding a video - just as it does not make chocolate chip cookies or hand-sew doggy booties on an organic fair trade sustainable farm in rural Madagascar.Yes it can accelerate your boot times and overall make your Windows faster - if you choose to use it that way, but the caching feature is more useful as an accelerator for your frequently accessed files and programs.


I did not claim that it will do any of the things you are joking about. I do have a rudimentary understanding of SSD caching, and I never said that it would cache every possible file that one could possibly request, nor did I say that it will quicken sequential reads of continuous data. I simply said that for the price of the controller and a "small" SSD, you're in the price neighborhood of a SSD that's big enough to serve as the primary OS drive.
Score
2
May 11, 2011 2:07:58 AM

sweatlaserxp said:
I did not claim that it will do any of the things you are joking about. I do have a rudimentary understanding of SSD caching, and I never said that it would cache every possible file that one could possibly request, nor did I say that it will quicken sequential reads of continuous data. I simply said that for the price of the controller and a "small" SSD, you're in the price neighborhood of a SSD that's big enough to serve as the primary OS drive.


Data doesn't work that way. NTFS can not be split up amongst different volumes at a file level. You can't have a 2TB "C:" drive with different files located on different physical volumes. The closest you can get is folder redirection and mapping a volume to a folder, but the system folders can not be treated that way. I know because I've tried (I'm a hardcore Solaris guy, I like my UFS style tree).

What this controller + software does (unsuccessfully it seems) is mirror files from one volume to another then redirect windows file I/O to the other volume for reads. This is done without you having to format various volumes and manually manage the file space. This really seems like something MS should allow internally, I should be able to tell it to keep the contents of C:\Windows on a different volume then the root C:\
Score
0
May 11, 2011 4:36:10 AM

palladin9479Data doesn't work that way. NTFS can not be split up amongst different volumes at a file level. You can't have a 2TB "C:" drive with different files located on different physical volumes. The closest you can get is folder redirection and mapping a volume to a folder, but the system folders can not be treated that way. I know because I've tried (I'm a hardcore Solaris guy, I like my UFS style tree).What this controller + software does (unsuccessfully it seems) is mirror files from one volume to another then redirect windows file I/O to the other volume for reads. This is done without you having to format various volumes and manually manage the file space. This really seems like something MS should allow internally, I should be able to tell it to keep the contents of C:\Windows on a different volume then the root C:\


I don't disagree with anything you say. I don't disagree with anything jmvanderleeuw wrote. I just look at the numbers, as a consumer and as a computer dork, and I try to determine if the increase in performance warrants the price. I've been very curious about SSD caching, as us folks are always looking for faster boot times for Windows and for applications.
Score
0
May 11, 2011 7:04:04 AM

For the ultimate, I would go with 4 SSD in a raid for Boot/OS, with a 4 SSD raid for swap drive/storage, then go with a huge HD for all the apps/storage that never use hardly lol..
Score
0
May 11, 2011 7:08:30 AM

And if you look at what I said earlier where I mentioned that it looked like their system isn't working properly. Data retrieved from the SSD will be the same speed regardless of whether the system is "pure" SSD or hybrid, the data is still coming from the SSD. If you look at the performance metrics it looks like the caching mechanism isn't kicking in right and the data isn't being read from the SSD like it should be. I suspect a problem in the drivers with intercepting windows file I/O.
Score
0
May 11, 2011 1:34:26 PM

palladin9479Data doesn't work that way. NTFS can not be split up amongst different volumes at a file level. You can't have a 2TB "C:" drive with different files located on different physical volumes. The closest you can get is folder redirection and mapping a volume to a folder, but the system folders can not be treated that way. I know because I've tried (I'm a hardcore Solaris guy, I like my UFS style tree).What this controller + software does (unsuccessfully it seems) is mirror files from one volume to another then redirect windows file I/O to the other volume for reads. This is done without you having to format various volumes and manually manage the file space. This really seems like something MS should allow internally, I should be able to tell it to keep the contents of C:\Windows on a different volume then the root C:\


Actually Windows 7 NTFS even supports CIFS junction points. Perhaps a little bit of background reading is in order? :-)

I've split various system and program folders amongst different physical drives to speed up performance and balance HD capacities (when using smaller drives).
Score
0
May 11, 2011 1:52:20 PM

bobwyaActually Windows 7 NTFS even supports CIFS junction points. Perhaps a little bit of background reading is in order? :-)I've split various system and program folders amongst different physical drives to speed up performance and balance HD capacities (when using smaller drives).


What sort of software is needed to do that?
I've seen ntfs implementations of "symbolic links" before, but never figured out how to create any.
Score
0
May 11, 2011 2:23:43 PM

neiroatopelccWhat sort of software is needed to do that? I've seen ntfs implementations of "symbolic links" before, but never figured out how to create any.


Hi

Actually this would probably be good for an "depth" THG article.

Yeh. My personal preference for front-end software (to create junction and manage points) is:
Windows Hardlink Shell Extension
For system folders I typically use a recent live-boot Linux distro (my choice being Linux-Mint) - boot of CD/DVD/USB-stick. That lets you rsync the system folder over to avoid breaking file permissions. Obviously you cannot do this whilst Windows is running and is locking the files on disk. The Windows OS assumes that executable files will not change on disk and so does not page program code out to the pagefile (hence the need for frequent reboots - sorry couldn't resist)...

The junction points are stored as UUID disk references as I recall (sorry I'm booted into Ubuntu - Linux - just now so cannot confirm this) - so you can do some crazy cat stuff!

Generally you best bet is to accelerate your Steam folder, VirtualBox install, etc. on an SSD - most folk recommend just leaving the OS on your regular HD (unless you really need uber-fast boot times :-). A modern OS will cache most of the kernel in RAM, etc.

Sorry the comments section for a (relatively) unrelated article is not really the best place to go too in depth on this subject!! The docs. for the Windows junction creation software are brilliant however - sure you can figure it out!
Score
1
May 11, 2011 2:36:02 PM

Great news! Well done!
Score
0
May 11, 2011 3:10:41 PM

I like this review - finally a nice new bit of technology to get my juices flowing! Couldn't agree more with the conclusion at the end of the article, for me you get it 100% correct.

The card seems great value at first but when you do the math, surely it needs to be around HALF THAT to get some punters? Especially with the liklihood of falling prices for SSD.

Obviously, there is a very BIG benefit... you don't have to reinstall your OS and programs... so it could be a tidy little temporary fix for someone who's like mega BUSY or lost their original software and just needs to see some increased performance...

If you're happy to reinstall your OS and programs then just go ahead and do so on a decent SSD and get a good 2TB HDD (both over 6GB/s) for everything else. Surely!!!
Score
0
May 11, 2011 3:14:56 PM

sweatlaserxp makes a helpful point. I might get one now afterall...to speed up access to large quantities of stuff in My Documents... sample libraries and music production files etc.
Score
0
May 11, 2011 5:01:31 PM

kuchykoosweatlaserxp makes a helpful point. I might get one now afterall...to speed up access to large quantities of stuff in My Documents... sample libraries and music production files etc.


Yeh, but you can do exactly the same stuff with NTFS junction points in Windows XP (x64), Vista and 7. I've been doing that for years now. Also saves you ponying out for a new Host Controller you might not need. Just sink all the cash into a decent SSD!
Score
0
Anonymous
May 11, 2011 5:24:10 PM

Why or when is it possible for a solution which the SSD's empty space can be used for the HDD cache, so we have SSD as the boot disk and any empty space be using for cache of the harddisk.
And include deduplication feature for the harddisk with the lookup table in the SSD. I think, if there is 10GB of flash cache build into the harddisk itself would speed up write caching.
Score
0
May 11, 2011 5:43:11 PM

KuchyKoo said:
sweatlaserxp makes a helpful point. I might get one now afterall...to speed up access to large quantities of stuff in My Documents... sample libraries and music production files etc.


I wasn't necessarily endorsing it or saying that anyone should buy it... it shaves off a whopping 4-6 seconds in Windows startup time. But, I am impressed with the gaming score. I play Flight Simulator X, and anything that speeds up load times is fine by me. But, this setup is more complex than going with a SSD for Windows and a HDD for data, because you have to install an add-on card and configure it in Windows. Intel Z68 is more optimal because it's built into the BIOS, although you do have to buy a Z68 motherboard, which kind of sucks. I'm waiting to see how that performs before I make up my mind about SSD caching.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 11, 2011 6:07:22 PM

I see the benefit. I have two 60gb SSD's in a Raid 0. OS plus a few apps. My Steam install for games takes a huge amount of space that cannot go on that array, so I have a second array of two 1TB drives in a Raid 0. If I could cache that magnetic raid 0 with a cheap SSD and see a boost on level loads for example, for $59 (I have an extra SSD lying around) it would be totally worth it. I'm actually considering this.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 11, 2011 7:33:35 PM

Let me echo previous comments, PLEASE re-run (at least a sampling) of your tests in performance mode. You are doing a disservice to your readers (and Highpoint) by performance testing in "non-performance" mode and drawing conclusions about value. To use the (well worn) car metaphor, you went thru the time, trouble, expense of putting in a new engine for performance, but are afraid to red-line it during the tests. For those of us looking for performance when the computer is under our fingertips (RAID 0, overclocking CPU, memory, GPU, etc.), by doing automatic, unattended overnight backups (the same as everyone SHOULD regardless of their setup).

SO SHOW US WHAT THIS CONCEPT CAN REALLY DO!!
Score
0
Anonymous
May 11, 2011 7:45:40 PM

This is totally stupid.
My PS CS5 loads in 5 seconds or less and I don't even use SSD.
I have 2 150GB WD Velociraptors in RAID 0 I purchased last December for $200 total.
Score
0
May 12, 2011 12:39:39 AM

bobwya said:
Actually Windows 7 NTFS even supports CIFS junction points. Perhaps a little bit of background reading is in order? :-)

I've split various system and program folders amongst different physical drives to speed up performance and balance HD capacities (when using smaller drives).



I knew this could be done but have never seen good results. Windows just isn't there yet management wise, too many things expect the entire C: file system to reside on the same volume. Blame it on DOS. I'm hoping in the next release there will be included tools to migrate and manage file systems in this fashion. What you are suggestion is a very good way to bone up people's data and leave them reinstalling or doing some very gritty work with NTFS to put everything back together.

What I was talking about isn't forking the file system to reference a different volume but keeping a copy of the data of the file system on a separate device and reading it from that device while syncing writes to each device. This is something that should be possible with the current NT kernel with a properly written kernel mode driver.
Score
0
May 12, 2011 8:27:20 AM

bobwyaHiActually this would probably be good for an "depth" THG article.Yeh. My personal preference for front-end software (to create junction and manage points) is:Windows Hardlink Shell ExtensionFor system folders I typically use a recent live-boot Linux distro (my choice being Linux-Mint) - boot of CD/DVD/USB-stick. That lets you rsync the system folder over to avoid breaking file permissions. Obviously you cannot do this whilst Windows is running and is locking the files on disk. The Windows OS assumes that executable files will not change on disk and so does not page program code out to the pagefile (hence the need for frequent reboots - sorry couldn't resist)...The junction points are stored as UUID disk references as I recall (sorry I'm booted into Ubuntu - Linux - just now so cannot confirm this) - so you can do some crazy cat stuff!Generally you best bet is to accelerate your Steam folder, VirtualBox install, etc. on an SSD - most folk recommend just leaving the OS on your regular HD (unless you really need uber-fast boot times :-). A modern OS will cache most of the kernel in RAM, etc.Sorry the comments section for a (relatively) unrelated article is not really the best place to go too in depth on this subject!! The docs. for the Windows junction creation software are brilliant however - sure you can figure it out!



Thanks mate. I'll have a look into this.
I wouldn't want to accellerate my steam folder though. With close to 170 games, that'd require massive space :)  Anyway I've got some nasty ideas as to what I can use the junction points for :) 
Score
0
May 12, 2011 1:25:10 PM

this seems like a great idea that came to fruition too late. I just talked a buddy into getting a new 60GB Vertex3 with over 500 mb read speeds for $150 to pair up with a 1TB Storage drive. I would venture to guess that this 60GB drive is going to meet the capacity needs of most people as as OS Drive (Turn off Hybernate and Paging people). If your the guy installing your bit torrent application on your small SSD and then complaining about a lack of storage...you may need to re-think your strategy or give up on that computing career!
Score
0
May 12, 2011 1:35:29 PM

"You can actually select physical folders that should specifically be accelerated." What's a "physical folder"?
Score
0
Anonymous
May 13, 2011 11:31:06 AM

What I'd like to see, is something speeding vmware stuff. At the moment I have a 3x500GB HD's configured for 2xRAID0 containing OS and Programs and 1x containing vmware images and cache. This was already a huge advantage over the original 3xRAID5 but still more I/O wouldn't hurt, when you have several vmware images running at the same time.
Score
0
May 13, 2011 3:21:48 PM

A power user would use an SSD as the system drive naturally, SSD caching alone would be inferior, of course, but that is not all that there is to it with SSD caching for the power user.

This is the question - whether the 160GB mainstream SSD buyer that has a mainstream 2TB HD would be better off with a 160GB boot drive and no caching, or with 40GB partitioned out of his 160GB SSD to cache the HD and the remaining 120GB partition for a regular SSD system drive and critical apps.

This question is relevant as for many users like myself, OS+apps+games exceed 160GB, and even the unaffordable 256GB+ SSDs, so some apps and games still have to get to the mechanical HD. Would love to see this addressed in future SSD articles. Thanks.
Score
0
May 13, 2011 5:40:36 PM

Killer 69What I'd like to see, is something speeding vmware stuff... more I/O wouldn't hurt, when you have several vmware images running at the same time.

Buy a 5.25" SATA cage that can fit four 2.5" drives and spread your vm's across the 4 drives, putting the smaller VM's on SSD and larger ones on a MomentusXT or WD Black notebook drive. The advantage of this setup is that you isolate the VM I/O and you get the benefit of more efficient power/heat/noise/vibration/space from the smaller form factor not to mention easy removal of drives when you aren't using the VM's to save more power. Such a cage is about 60bucks on the market. Buy two and you can go crazy with the configuration options. Throw in a 2tb 5900rpm 3.5" drive for storage and back up, run your OS off a SSD and you are good to go. I have a seperate ESXi server running this way except the OS is running off a 8gb Flash drive on an internal USB port.
Score
0
May 15, 2011 2:57:32 AM

Sorry, but it seems to me that Tom fundamentally misunderstands what the RocketHybrid is FOR. Safe mode turns the SSD into a pure read cache, which will certainly give you middlin' results, whereas Auto mode should do exactly what the new Intel Z68 chipset does, but without having to buy a new motherboard and an Intel processor. Anand understands this perfectly:

"Intel's SRT functions like an actual cache. Rather than caching individual files, Intel focuses on frequently accessed LBAs (logical block addresses). Read a block enough times or write to it enough times and those accesses will get pulled into the SSD cache until it's full. When full, the least recently used data gets evicted making room for new data."

THAT's what the RocketHybrid is trying to do, without making you buy a new motherboard or an Intel processor. I've had one for ten days, but don't yet know if it works properly. This review did not help at all.
Score
0
May 15, 2011 1:30:58 PM

The performance boost here is pretty unimpressive, it isn't much better than ReadyBoost. I'd recommend either saving money and going with ReadyBoost which gives you roughly the same gain or do what I did and use a 120GB SSD for the OS drive and 1TB drive for all my large media files. As has already been pointed out, a 120GB drive is not much more than the 40GB drive + card. Personally, I can't see myself ever going back to a non-SSD OS drive, the performance difference is phenomenal.
Score
0
May 17, 2011 2:09:37 AM

AnonymousLet me echo previous comments, PLEASE re-run (at least a sampling) of your tests in performance mode. You are doing a disservice to your readers (and Highpoint) by performance testing in "non-performance" mode and drawing conclusions about value. To use the (well worn) car metaphor, you went thru the time, trouble, expense of putting in a new engine for performance, but are afraid to red-line it during the tests. For those of us looking for performance when the computer is under our fingertips (RAID 0, overclocking CPU, memory, GPU, etc.), by doing automatic, unattended overnight backups (the same as everyone SHOULD regardless of their setup).SO SHOW US WHAT THIS CONCEPT CAN REALLY DO!!


I'm with this guy, what kind of wimpy assed crap is that.OHHH we can't do raid 0 performance mode, it's too risky. I have been running a regular raid continuous for about 2.5 years. That's why I backup. Many of us are willing to risk some data for performance. "Well there's a much faster configuration but we're not going to show you that one, only the safe one".
Score
0
!