X25-M G2 80gb RAID 0 LOW RESULT ?? WHY ??

[idata]

Hi....here are my results....HD TACH and HD TUNE should be a lot higher. ATTO from .5 to 16 are too low...

To see what the result should be here is a good review with the results. http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-vs-Intel-X25M-SSD-RAID-Grudge-Match/?page=4 http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-vs-Intel-X25M-SSD-RAID-Grudge-Match/?page=4

Using the same controller as me ICH10R SB Sata controller.

My OS is Windows 64bits. Core I7 920 and Aus P6T deluxe mb.

Any suggestions ???

Hi.

[idata]

I just went from a single non-RAID0 160GB G2 drive to a pair of 160's RAID0 as well (tonight!) and Iam getting fairly similar measures. Using Crystal I get about 504 MB/sec sequential read and 210 MB/sec sequential write -which is twice what I was getting with only the single SSD, and I can feel the improved performance at boot up and other operations. I then teusing HD Tune and like similar measures - 278 MB/sec seq read. I don't know why HDD Tune shows only 278 MB/sec for seq read. When I was testing just a single SSD using HD Tune ir was slightly lower than Crystal Disk, but I expect with two SSDs in RAID0 it would be much closer to Crystal Disk's readings (maybe a little lower). I also then installed the Intel ICH10R raid driver on my Win 7 64 and P6T board, retested and get pretty much the same results. I am not sure we have a problem - could be just that HD Tune can't correctly measure the RAID SSDs properly?

Regards,

Mike

[idata]

I think the reviewer is using a controller card since his tests were done last year. I emailed him directly, i will post his answer. Or either some benchmarks don't recognize software raid (ICH10R)

[idata]

Could be; I just installed and ran HD Tach and got about the same results as you did. I am also running an i920 @ 3.8GHz on a P6T MOB. I tested the SSD under both Win7 64 and Vista 64 - same results.

Regards,

Mike

Message was edited by: Firstlight&# 13; &# 13; I re-readthe test in the link and it does say &# 13; &# 13; "...note that we performed all of our SSD RAID testing with the Intel X25-M drives on an Intel X58 chipset-based motherboard via its ICH10R Southbridge SATA controller. This controller offered peak RAID 0 performance versus even the hardware-based RAID controllers we had in the lab for testing.?"&# 13; &# 13; So I don't think the controller/driver is the issue.&# 13; &# 13;

[idata]

I think I solved the mystery. When using HD Tune its default block size out of the box is 64K; I believe the defult for Crystal Disk is 128K block size (I formatted my X25-M 160's using 128KB block size - so I'd rather test using 128K with each test tool).

In HD Tune you have to go to Preferences and change the block size. When I changed it to 128 I got seq read of 430 MB/sec, which is what I expected (I've noticed HD Tune seems to be consistently more conservative than Crystal). When I upped the block size to 512 and then to 1024, the seq read went up to 460 MB/sec and just shy of 500 MB/sec repectively.

Now for HDTach I don't know how to set the block size - It shows only 2 choices, a short 8K bench and a long 32K bench (I assume these might be the block sizes, and if so, explains why the seq reads are maxing at 280 MB/sec.

Regards,

Mike