Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Is it a normal result for RAID 0 mushkin chronos 240GB?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it a normal result for RAID 0 mushkin chronos 240GB? - Page 4

post #31 of 74
buddy, thanks for input. are you running windows 8 or win 7 in UEFI/GPT mode (I see your partition offset, must be GPT)?

that doesn't look right to me at all ... why so slow? seems issue like mine... are your SSDs under AS SSD running similar speeds in single mode or much lower?

I at least in ATTO I was seeing speeds over 1,000MB/s while in raid0, but that's not a real life scenario (uncompressed data streams).

all the rest (AS SSD, CDM, etc.) is like I linked before, crawling below single SSD Read speeds (Write was getting boost thanks to Write-back cache enabled).

I am thinking about updating BIOS to modded version with latest 12.5 OROM and later 11.6 EFi SATA driver. I know mine currently has 11.0.1339 OROM and 11.5 EFi SATA driver module (both part of stock BIOS 1707 on Maximus V series), perhaps that's where the culprit is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDuck69 View Post

Here's a pair of Corsair Neutron GTX 120GBs in Raid 0. Just in case someone is interested or wants a comparison. Hope you get it sorted out.

post #32 of 74
Yeah, those results are on a Maximus V Extreme with latest stock BIOS. Windows 7 Ultimate x64.
post #33 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDuck69 View Post

Yeah, those results are on a Maximus V Extreme with latest stock BIOS.
Make sure both drives are in SATA 6GB/s ports. You should be seeing 2 x those seq speeds.
post #34 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Webster View Post

Make sure both drives are in SATA 6GB/s ports. You should be seeing 2 x those seq speeds.

Lol. They are. And I agree with you.

I see there is a newer version of IRSTe that was released in Feb of this year. I'm currently running IRST from 12/3/2012. BIOS 1707 from Asus. I think I might try a fresh install tomorrow.
Edited by LuckyDuck69 - 4/2/13 at 12:31am
post #35 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by feniks View Post

thanks for confirming that EFI has nothing to do with it. was worried I would have to re-install my OS with all the crap I have in it, a complete fresh install (with all apps and settings to my taste) takes me like 3 evenings LOL ...mad.gif
yes, they are asynchronous drives, that's what I found too, is that a problem in itself for raid0?

Sorry,man i did not confirm EFI installation has nothing to do we it ,you know why?Because i never told you it got 100% to do with it.If you read my post and go to the picture with result,you can calculate that you will be seeing 10 to 15% lower result with efi installation,that mean you will see raid results but you will not see "super raid results".So like i said 10-15% here then 10-15% there and you will come to conclusion,LOL mad.gif
Can you somehow equalize their firmware ,it does not matter which,newer or older?
You dont have 3tb drive and you want to have 2xssd raid field,i dont see any benefit for you to stay in EFI,and this is thing that maybe solve your problem.But i would not do this before i run out of option.
Problem is!Maybe asynchronous drives struggle more in raid,but "I CANT CONFIRM THIS" biggrin.gif because i cant find asynchronous drives results in raid.Only agility 4 that dont have good result even when he is as single drive.
Do you have maybe some old machine,with sata2,if you get there 500 reads and 400 writes,then you will be closer one step to solution
This is result from guy that open thread:

asynchronous drives raid 0
http://www.assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?41900-Talking-about-SSD-Raids&s=d2a09c990ee8ab4ac62a10f35822249d&p=616731&viewfull=1#post616731
http://www.overclock.net/t/754763/as-ssd-benchmark-thread/1790#post_16248390
Edited by Unit Igor - 4/2/13 at 1:59am
post #36 of 74
Lucky. It might be EFI install being a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDuck69 View Post

Yeah, those results are on a Maximus V Extreme with latest stock BIOS. Windows 7 Ultimate x64.

I tried latest irst, no dice. Last things left is updated OROM in modded bios or regular MBR installation. Try normal non-EFI fresh install, I think this is it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDuck69 View Post

Lol. They are. And I agree with you.

I see there is a newer version of IRSTe that was released in Feb of this year. I'm currently running IRST from 12/3/2012. BIOS 1707 from Asus. I think I might try a fresh install tomorrow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit Igor View Post

Sorry,man i did not confirm EFI installation has nothing to do we it ,you know why?Because i never told you it got 100% to do with it.If you read my post and go to the picture with result,you can calculate that you will be seeing 10 to 15% lower result with efi installation,that mean you will see raid results but you will not see "super raid results".So like i said 10-15% here then 10-15% there and you will come to conclusion,LOL mad.gif
Can you somehow equalize their firmware ,it does not matter which,newer or older?
You dont have 3tb drive and you want to have 2xssd raid field,i dont see any benefit for you to stay in EFI,and this is thing that maybe solve your problem.But i would not do this before i run out of option.
Problem is!Maybe asynchronous drives struggle more in raid,but "I CANT CONFIRM THIS" biggrin.gif because i cant find asynchronous drives results in raid.Only agility 4 that dont have good result even when he is as single drive.
Do you have maybe some old machine,with sata2,if you get there 500 reads and 400 writes,then you will be closer one step to solution
This is result from guy that open thread:

asynchronous drives raid 0
http://www.assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?41900-Talking-about-SSD-Raids&s=d2a09c990ee8ab4ac62a10f35822249d&p=616731&viewfull=1#post616731
http://www.overclock.net/t/754763/as-ssd-benchmark-thread/1790#post_16248390
post #37 of 74
It is a normal Windows MBR install in my case.

Maybe the answer is to avoid asynchronous drives for now if you want RAID 0?

Edit*** Found this. So scratch that theory.
http://www.corsair.com/us/blog/neutron-gtx-240gb-raid-0-performance-review-at-rw-labs/
Edited by LuckyDuck69 - 4/2/13 at 6:37am
post #38 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDuck69 View Post

It is a normal Windows MBR install in my case.

Maybe the answer is to avoid asynchronous drives for now if you want RAID 0?

Edit*** Found this. So scratch that theory.
http://www.corsair.com/us/blog/neutron-gtx-240gb-raid-0-performance-review-at-rw-labs/

I dont get it,what theory you scratching?
Are you maybe comparing Corsair neutron gtx with Mushkin chronos?
Edited by Unit Igor - 4/2/13 at 7:33am
post #39 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDuck69 View Post

It is a normal Windows MBR install in my case.

Maybe the answer is to avoid asynchronous drives for now if you want RAID 0?

Edit*** Found this. So scratch that theory.
http://www.corsair.com/us/blog/neutron-gtx-240gb-raid-0-performance-review-at-rw-labs/

Those Netrons should run above 1,000MB/s in ATTO when RAIDed. My chronoses were giving me such results when in raid0 and under ATTO (sorry I lost the screen shot when restoring images multiple times).

So the theory is that async NAND drives run bad in raid0? and even though in ATTO it looks normal (at least it did for me), it still looks bad n AS SSD or CMD? problem is that vendors usually don't publish AS SSD or CMD results, only ATTO... go figure why wink.gif
Corsair Neutron GTX SSDs are based on asynchronous NAND according to this page:
http://www.comx.co.za/CSSD-N120GBGTX-BK-CORSAIR-Neutron-GTX-Series-120GB-2-5-SATA-6GB-s-Solid-State-Dr-Information-Price-Buy-Cheap-p-63879.php

I am trying to pull some benchmarks from Mushkin Technician over their forums. he also says something looks way off, but I know they benchmark only in ATTO and my ATTO looked good. He's scratching his head over that Sequential Read speed drop, because as he noted the Total Benchmark Score still looks normal and yet the Seq Read value in raid0 is way down. I asked him to duplicate the problem with possible on Z77 and 2 chronoses at their lab. will see.

it's just real life speeds in AS SSD or CMD looking like crap. based on a hunch I returned the new secondary SSD for RMA Exchange, hoping to get a matching firmware, because the new drive came with fw 5.0.7 and I can't update the old one to this number (latest is 5.0.6), maybe also that had something to do with it. will see in a week if that was it.

in meantime I will flash modified 1707 BIOS with latest Intel OROM 12.5) to my Maximus V Extreme. maybe this is the case too, stock 1707 BIOS comes with outdated 11.0.1339 OROM, perhaps there is a bug.

what got me stumped is that you are running MBR and yet your partition offset looks like it was GPT. nothing wrong with it in terms of alignment, but .... wondering if maybe that has some ill effect on raid0 with specifically async NAND SSDs only.

I will test MBR fresh install on new RAID0 too once I get the secondary drive back.

quite a few things to rule out.
post #40 of 74

Every Toggle NAND is automatically a type of synchronous NAND (because its kind of a enhanced synchronous technology).
About theory to avoid asynchronous drives for now if you want RAID 0.
I am not talking about any theory here,i am just thinking loud.
And his drives definitely need to hit at least 900 mb/s in AS-SSD,but i dont know whats wrong with them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: SSD
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Is it a normal result for RAID 0 mushkin chronos 240GB?