Overclock.net banner

Slow Write speed with RAID 0'd Samsung 840 Series SSD

6K views 39 replies 7 participants last post by  Squeegiefilms 
#1 ·
Hi I really need help with this issue. I RAID 0'd my Samsung 840 Series, (ive got an MSI Z77A-GD55 motherboard) and I specifically got these hard drives for screen recording. Oh, and by the way, when I boot up, it shows my 3 hard drives, the two striped RAID 0 ones and a plain old 7200rpm HDD. Anyway, for example, when I open up DxTory, the write speed says 264 mb/s. For my SEAGATE HDD it says 140 mb/s. When I test the write speeds of the ssd's with a different program, its around the same thing. (I'll attach screenshots) When recording, I get a write speed of about 20-24 frames per second, which is equivalent of the HDD. I also get a massive FPS drop. The same thing happens with Fraps and Bandicam.



Here are my specs:

SSD: Dual 120GB Samsung 840 Series
HDD- Seagate Barracuda 7200 1 TB 7200RPM SATA 6 Gb/s
Power Supply-Cooler Master eXtreme Power Plus 500w
RAM- Dual Coarsair Vengeance 8GB
Motherboard- Z77A-GD55
Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 670 Windforce 3X OC Edition
Proccessor: Intel Core i7 2700k
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
I'm not quite sure on the raid, but if you have the regular 120g 840 then that sounds about right. I have 1 of the 840 (120g) ssd's and the read is 500mb and the write is 130mb by what says on the specs. So doubled for the raid is probably right. I might be wrong on the the raid part tho
 
#3 ·
Your write and read speeds are slow for RAID 0, I assume you are using the Intel IRST RAID driver and configuration?

The Dxtory speed does not show the true speed of your SSDs, but the Magician benchmark is much slower than it could be.

It looks like you have one or both of the SSDs connected to a SATA II port, which will limit their sequential read and write speeds a lot. Your board only has two SATA III ports, the two white SATA connectors on the board. Both SSDs must be connected to the SATA III ports in order to get maximum performance.

If you have your HDD on one of the SATA III ports, move it to a SATA II port. The number of "SATA III" HDDs that can approach even the limits of SATA II (yes, SATA II, 3Gb/s) speeds is zero. SATA III HDDs are pure marketing BS, they are able to meet certain technical requirements that allow them to be called SATA III, but they are barely faster than SATA II HDDs. You won't lose any performance by moving the HDD to a SATA II port.

Have you ever used the IRST Windows UI, called Intel Rapid Storage Technology in Control Panel? That will display what SATA interface a drive is connected to, when you click the Advanced display of an individual drive.

If you are using the Windows virtual disk feature, that is very slow compared to the Intel RAID your board provides.
 
#4 ·
So you have three storage devices. There are only TWO SATA 6.0 gbps ports on that board. Which ports do you have the SSDs attached to? If they're not both attached to the 6.0 gbps ports, you'll end up with slower RAID 0 speeds.

Also, you didn't mention how you did the RAID 0 -- did you do it via Intel RST (motherboard RAID) or do you do it as software RAID in Windows?

Greg
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

Your write and read speeds are slow for RAID 0, I assume you are using the Intel IRST RAID driver and configuration?

The Dxtory speed does not show the true speed of your SSDs, but the Magician benchmark is much slower than it could be.

It looks like you have one or both of the SSDs connected to a SATA II port, which will limit their sequential read and write speeds a lot. Your board only has two SATA III ports, the two white SATA connectors on the board. Both SSDs must be connected to the SATA III ports in order to get maximum performance.
For writes, it doesn't really matter if the OP has the SSD connected to SATA II or SATA III. He's using a Samsung 840 120GB (TLC) which can only do ~130MB/s sequential write. A couple of short stroked WD10EZEX's or 7200.14's in RAID-0 would provide better sequentials than the Samung 840. Heck, even the 250GB and 500GB models aren't exactly stellar when it comes to sequential writes. The 250GB does around 250MB/s while the 500GB does 330MB/s. The older generation Samsung 830 128GB does 320MB/s and the 256GB and 512GB 400MB/s.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rui-no-onna View Post

For writes, it doesn't really matter if the OP has the SSD connected to SATA II or SATA III. He's using a Samsung 840 120GB (TLC) which can only do ~130MB/s sequential write. A couple of short stroked WD10EZEX's or 7200.14's in RAID-0 would provide better sequentials than the Samung 840. Heck, even the 250GB and 500GB models aren't exactly stellar when it comes to sequential writes. The 250GB does around 250MB/s while the 500GB does 330MB/s. The older generation Samsung 830 128GB does 320MB/s and the 256GB and 512GB 400MB/s.
Oops, my bad -- good catch, I thought it was an 840 Pro, which can write faster than the 840.

Greg
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rui-no-onna View Post

For writes, it doesn't really matter if the OP has the SSD connected to SATA II or SATA III. He's using a Samsung 840 120GB (TLC) which can only do ~130MB/s sequential write. A couple of short stroked WD10EZEX's or 7200.14's in RAID-0 would provide better sequentials than the Samung 840. Heck, even the 250GB and 500GB models aren't exactly stellar when it comes to sequential writes. The 250GB does around 250MB/s while the 500GB does 330MB/s. The older generation Samsung 830 128GB does 320MB/s and the 256GB and 512GB 400MB/s.
Really, was it that important to nitpick that detail? Enjoy!!

Plus, the Magician benchmark is showing over 300MB/s sequential write speed (305MB/s.)

You're also telling me the specs of my 128GB and 256GB 830's, thanks! An 840 uses TLC NAND? Who knew???

How would you explain the sequential write results of those two 840's in RAID 0? Write caching that does not occur on a single SSD?

And the mention of the HDDs in RAID 0... where did that come from, and why? Just more contempt for 840's?

The important thing here is it appears that those 840's are not both on the Intel SATA III ports, unless you think that is not important? That is the point of my post, not to rattle off dumbed down specs that we don't know the basis of at all.

We also have no idea what version of IRST is being used, or the caching settings being used. Actually, we don't even know the OP is using IRST.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

Your write and read speeds are slow for RAID 0, I assume you are using the Intel IRST RAID driver and configuration?

The Dxtory speed does not show the true speed of your SSDs, but the Magician benchmark is much slower than it could be.

It looks like you have one or both of the SSDs connected to a SATA II port, which will limit their sequential read and write speeds a lot. Your board only has two SATA III ports, the two white SATA connectors on the board. Both SSDs must be connected to the SATA III ports in order to get maximum performance.

If you have your HDD on one of the SATA III ports, move it to a SATA II port. The number of "SATA III" HDDs that can approach even the limits of SATA II (yes, SATA II, 3Gb/s) speeds is zero. SATA III HDDs are pure marketing BS, they are able to meet certain technical requirements that allow them to be called SATA III, but they are barely faster than SATA II HDDs. You won't lose any performance by moving the HDD to a SATA II port.

Have you ever used the IRST Windows UI, called Intel Rapid Storage Technology in Control Panel? That will display what SATA interface a drive is connected to, when you click the Advanced display of an individual drive.

If you are using the Windows virtual disk feature, that is very slow compared to the Intel RAID your board provides.
Hey, thanks for the help. I'll see what I can do when I get home later today and report back to you if it woked
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

Really, was it that important to nitpick that detail? Enjoy!!

Plus, the Magician benchmark is showing over 300MB/s sequential write speed (305MB/s.)

You're also telling me the specs of my 128GB and 256GB 830's, thanks! An 840 uses TLC NAND? Who knew???

How would you explain the sequential write results of those two 840's in RAID 0? Write caching that does not occur on a single SSD?

And the mention of the HDDs in RAID 0... where did that come from, and why? Just more contempt for 840's?

The important thing here is it appears that those 840's are not both on the Intel SATA III ports, unless you think that is not important? That is the point of my post, not to rattle off dumbed down specs that we don't know the basis of at all.

We also have no idea what version of IRST is being used, or the caching settings being used. Actually, we don't even know the OP is using IRST.
I am in fact using IRST
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammong View Post

So you have three storage devices. There are only TWO SATA 6.0 gbps ports on that board. Which ports do you have the SSDs attached to? If they're not both attached to the 6.0 gbps ports, you'll end up with slower RAID 0 speeds.

Also, you didn't mention how you did the RAID 0 -- did you do it via Intel RST (motherboard RAID) or do you do it as software RAID in Windows?

Greg
I did motherboard RAID 0 via IRST
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

And the mention of the HDDs in RAID 0... where did that come from, and why? Just more contempt for 840's?
Just pointing out that for sequential writes, the Samsung 840's aren't exactly top performers and that even older generation 830's perform better in that aspect. As for HDD's in RAID-0, if the target usage is recording where fast sequential write is key, 2x $60 1TB platter HDD's in RAID-0 short stroked to, say, 25% would probably deliver better performance than the relatively more expensive Samsung 840 120GB x2 array. Mind, even a single 840 PRO 128GB is capable of 390MB/s which is more than double the sequential write of the 840 120GB in RAID-0.

I don't hold the vanilla 840's in contempt. I think they make great, inexpensive drives for operating systems, programs, games, etc. However, that doesn't mean they're the best choice in all situations.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rui-no-onna View Post

Just pointing out that for sequential writes, the Samsung 840's aren't exactly top performers and that even older generation 830's perform better in that aspect. As for HDD's in RAID-0, if the target usage is recording where fast sequential write is key, 2x $60 1TB platter HDD's in RAID-0 short stroked to, say, 25% would probably deliver better performance than the relatively more expensive Samsung 840 120GB x2 array. Mind, even a single 840 PRO 128GB is capable of 390MB/s which is more than double the sequential write of the 840 120GB in RAID-0.

I don't hold the vanilla 840's in contempt. I think they make great, inexpensive drives for operating systems, programs, games, etc. However, that doesn't mean they're the best choice in all situations.
OK. But will I be able to record at 1080p at high fps?
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeegiefilms View Post

OK. But will I be able to record at 1080p at high fps?
I dont get it,do you ask will you be able to record your gameplay in 1080 at high fps,because your write speed is 250mb/s?
I think people have record gameplay in that resolution before SSD even hit market,so i think you should look for your problem somewhere else.
Your Basic 840 are just fine and in RAID 0 even better,you can hit 300mb/s in 4k writes,just enable write back-cache in Intel RST control panel.
Also you need to give us AS-SSD benchmark,so we can see is everything alright.
http://www.filehippo.com/download_asssdbenchmark/
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

The important thing here is it appears that those 840's are not both on the Intel SATA III ports, unless you think that is not important?
For the record, it isn't important.
Neither drive is maxing its write throughput.

If OP were concerned about read speed that'd be one thing, but doesn't seem to be an issue.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit Igor View Post

I dont get it,do you ask will you be able to record your gameplay in 1080 at high fps,because your write speed is 250mb/s?
I think people have record gameplay in that resolution before SSD even hit market,so i think you should look for your problem somewhere else.
That's what multi-drive RAID-0 arrays are for.

Just to give you an idea, raw uncompressed 1080p60 RGB 8-bit video has a bitrate of ~373MB/s (~356MiB/s). I doubt any amount of optimization will get the 120GB 840 in 2-way RAID-0 operating at that speed. Best thing to do is to play around with Dxtory's video codec settings and make sure compression (preferably lossless) is enabled.

@Squeegiefilms
Post a screenshot of your Dxtory Movie Setting and codec configuration dialog box.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rui-no-onna View Post

That's what multi-drive RAID-0 arrays are for.

Just to give you an idea, raw uncompressed 1080p60 RGB 8-bit video has a bitrate of ~373MB/s (~356MiB/s). I doubt any amount of optimization will get the 120GB 840 in 2-way RAID-0 operating at that speed. Best thing to do is to play around with Dxtory's video codec settings and make sure compression (preferably lossless) is enabled.

@Squeegiefilms
Post a screenshot of your Dxtory Movie Setting and codec configuration dialog box.
So what you saying is,that if somebody wants to record gameplay in max. have to have at least four HDD in RAID 0?

UPDATE:Yes it seems you really need 4xHDD in RAID 0 or one SSD like Samsung PRO 256GB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv-1RRQsXF4
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeegiefilms View Post

Sorry. Forgot to put it in the screenshot. Im using YV12 for Lagarith and using multithreading
You're using Lagarith YV12 so your video bitrate should actually be below 93MB/s for 1080p30 and below 187MB/s for 1080p60. Those numbers are for uncompressed video and actual bitrate would, of course, depend on compressibility. However, suffice to say even the Samsung 840 shouldn't have been a bottleneck. I recommend enabling Limit Video FPS to see if that somehow helps with your problem. If not, you might want to inquire at the ExKode forums and see if they have any ideas on what settings would be ideal for your setup.

Disclaimer:
I've never used DxTory (although I have used FRAPS on occasion). Most of my knowledge regarding videos has been gleaned from doing raw video caps and the Doom9 forums. Still, I reckon as far as raw performance requirements for DxTory is concerned, the same principles should apply.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top