| SandForce SF1200 RAID-0 SSD Performance |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Storage | |
| Written by Olin Coles | |
| Monday, 03 May 2010 | |
|
Page 7 of 11
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 TestsCrystalDiskMark 3.0 is a file transfer and operational bandwidth benchmark tool from Crystal Dew World that offers performance transfer speed results using sequential, 512KB random, and 4KB random samples. For our test results chart below, the 4KB 32-Queue Depth read and write performance was measured using a 1000MB space. CrystalDiskMark requires that an active partition be set on the drive being tested, and all drives are formatted with NTFS on the Intel ICH10 controller set to AHCI-mode. Benchmark Reviews uses CrystalDiskMark to illustrate operational IOPS performance with multiple threads. In addition to our other tests, this benchmark allows us to determine operational bandwidth under heavy load. Sequential tests on the SF-1200 RAID-0 4KB striped set produced a maximum read speed of 365.0 MB/s, while the write speed was only 150.6 MB/s. Oddly enough, reported sequential write speed actually increased with each test. The sequential file transfer speeds have traditionally been low with this benchmark tool, especially for SandForce controllers, which is why we will concentrate on the operational IOPS performance for this section. CrystalDiskMark 3.0 reported 512K results of 312.9 MB/s read and 150.8 MB/s write performance, which are about 50% higher than a single disk. 4K tests produced 18.18 read and 67.56 write performance, which is similar to a single SandForce SF-1200 SSD. 4KB queue depth 32 IOPS is one area where the RAID-0 SSDs excel, and nearly doubles the single-drive performance.
SandForce SF-1200 SSDs in RAID-0 using 4KB StripesSimilar to AS-SSD and ATTO Benchmark tests, CrystalDiskMark revealed immediate gains in regard to sequential transfer performance where RAID-0 128KN stripe sets were used. Sequential read speed soared to 443.8 MB/s (over 365 MB/s), while write performance was roughly the same. Generally speaking, 512K and 4K transfers were also very similar, with a slight edge in relation to read tests. 4KB queue depth 32 IOPS performance improved by 10 MB/s for read tests, but was only 3 MB/s better in write tests.
SandForce SF-1200 SSDs in RAID-0 using 128KB StripesDisplayed in the chart below, the maximum 4KB queue depth 32 IOPS performance results for several enthusiast-level storage products illustrate which products offer the best operation under load:
Drive Hardware
|
|
Comments
However the SanForce controller is not over-hyped. The products are still exponentially over priced but I must now watch SSD's and view them as a product to consider when the prices reach below SAS at near offered capacities.
Great review again!
Please also test with 2 x Crucial RealSSD C300 in RAID 0,
even if it's necessary to use the software RAID in Windows
+ an inexpensive 6G controller like the ASUS PCIE GEN2 SATA6G
controller.
And, comparing other host controllers would also be a good test
e.g. Highpoint 640, Intel's RS2BL040, and the integrated
6G ports on AMD's latest 890FX chipsets on motherboards by
ASUS, MSI and Gigabyte.
Until more SSDS conform to the current standard,
we will just have to wait and see what happens
to market prices for 3G and 6G products
when both are widely available.
That's why I'm waiting (for now).
MRFS
I only have one Crucial C300 SSD, and there aren't any plans to purchase a second unit. I do have a RAID-capable SATA 6Gb/s controller, if you or anyone else would like to loan one out. Comparing host controllers would be interesting, but since it would be specific to brands and drivers I'm not confident of the articles' shelf life.
In reality, a single SSD of any denomination will deliver virtually the same end-user experience as a RAID-0 array.
Also- I used Intel Rapid Storage Technology Driver 9.6.0.1014 for this article.
so the following comments are for the benefit of
other readers:
We recently added 2 cheap SATA/6G ports with this ASUS
PCIE GEN2 SATA6G controller -- only $20 at Newegg here:
##newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131610&Tpk=N82E16813131610
Yes, that card does NOT support RAID.
So, we had no trouble enabling XP's software RAID 0
with 2 x new WD 1TB SATA/6G HDDs:
##newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533&Tpk=N82E16822136533
Just convert partitions to "dynamic disks" and you're almost there.
Can someone loan Olin one more Crucial C300 SSD, maybe Crucial,
so he can compare software RAID 0 with 2 x SATA/6G SSDs?
It might even work with Intel's latest Rapid Storage Technology
set to JBOD on both devices.
Until then ...
... keep up the good work, Olin!
MRFS
OS Software Raid solutions can alter the testing results when compared to Hardware Raid. This is due to caching, CPU utilization(compute) , increased latency(I/O), and even performance increases in Software configured Raid benchmarks that would not appear in Hardware configured Raid benchmarks(such as queuing/scheduling and the like).
-just some thoughts, but I'm sure Benchmark Reviews will keep having thorough reviews.
As for using the the PCIe-based SATA 6Gb/s add-in cards for a RAID array, or even a compatible SAS controller, the PCI-Express bus is still limited to 5GB/s bandwidth.
As I posted earlier, now that controllers like this SandForce are out I am going to focus on SSD's considerably more. I'll scrutinize the prices on SSD's considerably more as well!
I agree that this has been a major marketing tool
of HBA vendors, but a lot of those vendors began
their HBA marketing when CPUs had only one core.
Now, with dual and quad-core CPUs quite common,
the idle core(s) can do a lot of the same computation
that was previously done by dedicated IOPs.
Multi-cores, in turn, can make software RAID
a very cost-effective proposition, e.g.
for the 8 GB database that we manage and
update cheaply with XCOPY.
MRFS
But back to Olin Coles testing with HBA/Raid Controllers...
Way to go! That's the industry wide accepted standard for most RAID. Software RAID would really change the benchmarks, and probably greatly when considering SSD's. But that would be a great article right there. Since so much technology has changed, what is the performance and benching differences between Software and Hardware RAID today on SSD's and HDD's? Perhaps coming soon to Benchmark reviews?
#en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express#PCI_Expr ess_2.0
"... a 32-lane PCI connector (x32) can support throughput up to 16 GB/s aggregate."
Thus, PCI-E 2.0 x16 lanes support 8 GB/second bandwidth.
Did you mean 5 Gigabits per second, instead of 5 Gigabytes per second?
I think you must be referring to a single PCI-E 2.0 x1 lane,
in only one direction.
PCI-E 1.0 x1 lane has a bandwidth of 2.5 Gb/sec in each direction;
PCI-E 2.0 x1 lane has a bandwidth of 5.0 Gb/sec in each direction.
Quadruple each for x4 lanes, and double that again for x8 lanes e.g.
Highpoint RocketRAID 2720 or Intel RS2BL080.
The edge connector on the add-in card is a quick indicator
of a RAID card's rated bandwidth.
MRFS
Tech at OCZ explained overprovisioning as a MAJOR FACTOR in the usable lifespan of an MLC ssd.
I am using it as my major drive because it is bootable too.
When installing these you must install windows while the bios is set for ACHI for the best performance.
Also turn off indexing and all the "performance" enhancing options in windows.
Windows is SO MUCH FASTER. The internet on the slowest DSL is so much improved.
I have asus ma4a89gtd pro/usb3 (stock athlon II 635 4 core 2.9GHZ processor + windows 7 pro) and the drive set up to usb 6gbs - but I don't think usb3 makes any speed difference.