Jump to content



Photo

My SSD is so fast I thought my computer was broken


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#16 OP moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:25

Oh what the hell.  I downloaded and installed your precious dinosaur software, heres my result, keeping in mind that this is limited by SATA II:

 

lrh1.png

 

I'm not sure why you wanted to compare your results to mine, since you seem to have SATA III, and I did mention a couple of times I only have SATA II...




#17 notchinese

notchinese

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-October 12

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:27

The largest benefit of SSDs are random access times, not sequential bandwidth.



#18 OP moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:29

The largest benefit of SSDs are random access times, not sequential bandwidth.

 

Right, so why are you all using HD Tach, if it doesn't even test random access times properly? 

 

For random access times, HD Tune Pro says:

Random read 5020 IOPS

Random write 13032 IOPS

Random read (queue depth = 32) 37146 IOPS

Random write (queue depth = 32) 31531 IOPS

 

HD Tach says:

0.1ms.  That is all.



#19 fusi0n

fusi0n

    The Crazy One

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-July 04
  • OS: OSX 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5S 64GB

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:43

 

I used HD Tune Pro, because its what I already have.  I did a 500mb test using random bits, and I got the best result I've had yet:

 

 

 

 

 

HD Tune Pro: Intel   Raid 0 Volume Benchmark
 
Test capacity: full
 
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 215.3 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 274.4 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 244.2 MB/s
Access Time           : 0.110 ms
Burst Rate            : 151.8 MB/s
CPU Usage             : 2.5%


#20 OP moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:45

 

 

 

HD Tune Pro: Intel   Raid 0 Volume Benchmark
 
Test capacity: full
 
Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 215.3 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 274.4 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 244.2 MB/s
Access Time           : 0.110 ms
Burst Rate            : 151.8 MB/s
CPU Usage             : 2.5%

 

 

Oh I didn't do the volume benchmark because I'm using the drive, I didn't want to erase my data.  I did a 500mb file benchmark.  That'll give you the random IOPS.



#21 fusi0n

fusi0n

    The Crazy One

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-July 04
  • OS: OSX 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5S 64GB

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:48

Oh what the hell.  I downloaded and installed your precious dinosaur software, heres my result, keeping in mind that this is limited by SATA II:

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you wanted to compare your results to mine, since you seem to have SATA III, and I did mention a couple of times I only have SATA II...

I just wanted to see.. :) Just being friendly man..


Oh I didn't do the volume benchmark because I'm using the drive, I didn't want to erase my data.  I did a 500mb file benchmark.  That'll give you the random IOPS.

here is the 500mb file,

HD Tune Pro: Intel   Raid 0 Volume File Benchmark
 
Drive C:
 
Transfer rate test
 
File Size: 500 MB
 
Sequential read 529366 KB/s
Sequential write 434147 KB/s
Random read 5137 IOPS
Random write 14912 IOPS
Random read (queue depth = 32) 77400 IOPS
Random write (queue depth = 32) 83150 IOPS
01-August-2013_19-49.png
 
Also, another reason I wanted to post results because you asked if it could get any faster with RAID0.. We both have the same model drive with the exception of size..  So this should give you enough information.. 


#22 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:49

38825439.jpg



#23 fusi0n

fusi0n

    The Crazy One

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-July 04
  • OS: OSX 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5S 64GB

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:53

38825439.jpg

LOL



#24 OP moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 00:56

 

I just wanted to see.. :) Just being friendly man..


here is the 500mb file,

HD Tune Pro: Intel   Raid 0 Volume File Benchmark
 
Drive C:
 
Transfer rate test
 
File Size: 500 MB
 
Sequential read 529366 KB/s
Sequential write 434147 KB/s
Random read 5137 IOPS
Random write 14912 IOPS
Random read (queue depth = 32) 77400 IOPS
Random write (queue depth = 32) 83150 IOPS
 
Also, another reason I wanted to post results because you asked if it could get any faster with RAID0.. We both have the same model drive with the exception of size..  So this should give you enough information.. 

 

 

Right, sorry, my bad, I forgot.  I'm friendly too, I swear! :D

 

But man, yours is certainly running faster than mine.  The "queue depth = 32", whatever that means, is more than twice mine. But the other random read/write is about the same.  Sequential is certainly more than double, although I think that is more a factor of SATA III.



#25 fusi0n

fusi0n

    The Crazy One

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-July 04
  • OS: OSX 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5S 64GB

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:09

SATA II is no doubt your bottleneck.. If you have a free PCI express a lot, you might want to look into getting a sata III card.. They sell them at best buy.. Grab one and if it doesn't give you a huge difference take it back :p

But if it super fast.. No sense messing with it

#26 Pam14160

Pam14160

    Lee

  • Joined: 12-November 07
  • Location: Idaho

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:13

Turning off hibernation in Windows 8 disables the hybrid boot I believe. That will slow down boot times if you care.

No it doesn't.



#27 OP moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:21

SATA II is no doubt your bottleneck.. If you have a free PCI express a lot, you might want to look into getting a sata III card.. They sell them at best buy.. Grab one and if it doesn't give you a huge difference take it back :p

But if it super fast.. No sense messing with it

 

I actually have a Promise SATA card lying around.  It says "SATA 300".  I assume that means 3gbit/s, and not SATA 3.  And I think its regular PCI.  And is that little short slot in between my PCI and my PCIE Graphics card slot another PCIE slot?



#28 ZakO

ZakO

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-September 07
  • Location: Finland

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:21

Turning off hibernation in Windows 8 disables the hybrid boot I believe. That will slow down boot times if you care.

No it doesn't.

 
Do you have a source for that? As far as I'm aware disabling the hibernate file does indeed disable the faster hybrid boot: http://blogs.msdn.co...-windows-8.aspx:
 

Now here’s the key difference for Windows 8: as in Windows 7, we close the user sessions, but instead of closing the kernel session, we hibernate it.
...
You can disable hibernation and reclaim this space by running powercfg /hibernate off from an elevated command prompt. But be aware that if you do this, it will disable hibernation completely, including some nice capabilities like fast startup as well as hybrid sleep,



#29 OP moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:24

 
Do you have a source for that? As far as I'm aware disabling the hibernate file does indeed disable the faster hybrid boot: http://blogs.msdn.co...-windows-8.aspx:
 

 

So wait, I've never heard of hybrid boot, does this mean that when you shut down, it saves the kernel state, and when you boot up, instead of restarting the kernel, it reloads it?  And this is faster?  And I assume if you cold reboot, it is then forced to restart it?  

 

Maybe I should reenable hibernation...

 

Also, this Promise SATA card has got a huge 1" square blank gold pad on it for some reason, that might be worth something...



#30 OP moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 02 August 2013 - 18:58

Well I downloaded and installed BootRacer.  Time to log in to windows with hibernation turned off: 7 seconds.  Time to log in to windows with hibernation and "fast boot" enabled: 7 seconds.  Time to load desktop for both settings was also the same, at 20 seconds (I have a lot of programs in my startup).

 

So unless BootRacer isn't able to measure how long it takes the kernel to load (it probably isn't), there wasn't any noticeable change with "fast boot".  And yes, I used "shut down", not restart, because thats the only way to hibernate the kernel.  And I tried it twice, just in case I had to reboot to enable hibernation the first time.