# 2 x SSD Raid 0 - is this right?



## t_ski (Aug 31, 2009)

I bought two new OCZ Summit drives and hooked them up in Raid 0 on my ICHR-10 chipset, then loaded up Windows 7 x64 Ultimate RTM.  After finding HDTach wasn't working right I ran Atto:







Rather dissapointed, as I expected reads around 400-440MB/s, and writes should be over 200MB/s.  Is it the drive(s) or is there somethign else I'm missing?  I don't think it'a the controller, as four 250GB Seagate drives in Raid 0 are much better:






Any clues?  Or should I just scrap them and stick with my Seagates?


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 31, 2009)

Is write back enabled?  What stripe did you set? Oh and doesn't HDTach will work under XP compatibility mode.


----------



## Asylum (Aug 31, 2009)

Try hd tune  and see what it says.


----------



## t_ski (Aug 31, 2009)

mlee49 said:


> Is write back enabled?  What stripe did you set? Oh and doesn't HDTach will work under XP compatibility mode.



It does work under XP compatibility mode, but both the SDD array and the HDD array show reads under 200 MB/s, which is way too low.

Will look for HDTune now.


----------



## t_ski (Aug 31, 2009)

OK, maybe it is the controller.  Here's the SSD's:






And here are the HDD's:






I particularly like how the HDD's not only don't curve downward as the reads go rather out, but they actually go up.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 31, 2009)

Those last ss look on par.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2009)

t_ski said:


> OK, maybe it is the controller.  Here's the SSD's:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090830/HDtune_2x60GB_raid0.png
> 
> ...



There is definitely something amiss there. Are you sure you setup your stripe sizes properly, and optimized your allocation size for that stripe size?


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 31, 2009)

For raid 0 something is deff wrong.  Those results you show are what they should read for standard non raid setup.

could be a XP (64.ver) problem.   Have you tried making these changes; http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43460

Would be better off with W7.


----------



## angelkiller (Aug 31, 2009)

I've gotten lower performance after installing an OS. Something to do with all the writes and such made during the install. I've heard that a better solution may be to install your OS on a HDD and image it over. I don't think you can use benchmark your OS drive and get the rated results.

On my Vertex, I don't get the rated speeds after I've installed XP. However, I've gotten them before I installed an OS in it though...


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2009)

Namslas90 said:


> For raid 0 something is deff wrong.  Those results you show are what they should read for standard non raid setup.
> 
> could be a XP (64.ver) problem.   Have you tried making these changes; http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43460
> 
> Would be better off with W7.



These are from W7 Ultimate x64 according to the OP.


----------



## mudkip (Aug 31, 2009)

havw you tried this?:

    * Alignment: Yes
    * Defragmentation : No disable
    * Indexing : No disable
    * Swapfile on SSD: Yes
    * Let 10% of your SSD space untouched: your choice
    * Raidcontroller: your choice
    * Cachingsoftware: Yes
    * Superfetch :No disable

My guess is that your partition is not aligned and you didn't enable write read cache


----------



## mudkip (Aug 31, 2009)

and firmware update should help also


----------



## t_ski (Aug 31, 2009)

Turns out it was the write-back cache.  I originally had it on, but when I ran HDTach, reads were under 200 MB/s for both arrays, when I knew the four Seagates were capable of 400-600 MB/s reads on previous setups.  I turned the write-back cache off to try to correct this (IIRC having it on in XP was bad for benches), but saw no difference.  I installed the Intel chipset drivers (with the -overall switch) to try to correct this, and it must have worked.  However, I never turned the write-back on.

Results:


----------



## mudkip (Aug 31, 2009)

t_ski said:


> Turns out it was the write-back cache.  I originally had it on, but when I ran HDTach, reads were under 200 MB/s for both arrays, when I knew the four Seagates were capable of 400-600 MB/s reads on previous setups.  I turned the write-back cache off to try to correct this (IIRC having it on in XP was bad for benches), but saw no difference.  I installed the Intel chipset drivers (with the -overall switch) to try to correct this, and it must have worked.  However, I never turned the write-back on.
> 
> Results:
> 
> ...



Nice tski!

Also I look forward to see you in this topic 

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=102219


----------



## t_ski (Aug 31, 2009)

mudkip said:


> Nice tski!
> 
> Also I look forward to see you in this topic
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=102219



Thanks, and I will be checking this out later


----------



## Duekay (Sep 4, 2009)

t_ski said:


> Turns out it was the write-back cache.  I originally had it on, but when I ran HDTach, reads were under 200 MB/s for both arrays, when I knew the four Seagates were capable of 400-600 MB/s reads on previous setups.  I turned the write-back cache off to try to correct this (IIRC having it on in XP was bad for benches), but saw no difference.  I installed the Intel chipset drivers (with the -overall switch) to try to correct this, and it must have worked.  However, I never turned the write-back on.
> 
> Results:
> 
> ...



Hey mate,

Im having same problems, how do i access write-back cashe?


----------



## allen337 (Sep 4, 2009)

start-programs-intel matrix storage manager, view-advanced mode right click array and enable write back cache

go to intel.com to download lastest intel matrix storage manager drivers


----------



## james2008 (Sep 4, 2009)

t_ski said:


> Rather dissapointed, as I expected reads around 400-440MB/s, and writes should be over 200MB/s.  Is it the drive(s) or is there somethign else I'm missing?  I don't think it'a the controller, as four 250GB Seagate drives in Raid 0 are much better:
> 
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Wile E (Sep 5, 2009)

james2008 said:


> t_ski said:
> 
> 
> > Rather dissapointed, as I expected reads around 400-440MB/s, and writes should be over 200MB/s.  Is it the drive(s) or is there somethign else I'm missing?  I don't think it'a the controller, as four 250GB Seagate drives in Raid 0 are much better:
> ...


----------



## angelkiller (Sep 5, 2009)

Just to add a bit to what Wile E said,

Yes, RAID was meant for redundacy, but Raid 0 was not. What part of Raid 0 offers _redundacy_? Raid 0 has ZERO redundacy. (hence the name?) 

Raid 0 stripes the data so half on one drive and half on the other. So you have 2 drives delivering data, which does double the theoritical bandwidth.

The problem with your example is that both Persons are not working together. Both drives in Raid 0 are delivering data, so 2 things both working to make the same thing. Think of it like this: Person 1 can move 200 pounds of dirt in 1 hour. Person 2 can move 200 pounds of dirt in 1 your. If you have 2 piles of dirt, each 200 pounds, how long will it take the dirt to get moved? If one Person 1 works alone, it will take 2 hours. If Person 1 and Person 2 each work on a pile, it'll take 1 hour. Twice as much dirt per hour. Increased performance. Get it?


----------



## james2008 (Sep 5, 2009)

Lads you both missed my point, I suppose I shouldn't have started with a over
simple explanation!

While I didn't get to read all the thread, the main jab was at Stripe, which isn't
the huge preformance booster people seem to think it is! Also its was a half arsed
attempted at getting an SSD! 

When it comes to accessing data, latency is the key, and that's the problem, because
no matter how you justify the bandwidth, and yes bigger is better, its the speed thats 
the factor. Now SSD, fantastic, but when you talk about RAID (Mainly SATA and PATA)
and double speeds for dual drives it's just not there. That was the point!

Oh and angelkiller, RAID0, was not called that because its striped, it just part of a familly
hence RAID10 and so on RAID5+0 etc....

I have proof, but buggered if I know how to use this sites attachment features, PM me
your email if you want a pretty picture, with the dismal performance of RAID0!
James


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2009)

james2008 said:


> Lads you both missed my point, I suppose I shouldn't have started with a over
> simple explanation!
> 
> While I didn't get to read all the thread, the main jab was at Stripe, which isn't
> ...


Except that RAID0 doesn't effect latency all that much. Again, look at his results, they speak for themselves. Can't blame you for trying to get an SSD tho. lol.

Not to mention, bandwidth most certainly does come in handy if you must move large amounts of data.

That's all besides the point tho. Most of us on this site that do things like this aren't in it for the practicality. We like benchmarks. RAID0 wins benchmarks, plain and simple. None of us are stupid enough to actually use a RAID0 array to store important data. All I put on my RAID array is my OS and programs. I don't mind having to reinstall my stuff in the event of a failure. All it costs me is some time. Now, my storage goes on a pair of 1TB f1's without RAID. As soon as I can afford it, I plan on grabbing a proper caching controller, and migrating my data to a RAID5 array, probably with 6 or so 1TB drives.

Also, RAID0 was invented purely to improve performance. It was never intended to fall into the original concept of RAID by offering redundancy.


----------



## james2008 (Sep 7, 2009)

Hey I added a photo, this is fun!
As you can see from this example, taken from The Ultimate PC UPGRADE 
Guide [2009]. While there is a increase in MB read per second. This does not
translate when it comes to actual performance increase, when it come to
loading data into memory and running applications. Here, they are all games!

That was my point, should have started with the pretty picture!
James


----------



## t_ski (Sep 8, 2009)

There is indeed a noticable difference with using Raid 0 arrays, especially in application and game load times.  File transfers, reads and writes are also increased.

The point of this thread is not to argue the vaule of one raid type over another.  The point of this thread was that something was wrong with my setup and I was asking for assistance in correcting the setup.  If you guys want to threadcrap, go somewhere else before you're banned.


----------



## strick94u (Sep 8, 2009)

Face it the summit was not built to be the fastest ssd out there it's built to be fast and reliable and 2 in raid 0 the speed your getting beats my twin raptor 10,000's so.... damn you dropped some coins for that setup should do you right for a long time
and don't worry that next year this time they will be building ssd's 10x faster at half the cost, you my friend are an early adapter ocz depends on guys like you
and most of the rest of us here.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 8, 2009)

did you align the partition properly?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 8, 2009)

T ski b4 your done with this post can you list a step by step fix of what you did, I would appreciate it if you would...Thanks


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 8, 2009)

i have a bunch of tips... you just gotta ask.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 8, 2009)

*Hey Fits*

Can you list a few helpful hints for T ski ,maybe a step by step how to OR what to look out for


----------



## t_ski (Sep 8, 2009)

Fit, post your stuff here:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=102219

All other SSD conversation needs to go there, too.  This one is done.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 8, 2009)

fell first off...

make sure the drives are updated to the newest firmware.

then your ready to setup.

in raid, if you are using the onboard intel controller in the southbridge then you want to set a 64k stripe for best performance. this may not be an option on all boards. if it isnt then choose 128k stripe. 

once thats done you'll need to run fdisk from a vista install disk. to do this, let it load the dvd to the menu. hit install at the first screen and then repair at the second screen. then choose command prompt. 

at the command prompt type fdisk and hit enter

now your in fdisk....

type "list disk"

there should be only one, the raid you created. it should be disk 0 or disk 1.

depending on the answer, type "select disk 0" (or 1 or whatever yours is) and hit enter.

now, do the same thing with the partition command.

type "list partition" and hit enter. there shouldnt be any but if there is type "select partition 0" (or 1 or whatever it is)

this is the magical one.... 

if you set a 64k stripe then you need to set a 64k offset. same goes if you set a 128k stripe and so on.

type "create partition primary align=64k" (or 128k and so on) and hit enter.

then type "active" and hit enter.

now type "exit" then hit enter and type "exit" again and your ready to install your OS. 

DONT let the installer format the drive again. it can mess up your previous settings you worked so hard to set.

as soon as you get into windows turn off indexing, windows search, prefetch, superfetch, and autodefrag.

install intel matrix storage drivers and reboot. once your back into windows, locate the matrix storage console in the start menu and open it.

find the raid drive and right click it and enable write back cache. now reboot again.

now run your benches and show me what you get.


----------



## techspec6 (Sep 20, 2009)

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57599

This thread explains how to align your single SSD or RAID array.  Do not use a 64k alignment.  It will not be aligned to the SSDs Blocks (aka erase blocks).  Default alignments by Vista and W7 are valid in most hardware scenarios.

Jason


----------



## james2008 (Sep 22, 2009)

t_ski said:


> There is indeed a noticable difference with using Raid 0 arrays, especially in application and game load times.  File transfers, reads and writes are also increased.
> 
> The point of this thread is not to argue the vaule of one raid type over another.  The point of this thread was that something was wrong with my setup and I was asking for assistance in correcting the setup.  If you guys want to threadcrap, go somewhere else before you're banned.



This is your thread and I am sorry, but I was saying, don't expect the performance out of RAID, as it is a fallacy. And that was the cause of your dissapointment!
Also I am disapointed that you didn't give a friendy warning first!
James


----------



## Wile E (Sep 23, 2009)

james2008 said:


> This is your thread and I am sorry, but I was saying, don't expect the performance out of RAID, as it is a fallacy. And that was the cause of your dissapointment!
> Also I am disapointed that you didn't give a friendy warning first!
> James



No, it isn't a fallacy. Especially considering he is no longer disappointed with his performance. He got exactly the performance boost he was looking for once he set up his array properly.


----------



## james2008 (Sep 24, 2009)

really! wow! on two accounts!
James


----------



## t_ski (Sep 24, 2009)

Wile E said it all


----------

