Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

200 Megabytes/sec No Raid

A

Ace

Wedge In
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Sydney, Australia
Website
www.dlshs.net
1. Buying a G.Skill Falcon 128Gig SSD.... $320

2. 1 X Sata Cable purchase...$2

3. Transferring a 1 gig file in 3 seconds, booting up windows in 7 seconds, not having to worry about your raid-0 array going corrupt, not having to wait for applications to load, etc etc...

SSD.jpg


PRICELESS.

And this is just one drive. Wait till I stripe 4 of these bad-boys.
 
What the heck??? Why isn't this inside of the Red-Raid? I want 128gb of solid state for under $1,000 :-)
 
Okay, so after letting it transfer a while, the speed settled down. Settled down to 230MB/sec. Will raid0 a few these next week and try get 1GB/sec. Although I understand that Raid0 isn't the best thing for the health of an SSD.

sustained.jpg


Edit: Okay so I'm doing further tests, It seems like I am averaging 180-190meg /sec in typical usage which is more inline with the advertised specs, but Im not sure if the copying is bottle necked by the source drive I'm copying from (a raid0 array of 3 250gig drives)
 
Last edited:
Nice! Wait 'til they get bigger, too!

Can't wait for Red to start utilising these for super-fast, super-cheap solid-state mags, either...

Cheers for the info,
Dom.

EDIT: Hey Shawn - I believe the phrase is: "Great minds think alike"!
 
Yeah.

SSD's have been around for a while. But these things being released only the past couple of months by a couple of manufacturers (OCZ and GSKILL) have changed the game somewhat, since they've fixed issues with controllers and now have huge amount of cache on-board. Also, it seems that Samsung NAND memory production is picking up the economies of scale and is about to kick into gear.. Exciting times, in the world of.. memory!
 
Happy days indeed...

That 3 disk RAID-0 array is probably at theoretical maximum at about 220MB/s, I would guess, so 180-190 or so real-world sounds about right. That said, what were you copying from when you hit 350MB/s?

In any case, 190MB/s is pretty damn sweet for a single drive - disappointingly a little below uncomp 10-bit 1080p, but by the time the drives are large enough to be useful for uncomp HD work, they'll probably be fast enough too.

I'm still of the opinion that the most exciting application for them at the moment (from my PoV, at least) is as camera mags (be it for Red or others) for low compression and/or high framerate solid state storage - I'm sure Jim et al have figured the speed increase of storage into their plans for the new Epic cameras from day one, being the clever little buggers they are!...

Great news, however you cut it!
Dom.
 
Help needed testing SSD for true speed values...

Help needed testing SSD for true speed values...

If someone has a SSD in a PC it would be a big help to me to help "alpha" and "beta" test my true RAW recording speed check and HD MB/s tester.

The link is here,

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=440773

You need to rename the file in the ZIP from BIN to EXE before use.

On my brother's computer I read about 20MB/s to his SATA drives, on my computer I read about 1.5MB/s to my EIDE drives (higher under XP Home, the GUI version reads a little less than the DOS version on the same computer, HD, and "image" resolution).

To record 2592x1102x1.5x24fps you need about 103MB/s so I was wondering if any of the REDUSERS with souped up computers can get that much without glitches, since one does not want dropped frames shooting true RAW direct to the PC HD.

Any help with getting some real world numbers would be great. The first second or two the readings will be high, so it is good to record a minute or maybe 10 minutes non-stop to see what the real values are without the effects of the cahce and such...

EDIT: Because of seeming issues with DOSBOX I made a Windows GUI version of the HD/SSD frame rate fps/MB/s test program, It is in the new zip file at the link above, please let me know if it works under W7 or VISTA etc, thank you. Use the DOS version for W95, w98SE, and ME. Both seem to work on XP Home.
 
I really hope they've improved. I have an OCZ SSD in my laptop I got around beginning of the year and its already showing signs of slowing down after 6 months.

I tried their optimization ideas on the OCZ website but some are downright dangerous and lead to potentially losing data. Like the idea of using the "Windows Steady State" application to regulate writing to the disk during the day. This application is used commonly by those that rent PCs (like Kinkos) in order to insure the PC is clean after each person is finished and signs out. Just caches all your changes and can throw them away if its set that way in the options. The dangerous part is its not a completely stable application and you can loose all your changes to the hard disk, including but not limited to emails, documents, etc. that you changed since last write of cache to SSD.

So that idea wasn't quite ready for prime time IMO. I'm hoping the new models have enough cache in them that they can perform this kind of write caching inside the SSD itself and write it to the memory during periods of inactivity or shutdown.
 
Oooo tempting.... although I've already gone through 4 re-installs in the last 3 months. I'm not too anxious to bother with another HDD right now.

Next workstation though will definitely run a few of these.
 
Richard Andrewski said:
I really hope they've improved. I have an OCZ SSD in my laptop I got around beginning of the year and its already showing signs of slowing down after 6 months.
Click to expand...

The new drives from OCZ and GSKILL share nothing with the old ones they used to make. These come with 64mb cache and run new controllers. The previous models were pseudo SSD's really, as they had no cache and did not utilise the expensive controllers found in high-end models. These latest ones are the real deal.
 
Dan Hudgins said:
If someone has a SSD in a PC it would be a big help to me to help "alpha" and "beta" test my true RAW recording speed check and HD MB/s tester.

The link is here,

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=440773

You need to rename the file in the ZIP from BIN to EXE before use.

On my brother's computer I read about 20MB/s to his SATA drives, on my computer I read about 1.5MB/s to my EIDE drives.

To record 2592x1102x1.5x24fps you need about 103MB/s so I was wondering if any of the REDUSERS with souped up computers can get that much without glitches, since one does not want dropped frames shooting true RAW direct to the PC HD.

Any help with getting some real world numbers would be great. The first second or two the readings will be high, so it is good to record a minute or maybe 10 minutes non-stop to see what the real values are without the effects of the cahce and such...
Click to expand...

Can you make it work on windows 7 x64? It doesn't run on this system sorry.
 
Yes I see that the MLC are quite an improvement over SLC. Amazing how 6 months has changed the price/performance ratio a lot.

But why did you pick that particular model? For instance, this new OCZ model seems to be a bit better and has a larger 128mb cache:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227450

Seems on the surface at least to be faster in performance. Not sure about actual real performance though as I didn't find a review yet.
 
Richard Andrewski said:
Yes I see that the MLC are quite an improvement over SLC. Amazing how 6 months has changed the price/performance ratio a lot.

But why did you pick that particular model? For instance, this new OCZ model seems to be a bit better and has a larger 128mb cache:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227450

Seems on the surface at least to be faster in performance. Not sure about actual real performance though as I didn't find a review yet.
Click to expand...

The difference is night and day. Reason I got it is because It was the only one in stock and recommended by my IT supplier. The OCZ may very well be better!
 
Windows GUI version 0.04 of HD/SSD test program

Windows GUI version 0.04 of HD/SSD test program

acehole said:
Can you make it work on windows 7 x64? It doesn't run on this system sorry.
Click to expand...

I made a Windows GUI version of my HD/SSD speed tester program, its at the same link a version 004 of the zip file,

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=452044#post452044

Please let me know if it works for you and what version of windows you tested it on, it seems to work on XP Home, but not on w95 and w98SE, it is a 32bit program so maybe that is it, the DOS version works on those, so both are in the ZIP file the windows version is called DANHDSCW.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if you get any MB/s and fps readings, with the fps readings I need to know the resolution you entered, values up to about 6K should work(?), you need to have enough free disk space to save the frames into to get a full reading for the frame set.
 
Richard Andrewski said:
This new OCZ model seems to be a bit better and has a larger 128mb cache:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227450

Seems on the surface at least to be faster in performance. Not sure about actual real performance though as I didn't find a review yet.
Click to expand...

This will likely be the drive that I use for the system drive in my new PC editing workstation build.

It's sooooo hard to spend the cash on these things though, knowing they're going to be so much bigger and so much cheaper in six months or so. :rolleyes:
 
Jonas Bendsen said:
This will likely be the drive that I use for the system drive in my new PC editing workstation build.

It's sooooo hard to spend the cash on these things though, knowing they're going to be so much bigger and so much cheaper in six months or so. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Paul Leeming posted his system in another thread here. He used two sets of SSD drives for that system. I think it was a 128mb boot (two 64s in RAID 0) and a 256mb scratch drive (two 128s in RAID 0). He used an earlier generation but got great results. Very tempting but yes, I already regret buying the one I did earlier this year. The SLC ones aren't much good for use as a main computer drive let alone a RAID setup. Probably fine though for some embedded systems where things don't change very often.

I'm thinking about at least putting two 64s in RAID 0 as my boot drive. Should speed up program loading immensely. Probably a good idea to put the Windows virtual memory file on another drive though. May do the scratch drive too, but first the boot.
 
Richard Andrewski said:
I'm thinking about at least putting two 64s in RAID 0 as my boot drive. Should speed up program loading immensely. Probably a good idea to put the Windows virtual memory file on another drive though. May do the scratch drive too, but first the boot.
Click to expand...

I dont know if Raiding is good for SSD's in the longterm. SSD's seem to perform pretty averagely with file sizes below 64kb and the current technology seems to limit the life of the SSD. So maybe if you do Raid them, make sure the Chunk size is large (I'd go for 256kb if your dealing with large files.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top