![]() |
|
|
#1 |
![]() |
Agility 2 60Gb SSD raid 0 seems slow
Hey guys,
I just installed 2 Agility 2 60Gb drives in raid 0 and all seems OK. Win 7 boots up fine and fast but I'm noticing that games are NOT loading any faster (perhaps even slower than my HDD raid 0) and they reside on the SSD drives. Did I miss something in the setup? Do I have to adjust something on the drives or the MB bios???? Could it be my stripe size???? I set it to 64Kb but deleted the raid array and formatted the drives until I find out if I should be setting it to 128Kb. so is there a rule of thumb? As in 60gb drives in raid 0 = 64Kb stripe or is it 60gb drives in raid 0 = 128Kb stripe Any help would be appreciated. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Seņor Moderator
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Utrecht, Utrecht, The kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 8,498 (2.58/day)
Thanks: 41
Thanked 1,453 Times in 1,077 Posts
|
I run all my games from the LAN and they still load fast. You probably just expected too much from the SSD's. Could you name some games and their loading times?
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to DanTheBanjoman For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#3 |
![]() |
Well,
I'm running Bad company 2 and Silent Hunter 5 and I noticed that the load times were either as fast or slightly slower than my HDD raid0 setup. Off the top of my head I would say the games loaded on the SSD OS were about 5-10 seconds slower. ON SILENT HUNTER 5..... The load times were MUCH MUCH slower I'd say by almost a minute. Very strange.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
1.21 Gigawatts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CANADA
Posts: 5,448 (2.78/day)
Thanks: 2,688
Thanked 1,294 Times in 1,092 Posts
|
did you partition the drives so they are aligned to 1024k?
__________________
CPU-Z validation sig pics temporarily blocked |
|
|
|
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fullinfusion For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#5 |
![]() |
I guess not because I have no clue what you're talking about lol..... How would you do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
![]() |
If you're referring to Allocation Size unit, yes I just reformatted both drives and set them to 1024
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
1.21 Gigawatts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CANADA
Posts: 5,448 (2.78/day)
Thanks: 2,688
Thanked 1,294 Times in 1,092 Posts
|
not sure about a raid 0 set up, but either windows 7 will do it for ya before install or you need to run disk part...
Go download this tool to check it will look like this if the alignment is good...
__________________
CPU-Z validation sig pics temporarily blocked |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to fullinfusion For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#8 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: στο άλφα έως ωμέγα
Posts: 3,839 (2.28/day)
Thanks: 2,032
Thanked 1,416 Times in 1,115 Posts
|
Here is a good SSD guide:
SSD ABC Guide Here is W1zzards alignment calculator: SSD Alignment Calculator Don't forget the RAID button, if and, when you check.
|
|
|
|
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 95Viper For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#9 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,159 (1.87/day)
Thanks: 234
Thanked 652 Times in 533 Posts
|
Also, did you do a fresh Windows 7 install or a clone? A cloned install can severely impact performance as Win7 sets alot of parameters during install depending on what it's being installed on.
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Thrackan For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#10 |
![]() |
Nope..... It was a fresh install of win 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
TPU addict
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: US\ Uk Born
Posts: 8,794 (4.07/day)
Thanks: 1,675
Thanked 1,348 Times in 1,170 Posts
|
Intel recommend 16kb strip size for raid 0 going by there newer RST 10.1.0.1008 drivers.
Try turning off some windows services too like indexing, defrag and even pagefile. |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to AsRock For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#12 | |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,159 (1.87/day)
Thanks: 234
Thanked 652 Times in 533 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Thrackan For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#13 |
|
TPU addict
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: US\ Uk Born
Posts: 8,794 (4.07/day)
Thanks: 1,675
Thanked 1,348 Times in 1,170 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to AsRock For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#14 |
![]() Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 2,044 (0.97/day)
Thanks: 210
Thanked 302 Times in 245 Posts
|
I don't mean to intrude, but why turn off:
superfetching prefetching indexing page file ? What does this accomplish?
__________________
co5 is cal i htpc: work in progress.. HeatWare - http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=71725 |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to happita For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#15 | |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,159 (1.87/day)
Thanks: 234
Thanked 652 Times in 533 Posts
|
Quote:
Pagefile on an SSD causes unnecessary wear and tear. (same also counts for the options above) I put my pagefile on my HDD, just in case I actually need it. |
|
|
|
|
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thrackan For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#16 | |
![]() Join Date: May 2009
Location: Douglasville, GA USA
Posts: 3,701 (2.51/day)
Thanks: 1,365
Thanked 1,264 Times in 930 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to TheLaughingMan For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#17 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,159 (1.87/day)
Thanks: 234
Thanked 652 Times in 533 Posts
|
not 100% sure, I believe indexing at least is auto turned-off, but I think I turned off pre- and superfetch myself.
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Thrackan For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#18 | |
![]() |
Quote:
I had to turn all that stuff off myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
1.21 Gigawatts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CANADA
Posts: 5,448 (2.78/day)
Thanks: 2,688
Thanked 1,294 Times in 1,092 Posts
|
your all slow lol.lolololoollllll... pmme for super fast ssd's...
alll ssd's are fast, but unless there aligned @ 1024k they don't work worth a shit!!!!
__________________
CPU-Z validation sig pics temporarily blocked |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to fullinfusion For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#20 |
|
1.21 Gigawatts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CANADA
Posts: 5,448 (2.78/day)
Thanks: 2,688
Thanked 1,294 Times in 1,092 Posts
|
anybody wanna buy an 6950 that is able to unlock to full 6970 clock....
I paid 240 ish for the duel bios gpu.... 200 is what im asking!!!!! Ref card!!!! ![]() will run 1000mhz core clock and 1300 mhz mem with ease.... 6970 fix!!! keep it bro!!!! are you a tard? that 6950 will do what you want it too.... dont give up so soon man!
__________________
CPU-Z validation sig pics temporarily blocked Last edited by fullinfusion; Apr 28, 2011 at 09:33 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
TPU addict
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: US\ Uk Born
Posts: 8,794 (4.07/day)
Thanks: 1,675
Thanked 1,348 Times in 1,170 Posts
|
Could not tell you as i don't use raid with win7. How ever you can make a raid 0 before you install the OS to it. And as i know of the array would have to be rebuilt to change it and least Vista don't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: στο άλφα έως ωμέγα
Posts: 3,839 (2.28/day)
Thanks: 2,032
Thanked 1,416 Times in 1,115 Posts
|
Quote:
Windows 7 Optimizations and Default Behavior Summary posted 5 May 2009 3:00 AM (before SP1) Quoted from the above page: "As noted above, all of today’s SSDs have considerable work to do when presented with disk writes and disk flushes. Windows 7 tends to perform well on today’s SSDs, in part, because we made many engineering changes to reduce the frequency of writes and flushes. This benefits traditional HDDs as well, but is particularly helpful on today’s SSDs. Windows 7 will disable disk defragmentation on SSD system drives. Because SSDs perform extremely well on random read operations, defragmenting files isn’t helpful enough to warrant the added disk writing defragmentation produces. The FAQ section below has some additional details. Be default, Windows 7 will disable Superfetch, ReadyBoost, as well as boot and application launch prefetching on SSDs with good random read, random write and flush performance. These technologies were all designed to improve performance on traditional HDDs, where random read performance could easily be a major bottleneck. See the FAQ section for more details. Since SSDs tend to perform at their best when the operating system’s partitions are created with the SSD’s alignment needs in mind, all of the partition-creating tools in Windows 7 place newly created partitions with the appropriate alignment." Be sure to read the Frequently Asked Questions at the bottom of the linked page, too. ![]() Edit: As, you can see from this WINHec presentation from 2008 they were working with vendors and such on the SSD features pre-beta. Last edited by 95Viper; Apr 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM. |
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to 95Viper For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#23 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,159 (1.87/day)
Thanks: 234
Thanked 652 Times in 533 Posts
|
It just dawned on me: maybe Windows 7 is not recognizing your RAID as being an SSD... I remember that there used to be (and maybe still are) problems with that.
EDIT: hmm, as far as I can remember that was only an issue with TRIM. But maybe you can test an individual drive to find out
__________________
Play League of Legends! Join the Ghetto modders club Put your Steam games on multiple partitions Last edited by Thrackan; Apr 28, 2011 at 01:07 PM. |
|
|
|
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thrackan For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#24 | |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: στο άλφα έως ωμέγα
Posts: 3,839 (2.28/day)
Thanks: 2,032
Thanked 1,416 Times in 1,115 Posts
|
Quote:
Pic of the identifier powerpoint presentation page: Just some FYI... There is a new firmware update for the series: SSD Firmware Updates and Tools for OCZ Vertex 2, Vertex LE, Agility 2 - Version 1.33 |
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to 95Viper For This Useful Post: |
|
|
#25 |
![]() |
Hi fullinfusion,
with regards to alignment the default during testing was 1024 but when I set them up in raid0 the default was 3xxx. I don't remember the exact number but it was more than double the 1024 that I got during individual testing. Is this ok? Bear in mind that both drives were individually wiped clean using the ocz tool and then set up in raid before installing windows. Now windows takes around 20 seconds to load from the MBR boot screen. Testing the drives with the os on them showed slower numbers but I'm assuming that's normal when the drives are being tested while running the OS at the same time. So does all this sound like these drives are on par or do they still seem slow? P.S. I haven't installed silent hunter 5 yet but will do so after some further testing. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| [FS] OCZ Agility 2 60GB Sandforce SSD | proletariandan | Buy/Sell/Trade/Giveaway Forum | 26 | Feb 4, 2011 02:43 AM |
| OCZ Vertex 2E 60GB single ssd or raid 0? | Q9650 | Storage | 12 | Jan 3, 2011 03:14 AM |
| OCZ Agility 60GB SSD 110AR | Oscnn | Hot Deals | 0 | Jun 30, 2010 03:37 PM |
| OCZ Agility 60GB Newegg $139 before MIR | 1freedude | Hot Deals | 0 | Jun 4, 2010 11:24 AM |
| OCZ Agility 60GB 2.5" MLC Internal Solid State Drive w/ TRIM Support $124 | Oscnn | Hot Deals | 0 | Mar 23, 2010 01:30 PM |