1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Agility 2 60Gb SSD raid 0 seems slow

Discussion in 'Storage' started by pabloottawa, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. pabloottawa

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    259 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    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. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    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?
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  3. pabloottawa

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    259 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    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. fullinfusion

    fullinfusion 1.21 Gigawatts

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    8,475 (3.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,212
    did you partition the drives so they are aligned to 1024k?
     
    pabloottawa and 95Viper say thanks.
  5. pabloottawa

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    259 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    I guess not because I have no clue what you're talking about lol..... How would you do that?
     
  6. pabloottawa

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    259 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    If you're referring to Allocation Size unit, yes I just reformatted both drives and set them to 1024
     
  7. fullinfusion

    fullinfusion 1.21 Gigawatts

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    8,475 (3.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,212
    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...

    [​IMG]
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  8. 95Viper

    95Viper

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,455 (1.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    στο άλφα έως ωμέγα
    fullinfusion and pabloottawa say thanks.
  9. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    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.
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  10. pabloottawa

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    259 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Nope..... It was a fresh install of win 7
     
  11. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,261 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,805
    Location:
    US
    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.
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  12. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    indexing, prefetch, superfetch are the first things you should kill :)
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  13. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,261 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,805
    Location:
    US
    Yes those 2 as well.. :)
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  14. happita

    happita

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,386 (0.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    425
    I don't mean to intrude, but why turn off:
    superfetching
    prefetching
    indexing
    page file
    ?
    What does this accomplish?
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  15. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    Superfetch, prefetch and indexing are useless on an SSD because accesstimes are so fast. It would be a waste of resources to actually index.

    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.
     
    pabloottawa and happita say thanks.
  16. TheLaughingMan

    TheLaughingMan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,998 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Location:
    Marietta, GA USA
    I thought Win7 automatically turned these off when it detects an SSD during a fresh install? Well defrag I am sure it turns off, but not the rest which is why I ask.
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  17. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    not 100% sure, I believe indexing at least is auto turned-off, but I think I turned off pre- and superfetch myself.
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  18. pabloottawa

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    259 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    windows 7 came out before SSD drives became common so I don;t think it would turn anything off automatically for an SSD. Don;t forget when you install Windows 7 most likely you are installing an old version that has to update itself. Maybe it will turn some stuff off once it has updated to SP1 and the latest drivers but I have not seen any evidence of that.
    I had to turn all that stuff off myself.
     
  19. fullinfusion

    fullinfusion 1.21 Gigawatts

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    8,475 (3.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,212
    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!!!!

    :pimp:
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  20. fullinfusion

    fullinfusion 1.21 Gigawatts

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    8,475 (3.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,212
    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!!!!:eek:

    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!
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011
  21. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,261 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,805
    Location:
    US
    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. 95Viper

    95Viper

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,455 (1.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    στο άλφα έως ωμέγα
    For a little info on this by Steven Sinofsky (President, Windows and Windows Live Division)... read:

    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: Apr 28, 2011
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  23. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    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 :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011
    pabloottawa and 95Viper say thanks.
  24. 95Viper

    95Viper

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,455 (1.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    στο άλφα έως ωμέγα
    Possibly could be true, if, the supporting hardware/software does not pass the identifiers or the firmware has the incorrect identifier.

    Pic of the identifier powerpoint presentation page:

    SSDID.png

    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
     
    pabloottawa says thanks.
  25. pabloottawa

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    259 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15
    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 guest)

Share This Page