Does this look right to you?

[deadlock]

2x Sandisk Extreme 240GB in RAID 0 on an X79 board

I'm no expert, but I was expecting the sequential write to be nearer the gigabyte mark, and those 4K speeds seem a little on the slow side?

Thanks!

 

[deadlock]

Just found this screen of the exact same setup:

Taken from: http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=604&pagenumber=10

And the 4K speeds destroy mine. Any ideas?

 

[TemjinGold]

IDE?

 

[deadlock]

RAID dude.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Different raid controller could be one possibility.

Why does theirs report more capacity than yours?

Is your raid completely empty?

Are you booted from the array?

Your results look potentially reasonable to me.

 

[sm625]

Your access time is holding back your 4k.

 

[deadlock]

Capacity is different because mine is a Win 8 OS drive, and the first 300MB is a "system reserved" partition.

Not completely empty, no - drive being tested has approx 80GB data. But would that account for an order of magnitude of 500% on the 4k write figure?

Thanks!

X79 / i7 / 16GB

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Capacity is different because mine is a Win 8 OS drive, and the first 300MB is a "system reserved" partition.
of 500% on the 4k write figure?

I was referring to their array reporting 20GB more capacity than yours.

It's probably the RAID controller. Does their article say what they used?

 

[deadlock]

I was referring to their array reporting 20GB more capacity than yours.

Yes, precisely what I said - AS SSD reports the size of the logical disk, not the physical array. My disk is 300MB smaller than the one in the review, because the Windows installation created a 300MB reserved partition from the array.

Anyway on the advice of a forum post I found, I disabled write caching (even though it was already "enabled"), and re-enabled it, and boom, my 4k write speeds tripled to over 160MB/s (still nowhere near the two benches I have found, but much closer) and my write access times weren't so bad.

I'll keep investigating...