| 1 |
Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi, |
| 4 |
>> Yesterday I got a new, but rather low-end, PCIe-2 SATA-3 6Gb/S |
| 5 |
>> adapter card and a reportedly high performance 128GB SSD drive. (Links |
| 6 |
>> below) Other than my swap getting messed up because it didn't use |
| 7 |
>> labels (who knew about swaplabel but didn't tell me? ;-) ) the |
| 8 |
> "mkswap -L name /dev/sdX" :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> adapter and drive are in the machine and working fine. Unfortunately |
| 11 |
>> the performance isn't what I might have hoped for. Both hdparm & |
| 12 |
>> bonnie++ are reporting numbers in the 200MB/S range rather then the |
| 13 |
>> 400-500MB/S range that I might have hoped for. The machine is PCIx-2 |
| 14 |
>> based according to its specs. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> I'm currently just using a single large partition & ext3. I didn't |
| 17 |
>> do anything special in fdisk so the partition might not be aligned as |
| 18 |
>> best it could be. I don't know. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I'm wondering what sort of experience folks have had trying to get |
| 21 |
>> performance numbers anywhere close to these specs? |
| 22 |
> Because it is a PCIe x1 slot card, that is the bottleneck. Based on |
| 23 |
> all I have read, your speeds are normal and you should consider it to |
| 24 |
> be the fastest speeds you'll see. If you had bought two SSDs and used |
| 25 |
> them in a RAID configuration, the speed would actually get worse. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I ran into the same thing a while back, my motherboard actually has |
| 28 |
> SATA3 on-board, but it is not the primary controller (that one is |
| 29 |
> SATA2) and it's basically a permanently-installed PCIe controller as |
| 30 |
> far as speeds are concerned. Because of added latency, the on-board |
| 31 |
> primary SATA2 is actually faster than the SATA3 when multiple drives |
| 32 |
> are attached... but it's still faster than a HDD anyway. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I think the only way we'lll see 500MB/sec on that SSD is to buy a |
| 35 |
> motherboard which has a SATA3 controller as its primary on-board drive |
| 36 |
> controller and plug it in to that. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Look on the bright side, someday when we upgrade our motherboards, |
| 39 |
> it'll be like we got a free SSD upgrade for our troubles. :) |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I was thinking the same thing when I read the OP's post. I have a older |
| 44 |
IDE based machine, about 10 years old, and bought a SATA drive and |
| 45 |
card. The performance was less than claimed but it was because the bus |
| 46 |
speed was the bottle neck. When I built my new rig, which is SATA |
| 47 |
based, the drive was quite a bit faster and I get the speeds I should get. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
The only reason I bought that drive and the card was because I knew I |
| 50 |
was going to be upgrading and would have SATA on the mobo. OP, when you |
| 51 |
get a mobo with SATA built in, you should get better, most likely much |
| 52 |
better, performance. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Why is it that all puters seem to have a bottle and a neck in them? lol |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Dale |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
:-) :-) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives