wowdoggy954 Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Wow, with all these superfast sequential reads and writes, how fast does your computer boot up? 2-3 seconds? 20 seconds? 30 seconds? These benchmarks are really meaningless you know. They are in no way similar to how a computer actually operates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 If you've never used an SSD you just won't understand. Go ahead and be a jerk about it though, that'll sure show us! Maybe it's just me, but 9000+ IOPs in a random read test is pretty damn relevant to overall I/O performance. Oh wait, it's not just me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowdoggy954 Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Hey you wanna be a loser, Waco, be one. I have proven benchmarks mean nothing so suck it up you baby girl. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 I have proven benchmarks mean nothing so suck it up you baby girl. Really? That's how you're going to play this? Sure, post up that proof. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nVidia_Freak Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Waco is certainly not a baby girl and you obviously have not used an SSD as a main drive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Lol, now, now, fellas. If the boot time saves you 30 seconds and you boot up your computer at least once everyday for once a year, that's 182 minutes saved, or roughly 3 hours. If the seek time saves you 1 second every time you launch an internet browser, and you launch one at least 10 times a day, that saves you 1 hour over the course of a year. If you make $30/hour, you just saved $120 (enough to make up for the high cost of a 60GB SSD). Not to mention all the other benefits of having faster sequential read/write and higher throughput. On hindsight, my analogy doesn't quite work out. If the computer takes longer to operate, and you get paid hourly, you lose out on that money just waiting for stuff to load. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Not to mention all the other benefits of having faster sequential read/write and higher throughput. I think he's just bitter he never got his working properly and tossed out the idea of striping helping at all (even though that's exactly what the internal controller does with more flash channels). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowdoggy954 Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Ha ha ha you guys are funny. You sure don't like it when someone says something contrary to your "beliefs". SSD's in RAID0 do not boot faster, load games faster or play games faster. Your 9000 iops means your computer must boot up fully in about 15 seconds - doubt it. You wanna be immature and call people names from behind your computer? Allright then, Waco, at the bike racks, after school. All you do is post meaningless benchmarks and speculation. I'll bet your computer is NO faster than mine. Ha ha. The guy who claims to get 100MB/s read speed with 4K blocks - that means your computer must boot in 5-7 seconds because I get 22Mb/s read speed and I boot in 30 seconds. If these benchmarks are so meaningful, then your computer must boot 4-5 times faster than mine. Tell the truth now, no lying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Dude, no need to troll, man. Boot times won't be affected too much by RAID 0 (though I wouldn't know since I never RAID my SSD's), but a single SSD in general will decrease the boot time for sure from a HDD. My computer at my work office supplied by my client takes 12 minutes from the start of the system to logging in and launching Microsoft Outlook so I can read my existing e-mails. It only takes 2 seconds to get past the post screen as it doesn't have to post any RAID set-up. My computer at my home office takes 18 seconds to finish posting (since I have my storage drives in RAID, I have to wait for that to post, too). It then takes 16 more seconds to login and get to desktop. It then takes 33 seconds after loading 20 start-up applications to launch into Microsoft Outlook. Total time of 67 seconds from pressing the power button and being able to work. Granted, take away 16 seconds of motherboard posting times (to make things even with the difference of motherboard posting times), that's about 55 seconds. It would only be 16 seconds if I didn't have any start-up applications being loaded. Your turn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedCrazy Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) You wanna be immature and call people names from behind your computer? Allright then, Waco, at the bike racks, after school. I have proven benchmarks mean nothing so suck it up you baby girl. FAIL! If they are so little help why do so many people buy and then continue the hype? Edited February 19, 2011 by SpeedCrazy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowdoggy954 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Dude, no need to troll, man. Boot times won't be affected too much by RAID 0 (though I wouldn't know since I never RAID my SSD's), but a single SSD in general will decrease the boot time for sure from a HDD. My computer at my work office supplied by my client takes 12 minutes from the start of the system to logging in and launching Microsoft Outlook so I can read my existing e-mails. It only takes 2 seconds to get past the post screen as it doesn't have to post any RAID set-up. My computer at my home office takes 18 seconds to finish posting (since I have my storage drives in RAID, I have to wait for that to post, too). It then takes 16 more seconds to login and get to desktop. It then takes 33 seconds after loading 20 start-up applications to launch into Microsoft Outlook. Total time of 67 seconds from pressing the power button and being able to work. Granted, take away 16 seconds of motherboard posting times (to make things even with the difference of motherboard posting times), that's about 55 seconds. It would only be 16 seconds if I didn't have any start-up applications being loaded. Your turn. My computer with one SSD AHCI takes 32 secs. from button push to Windows chime. It took 45 secs. with two RAID0. My iops read is around 5000 so if these benchmark numbers are so meaningful then 9000 should yield roughly twice as fast a boot time and load times for anything. My whole point is that people go woo-hoo when they see big numbers in the benchmarks and they then think that their computer is actually faster because of it. Even though my benchmark numbers are higher for 2 SSD's in RAID0 than a single SSD, Windows load time is actually slower and game load times are EXACTLY the same. Funny the benchmarks are higher but the load times are the same. Woo-hoo. I guess it depends on what you do with your computer. I bought a SSD to speed up my boot time - which it did. I use my computer for gaming mostly and with the SSD the games load faster. Since the load times for games are the same but Windows boots slower in RAID, I choose to use both drives as singles regardless of what the benchmarks say. So woo-hoo all you want with your benchmarks but I found out the reality of it all and it is that they are meaningless - unless you just sit there running benchmark programs and relish in your high numbers which actually might not be as meaningful as you may think. I did my testing and it proves that benchmarks are meaningless. Woo-hoo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I did my testing and it proves that benchmarks are meaningless. Woo-hoo. Your standard of proof is clearly far lower than mine. I don't care about boot times. That said, aside from the longer POST involved because I'm running the Intel RAID controller, I don't see the Windows 7 loading screen for more than a few seconds. Once I type my password and hit enter I instantly see my desktop and all of my programs are loaded in less than 3 seconds. I can also start whatever programs I want in essentially zero time - even the newest iteration of Photoshop starts up in less than 3 seconds. Sure, the times aren't half as long as they were before (diminishing returns, yadda yadda yadda) but they are faster for heavyweight games and apps. My primary reason for going with RAID 0 was for more space not for more speed. The speed is just a nice bonus. I know you had trouble getting your RAID array to perform well - if I recall correctly you didn't even see much if any improvement in synthetic benchmarks with two in RAID 0 versus a single drive - so clearly something wasn't right with your setup. Doubling the speed of the slowest part of any computer has very real and very tangible benefits to anything that touches permanent storage. My research area is high performance parallel file systems. I wish HDD speed didn't really affect how fast things load, run, etc, but it's simply not true. You can claim to the contrary if you like based on your bad experience with striping...but that doesn't mean you've proven anything except that broken RAID 0 setups aren't very fast. Can you quit with the trolling now? Edited February 20, 2011 by Waco 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now