jonss Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 I've got some questions but I suspect it's more like a discussion we're going to have: 1) I want to get some more out of my Q9650. I had a RAID O setup once which was great until all the data disappeared one night, never to be retrieved. I can install 2 RAIDed drives and a mirror with RAID 0 + 1 but doesn't that make the system just as slow? 2) Win7 64bit is telling me the aspect that is slowing down my computer is the data transfer rate from the HDD. I mean it 'aint a piddling amount, 5.9 to 7.9 if I address this. So, what are any pittfalls...pro's and con's...of these SSD units? I'm wondering if my present HDD's latency is the culprit. 3) Whatever happened to SCSI? Has it disappeared? I thought those drives were supposed to be extra quick on transfer rate. Expensive, yes but a consideration. Having said that, this system is not too shabby but the cpu is only running at 3 ghz, I think, because I'm only running 800mhz DDR 2 of good but fairly average specs. Timings: 555 15. Higher end RAM could improve things a little. The mb is a bit basic, an Asus P5KPL/1600, but capable. The latter figure is its fsb ability. So I want a 7.9 figure in Win7 64bit. Are the HDD's the problem, or something else? Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 I've got some questions but I suspect it's more like a discussion we're going to have: 1) I want to get some more out of my Q9650. I had a RAID0 setup once which was great until all the data disappeared one night, never to be retrieved. I can install 2 RAID'd drives and a mirror with RAID 0 + 1 but doesn't that make the system just as slow? No not if set up correctly BUT this really needs a hardware controller to make it work well and your MoBo may not support RAID0+1 either. Remember to do this you will need 4 Identical HDD's giving the equivalent space of just one, which IMHO is a Bloody waste. your far better buying some SSD's and a decent sized Standard HDD and make regular backups. 2) Win7 64bit is telling me the aspect that is slowing down my computer is the data transfer rate from the HDD. I mean it 'aint a piddling amount, 5.9 to 7.9 if I address this. So, what are any pitfalls. pro's and con's. of these SSD units? I'm wondering if my present HDD's latency is the culprit. HDD Doesn't exactly have any latency R/W Cache speed and seek time is the thing that will have an impact on Data I/O as will the actual I?O chip set on the MoBo and if it is working efficiently. 3) Whatever happened to SCSI? Has it disappeared? I thought those drives were supposed to be extra quick on transfer rate. Expensive, yes but a consideration. SCSI has not been used for data storage for quite some time as far a sI am aware and would be like putting a Mini Engine in your Ferarri, these days thanks the the superior speeds of SATA and RAID arrays with High performance SATA Drives and now SSD's SCSI is a dinosaur. Having said that, this system is not too shabby but the cpu is only running at 3 ghz, I think, because I'm only running 800mhz DDR 2 of good but fairly average specs. Timings: 5-5-5-15. Higher end RAM could improve things a little. The mb is a bit basic, an Asus P5KPL/1600, but capable. The latter figure is its fsb ability. So I want a 7.9 figure in Win7 64bit. Are the HDD's the problem, or something else? Better RAM would help a fair bit I should think Why are you not running the Q9650 at 3.8 Ghz which it is quite capable of , mind you you MoBo might not support cranking it up to much either, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 .... I want to get some more out of my Q9650. I had a RAID O setup ...... Jon .. these two statements don't match properly. It depends what problem you are having ..... as to what the solution might be. Changing your HDD won't get more performance from your 9650 -- particularly if it is frames / smoothness we are talking about. RAID 0 + 1 is overkill .. the compromise with RAID0 is that you double your chance of a volume loss ... for a bit of extra loading speed. Memory .. a little hard to comment, because we don't know what you are running exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonss Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 I'm trying to work out if the right voltage/Stepping has been applied to the cpu. Link follows http://picasaweb.google.com/jonss1948/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCKTm2IWBtZG38AE&feat=directlink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonss Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 I'm at present, gathering info and will post specs. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonss Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 So it looks like SSD drives are the coming thing. This is a total learning curve for me. I did hear they had some limitations, anyway, I think better RAM and faster too will get those numbers without overstretching. Getting better SSD drives will be a bonus, once I verify with more research. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 If a performance increase with drives is what you seek then a 256 gb SSD will out perform a similar sized RAID0+1 array many times over RAID is for data spanning and if done correctly can be of benefit but given the cost of SSD's is coming down fast for the same money SSD's are the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonss Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 If a performance increase with drives is what you seek then a 256 gb SSD will out perform a similar sized RAID0+1 array many times over RAID is for data spanning and if done correctly can be of benefit but given the cost of SSD's is coming down fast for the same money SSD's are the way to go. I'm totally convinced this is the way to go. Stupid question...can they be RAIDed? Dear me!. wouldn't they be fast. Also, there seems to be a quite formalised way to add programs, or delete them with an SSD drive. Heard anything? Who knows, though. A spotty, person of the night might write software which emulates RAID O with 2 of 'em. \ Jon Added: Gad!! I just looked at the price of a meagre 64gig SSD. You're right though. RAIDed WD Veloceraptors would be the other alternative. Much more money. You could buy 2 SSD's for the same price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Ah Jon your current MoBo possibly supports RAID in some format but as far as it is concerned, it really doesn't give a toss what type of drives it is using . Yes SSD's in RAID are fast BUT they will be limited by the I/O on your MoBo anyway as this will possibly be the bottle neck that will slow you down. Your PC will only be as fast a the weakest link, in other words there is no point in having 2Gb/sec transfer from your HDD's if the I/O can only handle 1 . Likewise transfer to the CPU and GPU has got to be as fast or you get stutter's and other anomalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonss Posted April 6, 2010 Author Share Posted April 6, 2010 Yes SSD's in RAID are fast BUT they will be limited by the I/O on your MoBo anyway as this will possibly be the bottle neck that will slow you down.Yes I'm taking a good look as we speak. So it's a ich7/r so it does have raid and I think it's RAID O. Nonetheless, if I'm going to get more headroom another mb looks like it has to happen. Bummer! Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.