*** Can you Post your Crucial M4 SSD benchmarks in here ***

I do lots of number crunching for my PhD but my programs never need more than 4 MB of RAM so I'm guessing it's probably something involving very large databases.
 
oil and gas.

the raid seems to be running quite a bit slower now though, only around the 500mb mark, wondering if there is an issue with TRIM on raid disks. Any tips?
 
Before when I had the M4 plugged into the Marvell controller, white port nearest the OC Genie button, wondered why the Intel driver/AHCI wasn't showing!

as-ssd-benchM4-CT128M4SSD2A2806201118-45-30.png


After I had swapped the cable to the top, with the board in the case (white) port, much better!

as-ssd-benchM4-CT128M4SSD22806201119-38-03.png
 
Keep in mind that the majority of performance that makes an SSD feel awesome over a HDD is the lower end performance, NOT the silly higher sequential, and because that low end performance is miles and miles below max sata 2 performance. Look at Rajravat's benchmarks, sure sequential is faster but its only what, 5 times faster, look at the monumental performance increase in 4kb random read/writes roughly 40 times faster in each case there, and the queue depth makes a huge difference in SSD's, higher queue depth usage for 4kb random is well, over 200 times faster.

Sequential wasn't even really a huge bottleneck on HDD's, its nice the few times you move massive files, but the bottleneck that made systems stutter, and take a while to access files and start loading, thats all the random performance, sata 1 allows a SSD to feel like a monumental improvement to HDD's.

Thing about Crucial drives though is they really are crippled in the 60gb size. I went with a C300 but went up to the 128gb model. Bit of a shame the denser smaller memory chips are both killing write performance, and giving lower life expectancy. Vertex 3 240gb is awesome, the 120gb and 60gb are FAR less impressive, good but far less good.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Keep in mind that the majority of performance that makes an SSD feel awesome over a HDD is the lower end performance, NOT the silly higher sequential, and because that low end performance is miles and miles below max sata 2 performance. Look at Rajravat's benchmarks, sure sequential is faster but its only what, 5 times faster, look at the monumental performance increase in 4kb random read/writes roughly 40 times faster in each case there, and the queue depth makes a huge difference in SSD's, higher queue depth usage for 4kb random is well, over 200 times faster.

Sequential wasn't even really a huge bottleneck on HDD's, its nice the few times you move massive files, but the bottleneck that made systems stutter, and take a while to access files and start loading, thats all the random performance, sata 1 allows a SSD to feel like a monumental improvement to HDD's.

Thing about Crucial drives though is they really are crippled in the 60gb size. I went with a C300 but went up to the 128gb model. Bit of a shame the denser smaller memory chips are both killing write performance, and giving lower life expectancy. Vertex 3 240gb is awesome, the 120gb and 60gb are FAR less impressive, good but far less good.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna be totally honest with you here, I havn't got a clue about anything you wrote :( I don't know much about SSDs only that they are faster than mechanical one and are silent (althugh Im sure mine make a feint ticking noise at times). But as long as my benchamrks loog good for Sata 2 and I've done all I can to prolong the life of my SSD I'm happy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom