From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B50138010 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 39367E06B7; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gg0-f181.google.com (mail-gg0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16846E0682 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggmb6 with SMTP id b6so69699ggm.40 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:24:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=M0v7+GW48bOde2St1yOZNsH2v7e3Dzj4zk1NQEHBdaE=; b=A9Y1hoZ7fPjvtVhhind0/gCNDDOctbXj+6TXS2CgOn8MRfxme0GSZioVQZjuaqGfgH bEI5L9U841Mv/Xd8uOFigdi42I4ljX6v5vUPq/r7Iy2OdHob9sVfur0SKoJF4Wfb8L4O CDPgjbr29utb8NsoybTVfi48E1i2cTnxxva43P3son3KGT4PYnPslRHbjxEF3wm2mc+7 LhAmv9RAfQfH6Y1bVjNB8cqbrRodbu54MqbTqPOuKjJ8R2i+jHZThw3XJM6yiZBMunbS +Ba4/VPT23a4VXQvlArulmi9fKBbmSAAXtRo0h7zY5Jb6DRnHL9XNalTYQ7j+oJk7XP8 O2lA== Received: by 10.236.189.68 with SMTP id b44mr27212464yhn.82.1345677897582; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-98-95-132-49.jan.bellsouth.net. [98.95.132.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w5sm5358385anl.10.2012.08.22.16.24.54 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50356A44.2070307@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:24:52 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120819 Firefox/13.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.10.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SSD performance tweaking References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1d8dd2b0-acad-4608-b039-bf8af5b9c65e X-Archives-Hash: 82ea367cb008e11937b1bdc0592f9e69 Paul Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: >> Hi, >> Yesterday I got a new, but rather low-end, PCIe-2 SATA-3 6Gb/S >> adapter card and a reportedly high performance 128GB SSD drive. (Links >> below) Other than my swap getting messed up because it didn't use >> labels (who knew about swaplabel but didn't tell me? ;-) ) the > "mkswap -L name /dev/sdX" :) > >> adapter and drive are in the machine and working fine. Unfortunately >> the performance isn't what I might have hoped for. Both hdparm & >> bonnie++ are reporting numbers in the 200MB/S range rather then the >> 400-500MB/S range that I might have hoped for. The machine is PCIx-2 >> based according to its specs. >> >> I'm currently just using a single large partition & ext3. I didn't >> do anything special in fdisk so the partition might not be aligned as >> best it could be. I don't know. >> >> I'm wondering what sort of experience folks have had trying to get >> performance numbers anywhere close to these specs? > Because it is a PCIe x1 slot card, that is the bottleneck. Based on > all I have read, your speeds are normal and you should consider it to > be the fastest speeds you'll see. If you had bought two SSDs and used > them in a RAID configuration, the speed would actually get worse. > > I ran into the same thing a while back, my motherboard actually has > SATA3 on-board, but it is not the primary controller (that one is > SATA2) and it's basically a permanently-installed PCIe controller as > far as speeds are concerned. Because of added latency, the on-board > primary SATA2 is actually faster than the SATA3 when multiple drives > are attached... but it's still faster than a HDD anyway. > > I think the only way we'lll see 500MB/sec on that SSD is to buy a > motherboard which has a SATA3 controller as its primary on-board drive > controller and plug it in to that. > > Look on the bright side, someday when we upgrade our motherboards, > it'll be like we got a free SSD upgrade for our troubles. :) > > I was thinking the same thing when I read the OP's post. I have a older IDE based machine, about 10 years old, and bought a SATA drive and card. The performance was less than claimed but it was because the bus speed was the bottle neck. When I built my new rig, which is SATA based, the drive was quite a bit faster and I get the speeds I should get. The only reason I bought that drive and the card was because I knew I was going to be upgrading and would have SATA on the mobo. OP, when you get a mobo with SATA built in, you should get better, most likely much better, performance. Why is it that all puters seem to have a bottle and a neck in them? lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!