Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mark Knecht <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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
Why is it that all puters seem to have a bottle and a neck in them? lol
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!