Paul Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mark Knecht <markkne...@gmail.com> 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!
