Check that. It's about 1650 mb/sec.
Firefox is almost always one of the largest consumers of memory on my system at work.
64GB X25-E is dropping. Hmm.
What kind of performance are you getting with the RAID 0? Is it noticeably better for scratch?
Do the write transfer rates scale at least?
Obviously you are overclocking. What kind of RAM are you using for that setup?
My new gaming system is going to be an i7 920 sitting on a Gigabyte motherobard and three X25-Ms, probably in RAID0.
David:
The default cluster size is 4kb, right? that would mean 71 mb/sec and 91 mb/sec? Does the cluster size limit the data transfer rate to just that one figure?
I will say I wished you hadn't put up that ram disk test. Your machine is now more then twice as fast as mine, bus speed, and, I think that indicates processor wise. That's my level for considering upgrades, or a new setup.
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_optimization.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q314878
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q174619
After reading this, I still wonder what the best cluster size is for your raids?
If the cluster size is set at 4k, does that mean that you are limited to the speed of the 4k writes and reads on ATTO?
Kind of ironic that after 10 years my original argument, placing access time over SDT is being clearly shown to be accurate, thanks to SSD's.
The one thing you forgot to factor in is that the Raided SCSI drives do have the advantage of so far superior interface, and caching. Given time, or even I wonder using the SCSI interface, SSD's can have both the better caching system, better interface, and fantastic
access time.
Not to mention when you compare even the 3.9 ms access time, the SSD is nearly 400 times faster...
SSD vs. ram disk?
Anyone have a suggestion, which one?
How much is a decent ram disk program for XP pro?
The i7 Mercutio is using would fit my at least 100% faster before I replace policy.
Mercutio: Odd that you would post that. The entire Athlon numbering system for those processors was designed to indicate how their slower processors would compete against the faster Intel processors. Intel Xeons, despite sometimes slower clock speeds, would often be VERY fast, despite lower numbers then some of the other Intel processors.
I dunno. After having four cores for so long, two seems pretty pokey to me.