The Corsair User Forums  

Go Back   The Corsair User Forums > Corsair Product Discussion > Solid State Drives (SSD) > SSD Firmware Update

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 14 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #16  
Old 05-24-2013, 02:37 AM
Naki Naki is offline
Registered User
Naki's PC Specs
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
POST ID # = 655226
Naki Reputation: 10
Default

I was asking about the (seemingly) mismatching firmware. Technobeard asked me for Corsair SSD Toolbox screenshots and I provided them, then I was assuming a comment on those screenshots will follow. Which never came. So, some comment(s) on the given screenshots, please?

Is it possible that I did something the wrong way and thus got 5.05 instead of 5.05a, and missed a way to do it such as for the version to show as 5.05a?
Or another way of thought - is it possible that there were 2-3 different downloads/files for the 5.05a firmware in an interval of 2-3 days, and I got a firmware download, which was then shortly replaced with a corrected/different one?

Last edited by Naki; 05-24-2013 at 05:52 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #17  
Old 05-24-2013, 04:22 AM
Naki Naki is offline
Registered User
Naki's PC Specs
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
POST ID # = 655229
Naki Reputation: 10
Default

And another (possibly very stupid) question:
I have Windows 7 64-bit, Utlimate, SP1 installed on the SSD.
Is there a way to move from one SSD with the OS on it to two SSDs in RAID0 WITHOUT losing the data and bootable OS? Or do I need to start "clean/fresh"?

EDIT: I saw this --->
How to switch to RAID 0 - without reinstalling!
http://www.OCZtechnologyforum.com/fo...t-reinstalling!
Is this the only way?

EDIT #2: I decided not to try RAID0 for now, and get more info on this. For now, I will just use the 2nd SSD as a separate drive/partition, formatted as exFAT.

Last edited by Naki; 05-24-2013 at 06:52 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #18  
Old 05-24-2013, 05:00 PM
Incriminated Incriminated is offline
Registered user
Incriminated's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 152
POST ID # = 655367
Incriminated Reputation: 10
Default

We already told you that the ForceGS ONLY works with 5.05a.
We already told you that 5.05 and 5.05a is EXACTLY the same for intentionally different drives.

So by answering the following question you should know on yourself if it has the right version:

Does it work?

YES -> It has 5.05a, stop caring about it SHOWING 5.05 (without a).

Wise decision to not choose raid0 with a SSD, the benefit is insignificant, but the risk of failures double!

But the question is legit so i go deep into it:

If you would have a Hardware-COntroller that ables the Raid0-Drive directly to be recognized in the BIOS (not the FW-Raid after the BIOS), then you might just create an image/backup of the single-drive-filesystem on a HDD, then setup the raid0, then boot a program like Acronis Image and put the image/backup back onto your raid0. The WIndows installation could then boot the hardware raid beeing reported as normal-drive without a special driver.

With a FW-Raid you need to make the imaging-prgramm to recognize it by loading drivers.
And what's more important you need to customise your WIndows-installation before to be working as a FW-raid with the appropriate driver, so you need to hardforce install raid-drivers before imaging/backup it to a HDD. Dont know if thats possible.

But honestly if you really want a FW-raid0... save your data and install from scratch is quite faster!

Beware:
No rescue CD will recognize your FW-raid0 by default, not even the windows cd will by default - it only "MIGHT" find it when loading the approriate drivers during the disk-initialisation-phase with a usb-stick of your FW-raid-driver.
If someone presses wrong keys during boot, your data on FW-raid0 is gone forever.
If a drive has fault of any raid0, your complete data is gone forever.
If you try an FW-update during raid0 .. then you are M.A.D. Truely!

The problem with FW-raid in special is that they report the seperated Disks each, and that you need to install drivers to make your CPU understand how to read from that 2 drives in a raid... A hardwarecontroller reports one single raid-drive so BIOS and OS think it is a normal drive, it's beeing accessed though default drivers without a problem, without using the CPU, without your OS even knowing that it's a raid.

Unless you have an expensive Hardware-Raid controller i can scrictly not recommend you raid0 with SSD.

If you need the speed buy a PCIexpress-card, otherwise stick to the biggest possible size for the money instead of 2 drives.


Not to make you nervous 'bout speed, but the SATA III controller is maximum capable of 600 megabyte per second, no matter how many disks the raid0 got... what people reclaim in ATTO is maximum compressed data at 600mb/s leaving the SATA III-Bus beeing decrompessed by the CPU into the memory at likely higher rates. What matters is: transfers of compressed data is ultra UNlikely ... in other words... when you move some gigabytes of any game, video, image, audio then there is nearly nothing to compress and there is no way to exceed 600mb/s, except via PCIexpress.

Considering that you better let the controller do all it's DirectMemoryAccess-magic using single disks and not force to "command" your CPU to read/write with +6Gbit Bursts from your FW-raid0.

Another reaoson is the support in that drivers. A fault-driver update might wipe all of your data. Errors what, especially when programmers update drivers

Why exFAT, its meant for flash-cards??????????????????? Why not NTFS?

Quote:
Unlike NTFS, exFAT cannot pre-allocate disk space for a file by just marking arbitrary space on disk as 'allocated'. As in FAT, when creating a file of known length, exFAT must perform a complete physical write equal to the size of the file.
I dont want that on my SSD, id like to reduce unneccessary writes. That means in detail, when downloading for example an linux-ISO-image via P2P, it will write the complete space of the file blank before filling it will data, could nearly doubles the writes.

See this benchmark from Tomshardware
http://media.bestofmicro.com/1/V/331...benchmarks.png

Last edited by Incriminated; 05-24-2013 at 07:32 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #19  
Old 05-25-2013, 04:08 PM
Naki Naki is offline
Registered User
Naki's PC Specs
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
POST ID # = 655562
Naki Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incriminated View Post
We already told you that 5.05 and 5.05a is EXACTLY the same for intentionally different drives.
Not clear - how is a Corsair Force GS drive (purchased in August 2012) different from a Corsair Force GS drive (purchased this year)!? What is the difference?
exFAT is great for any Flash based media, not just memory cards or USB Flash drives - SSDs use Flash too. :)
I format all my external USB 3.0 HDDs as exFAT too.

NTFS sucks - exFAT is much faster in all my tests (testing on my system, using 6-7 different kinds of benchmark software) - thank you, but I don't need the extra stupid fields/attributes NTFS has, unless that can't be avoided (system drive). Too bad you can't format internal HDDs with exFAT, if you could, I would do that too. EDIT: Hmm, or maybe you can via the format command in Command Prompt. Need to test this.
If a RAID0 setup works better with NTFS (and anyway the system drive can't be anything else than NTFS, which is a pity but understandable), I will use that when I do the RAID0.

Quote:
Not to make you nervous 'bout speed, but the SATA III controller is maximum capable of 600 megabyte per second, no matter how many disks the raid0 got...
Clearly incorrect! It is 600 MB/sec per SATA port, NOT total.

Last edited by Technobeard; 05-26-2013 at 02:10 AM. Reason: added code for quotes
Reply With Quote


  #20  
Old 05-27-2013, 02:50 AM
Incriminated Incriminated is offline
Registered user
Incriminated's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 152
POST ID # = 655769
Incriminated Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
Not clear - how is a Corsair Force GS drive (purchased in August 2012) different from a Corsair Force GS drive (purchased this year)!? What is the difference?
exFAT is great for any Flash based media, not just memory cards or USB Flash drives - SSDs use Flash too. :)
I format all my external USB 3.0 HDDs as exFAT too.
You want to know the difference between an Apple bought last year and an Apple bought this year, there is NONE, except the older wont taste good today.

Quote:
NTFS sucks - exFAT is much faster in all my tests (testing on my system, using 6-7 different kinds of benchmark software) - thank you, but I don't need the extra stupid fields/attributes NTFS has, unless that can't be avoided (system drive). Too bad you can't format internal HDDs with exFAT, if you could, I would do that too. EDIT: Hmm, or maybe you can via the format command in Command Prompt. Need to test this.
If a RAID0 setup works better with NTFS (and anyway the system drive can't be anything else than NTFS, which is a pity but understandable), I will use that when I do the RAID0.
i already stated the fact why exFAT is bad for SSD, read above. IN any professional benchmark-review NTFS wins over exFAT.

It is meant for high-capacities interoperable flash, that need to be read on MAC also, because FAT doesn't support the high-capacities.

Quote:
Clearly incorrect! It is 600 MB/sec per SATA port, NOT total.
You are clearly an idi*t that even has no source for his LIES!
http://www.sata-io.org/ they link to the next one:
http://www.macgurus.com/productpages/guides/SATAIII.php
... 600MB/s bus throughput!!! GET USED TO IT!
The BUS is the thing that connects the ports to the controller. According to you a 4-port SATA-controller is capable of 2,4GB/s and a 6-port of 3,6GB/s

But please Mr. IT-Specialist tell me how the amount of mechanical ports have influence on the overall Controller-BUS-Speed.

Last edited by Incriminated; 05-27-2013 at 03:15 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #21  
Old 05-27-2013, 03:45 AM
Wired's Avatar
Wired Wired is offline
Administrator
Wired's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 32,188
POST ID # = 655773
Wired Reputation: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incriminated View Post
You are clearly an idi*t that even has no source for his LIES!
Please do not insult other members of this forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

The speed ratings on a SATA port are per device/channel (one device per channel unless you have a port multiplier), not per the total controller. Think of it this way - if it was the way you say it is, why would people RAID 0 SSDs and get faster speeds?

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/s...raid0_review/1
__________________
No, I don't work for Corsair
...you need to flow like a river...
Forum Rules
Admin of this forum / webdesignforums.net / Petri's IT Forum / The Corsair Memory Steam Group
Founder/Creator/Admin of ZE SECRET PROJECT (Coming Soon)

Last edited by Wired; 05-27-2013 at 06:07 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #22  
Old 05-27-2013, 06:05 AM
Incriminated Incriminated is offline
Registered user
Incriminated's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 152
POST ID # = 655786
Incriminated Reputation: 10
Default

They dont get it, only with ATTO measuring compressed data-streams leaving the CPU (not the SATA-COntroller).

You referring to channels means only: Any of the channels can run @600MB/s.

Not all at the same time.

Because the BUS-THROUGHPUT at the Controller (who has to maintain all channels) is by specification 600MB/s max, what dont you get in it???

P-ATA had 133MB/s at each channel, but still you can not read with 133MB/s on the one disk and write it at 133MB/s to another Disk on another P-ATA channel, because the BUS-Speed is limited to 133MB/s.

However mainboard-vendors seem to have found some workarounds in their latest releases (sandy/ivy) but that is a propriatary virtualisation solution inside the SATA-Controller. Think of it as seperated BUSes, but thats not by SATA-specification design.

There's still a limit, depending on how powerful the SATA-Controler is.

2x SSD = 1,2 GB/s -> BLOW CAKE!

Maybe with 4 or 6 you reach +1,2GB/s. Grats!

Heres a brief history:
X58 (ICH10R) = 660MB/s
P67 = 750MB/s

Best ive seen on Sandy/Ivy was little higher than 1GB/s.

They do not suit there SATA-controller with plenty GB/s bandwith because thats expensive and probably noone would ever notice.

Once you understand it... let me know.

PS: The requested URL /reviews/storage/corsair_240gb_force_gt_raid0_review was not found on this server.

Last edited by Incriminated; 05-27-2013 at 06:56 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #23  
Old 05-27-2013, 12:13 PM
Naki Naki is offline
Registered User
Naki's PC Specs
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 23
POST ID # = 655842
Naki Reputation: 10
Default

Incriminated, NO.
You can check some CrystalDiskMark RAID0 scores too, they are clearly above 600 MB/s, and they are in fact almost double the 550 MB/sec read speed that one drive has.
When you are wrong, you should admit it, and not continue stubbornly to defend the wrong (as in specification wrong!) point of view. SATA simply does not work the way you say. Try reading Wikipedia articles on the subject, if that does not help, try looking for detailed PDF docs on this.

PATA has nothing to do with this, this is clearly a very bad example you tried to use - SATA is a serial port.

I am planning to use just 2 SSDs - yes, if 3 or 4 are used, it is possible and very likely for a bottleneck to occur. But NOT with 2 SSDs!

EDIT: No idea what "BLOW CAKE!" is - what did you mean by that???

Last edited by Naki; 05-27-2013 at 12:20 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #24  
Old 05-27-2013, 05:34 PM
Incriminated Incriminated is offline
Registered user
Incriminated's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 152
POST ID # = 655890
Incriminated Reputation: 10
Default

look i have a watch-no-clock.... watch: no clock. -> BLOW CAKE

As i repeat the SATA specification states 600MB/s BUS speed, this is inside your wikipedia article.

The terms bus, speed and limit are fact.

What you refering to is that 1 channel per device... nothing more. It has nothing to say.

Im done with you.

go ask Intel... out of SATA spec!

P:S The fact that actual motherboard to deliver ~1GB/s for a raid0 of 2 SSD doesn't mean that this is endlessly scalable. 4x SSD in raid0 on actual don't deliver ~2GB/s and 6x SSD raid0 doesn't deliver ~3GB. YOu are simply dreaming

It is the special SATA-Controller vendor that suits it with workaround for higher achievable bandwith: NOT THE SATA SPECIFICATION!

Last edited by Incriminated; 05-27-2013 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #25  
Old 07-06-2013, 01:27 PM
Jediron Jediron is offline
Registered User
Jediron's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 5
POST ID # = 663533
Jediron Reputation: 10
Default

It is the PCIe interface that delivers the speed a hw/fw controller needs. No need for a "special" sata-controller.

In fact, sofware-raid on Windows proofs your wrong; ther have been numerous benchmarks raid-0 software vs hardware where the differences were close to....ZERO!

How on earth can software raid achieve the same raw througput as a 2000 dollar piece of high-end controller ? Simple; software-raid uses the onboard superieur intel-chips SATA 3 ports, with a just as great internal, fixed PCIe interface to the chipset.

The HW-controller uses PCIe interface too, but that is not a guarentee it works faster.


Hardware-controller-speed comes from a few things, and a SAta 3 port does not add up to it, where motherboard uses the same SATA 3 ports too. Each capable of,, yes your beloved 600MB's (in fact, it is 6 Gbit/s , a little less then 600MB).

So, where does the extra speed comes from ? Joehoe! Controller bandwidht to the chipset of the motherboard, aka PCIe (internal of ecternal) PCI-X, PCI, ESATA. The higher the bandwidth to the chipset, the more potential there is to achieve much, much higher speeds then 600MB's.
Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.