Seagate 7200 -> WD VRap 300GB

[Guest Nick_N]

Nick, sorry to bother you again, since you have all the experience, could you just tell me, is this about the right performance on the drive?

Yes.. for the nature of the tests that would appear correctMoving to a controller card, shutting down NCQ and other network opt features changes the file benchmark considerably however the default of that HD tune test, 64K, is not a very realistic file length. For FS9 I would set that to at least 128MB however 64MB works too as you set it to. The target file chunk opt for FS9 will be between 64K and 2MB As file size increases, that speed decreases however on a controller card your drive buffer will work directly with the card and the PCIe system which means you are firing data at the system well above the SATA spec for typical motherboard ports. The average file chunks FSX works with are 512K-8MB.. FS9, 64k-2MB. FSX will typically call in-game anywhere from 50MB-250MB of data in files ranging from 512K to 250MB such as mesh addons when crossing scenery boundry points and large airports, etc.As you can see the Vrap really does remove the need for RAID of any type as the single VRap perf is well in line (actually greater) than with any 2x32MB cache 7K RPM drives in RAID. If a RAID array is not set up to a 256K STRIPE when created (most motherboards wont allow 256K) then the perf is killed further due to excessive disk access for the FSX file chunks NO MATTER how fast the benchmark shows the drive or arraySo the controller card does do more than simply replace the motherboard ports. It allows the user to take advantage of the internal design of the drive and expanded bandwidth of the PCIe system, direct access to shutting down NCQ and other network type features of that nature you can not shut down by default in Windows and it allows the drive(s) to operate without the massive CPU overhead during random read operation of the application

[Kosta 122]

Nick, damnit man, you are gonna make me poor ;)Thanks for the great explanation though. I will save up for the card and probably futurewise, another Vrap for the main sys-drive.

[Guest Nick_N]

Nick, damnit man, you are gonna make me poor ;)Thanks for the great explanation though. I will save up for the card and probably futurewise, another Vrap for the main sys-drive.

LOL!People ask what they are paying for... I'm just showing you that you do get what you pay for. The fact of the matter is you are not getting eveything any drive has to offer connected to a motherboard SATA port. The card is the 2'nd part the drive manufactures don't tell you about because the typical home user really does not need that advantage... however we all KNOW when it comes to MSFS every optimized file call and every single CPU cycle counts. good luck :(

[Guest djt01]

Is it normal that my Vrap is having a high frequency pitch noise?

I

[Kosta 122]

I

[Noel 4,487]

LOL!People ask what they are paying for... I'm just showing you that you do get what you pay for. The fact of the matter is you are not getting eveything any drive has to offer connected to a motherboard SATA port. The card is the 2'nd part the drive manufactures don't tell you about because the typical home user really does not need that advantage... however we all KNOW when it comes to MSFS every optimized file call and every single CPU cycle counts. good luck :(

Nick, what do you have to pay for a solid state drive to match or beat a Vrap for FSX? I'm getting tempted to spend money again and sheesh--maybe a SSD is best? My FSX installation stays around 36Gb so perhaps an 80Gb SDD is best? I was about to purchase a 150G Vrap since the price is decent right now but SDD has me wondering. This thing here is only slightly more than the VRap:General Brand SUPER TALENT Series UltraDrive ME Model FTM64GX25H Device Type Internal Solid state disk (SSD) Expansion / Connectivity Form Factor 2.5" Capacity 64GB Interface Type SATA II Performance Chip Type MLC Max Shock Resistance Operating Shock : 1500G Max Vibration Resistance Operating Vibration : 16G Sequential Access - Read 200 MB/sec (max) Sequential Access - Write 160 MB/sec (max) MTBF 1,000,000 hours

[Guest Nick_N]

Nick, what do you have to pay for a solid state drive to match or beat a Vrap for FSX? I'm getting tempted to spend money again and sheesh--maybe a SSD is best? My FSX installation stays around 36Gb so perhaps an 80Gb SDD is best? I was about to purchase a 150G Vrap since the price is decent right now but SDD has me wondering. This thing here is only slightly more than the VRap:General Brand SUPER TALENT Series UltraDrive ME Model FTM64GX25H Device Type Internal Solid state disk (SSD) Expansion / Connectivity Form Factor 2.5" Capacity 64GB Interface Type SATA II Performance Chip Type MLC Max Shock Resistance Operating Shock : 1500G Max Vibration Resistance Operating Vibration : 16G Sequential Access - Read 200 MB/sec (max) Sequential Access - Write 160 MB/sec (max) MTBF 1,000,000 hours

funny how they left out the random read/write specs.. I have had this discussion in another thread http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1559836None the less the only SSD drive on the market which has overcome most of the issues with SATA connection is the Intel X2 drives.. all others I would not bother withAnd no they are not cheaper than a Vrap.. how many of those drives will it take to make 300GB?and to tell you the truth SSD is still not ready for prime time due to the need for the bandwidth SATAIII provides nor are they worth the investment in gaming. Assuming one purchases the better Intel SSD units with or without a controller card the speed of the drive well exceeds any applications ability to render in real time. If such a system is to be used for real time A/V editing or scientific research then they are worth the cost.. otherwise its throwing a lot of money at a small storage capacity that is not safe for datathey are volatile. Which means your data is not secure on them. You can store a HDD for years and use it again with all data in tact. You can not do that with SSD right now.

[Noel 4,487]

funny how they left out the random read/write specs.. I have had this discussion in another thread http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1559836None the less the only SSD drive on the market which has overcome most of the issues with SATA connection is the Intel X2 drives.. all others I would not bother withAnd no they are not cheaper than a Vrap.. how many of those drives will it take to make 300GB?and to tell you the truth SSD is still not ready for prime time due to the need for the bandwidth SATAIII provides nor are they worth the investment in gaming. Assuming one purchases the better Intel SSD units with or without a controller card the speed of the drive well exceeds any applications ability to render in real time. If such a system is to be used for real time A/V editing or scientific research then they are worth the cost.. otherwise its throwing a lot of money at a small storage capacity that is not safe for datathey are volatile. Which means your data is not secure on them. You can store a HDD for years and use it again with all data in tact. You can not do that with SSD right now.

Ahh, then prob best go with the 150gb Vrap. Can't see a compelling reason to go to the 300GB drive at this time, can you? I have ALOT of other drive space for everything else. I figure I could grow FSX to 75Gb and still be fine, and again my FSX installation sits at 32.5Gb currently. I am using quite a few addons and mesh and so it seems like I have room for growth. Since we have no idea what if anything is coming beyond FSX I prob am ok with 150Gb. Can get it for $159 now at newegg.

[Guest Nick_N]

Ahh, then prob best go with the 150gb Vrap. Can't see a compelling reason to go to the 300GB drive at this time, can you? I have ALOT of other drive space for everything else. I figure I could grow FSX to 75Gb and still be fine, and again my FSX installation sits at 32.5Gb currently. I am using quite a few addons and mesh and so it seems like I have room for growth. Since we have no idea what if anything is coming beyond FSX I prob am ok with 150Gb. Can get it for $159 now at newegg.

rule of thumb.. with everything installed try to maintain at minimum 35% free space for best results. My personal MAX limit for data on any drive (SSD are different in that respect) is 65% full and I really prefer 50-50Format the drive to 64K clusters which means you will lose some space but that does improve file read/write efficiencyRemember Noel, basic geometry of a disk plays solid into mechanical drive performance that no benchmark program is going to show you in linear fashion. The larger the platter the more efficient and better the result to the application/system. Its much better to have 200GB of free space on a drive than 50

[Noel 4,487]

rule of thumb.. with everything installed try to maintain at minimum 35% free space for best results. My personal MAX limit for data on any drive (SSD are different in that respect) is 65% full and I really prefer 50-50Format the drive to 64K clusters which means you will lose some space but that does improve file read/write efficiencyRemember Noel, basic geometry of a disk plays solid into mechanical drive performance that no benchmark program is going to show you in linear fashion. The larger the platter the more efficient and better the result to the application/system. Its much better to have 200GB of free space on a drive than 50

How much better do you think, insofar as the way FSX accesses the disk in my config with FPS_Limiter operating?Also Nick, with my particular configuration, what practical effects beyond faster load times would you anticipate with a new drive, 150 or 300gb? Somewhat quicker distance texture loading? How about in the context of FPS_Limiter? Usually when I have posed these questions the answer gets very nebulous. Hard to make a smart choice when the cost:benefit value is completely missing.If I went with a 150G drive, I'd still have at least 100 or more free. Right now I'd have close to 115Gb free on a 150gb drive.

[Guest Nick_N]

How much better do you think, insofar as the way FSX accesses the disk in my config with FPS_Limiter operating?Also Nick, with my particular configuration, what practical effects beyond faster load times would you anticipate with a new drive, 150 or 300gb? Somewhat quicker distance texture loading? How about in the context of FPS_Limiter? Usually when I have posed these questions the answer gets very nebulous. Hard to make a smart choice when the cost:benefit value is completely missing.If I went with a 150G drive, I'd still have at least 100 or more free. Right now I'd have close to 115Gb free on a 150gb drive.

My FSX install is 138GB and I never expected it to become that large either.Here is the deal Noel.. you want specific answers and there absolutely no reason to go back and forth over what is better in what circumstance because you are missing the point to all of it.. including storage choices. You wish to discuss or obtain answers to questions that are in fact irrelevant to the real reason why the better storage solutions are of benefit. ie: better distance clarity because of faster texture loads. The bottom line is the less time the system has to deal with a storage solution, the better the result to the ENTIRE system. Its not ALL about texture loads in the distance its about reducing that drag on the system globally. Distance details have nothing to do with storage in the sense of loading textures.. the textures ARE ALL loaded but in the distance the system is placing the priority to the LOWER LOD mip-map on the texture (NOTE: there are 5 duplicate images on a single ground texture from 1024x1024 down to 64x64 for each step in distance from the aircraft) because its busy dealing with other things. The better storage solutions and controller cards RELIEVE the system of the storage burden which mean the textures in the distance then move up to a higher priority in displaying their LOD. So system A which is busy with poorer storage and other components is displaying distance using the lower res image on the texture map and system B is displaying the higher resolution image on the same texture because it has the overhead to meet the highest programmed priority for the distance that texture is being displayed. Now, the example above is exactly why when someone posts a screenshot and its somewhat sharp or fairly clean up close but blurs quickly within 3-5 miles of the aircraft (or worse further) its because of ALL their choices.. their el'cheapo choices from the CPU to the memory to the motherboard platform to the video card and finally their storage solution. It all adds up to global performance.I posted everything you need to know about how to get the most out of everything from the CPU to the memory to the video card and now the storage system. What ever you wish to do is up to you however I would say quite simply you are not running DDR2 on 8800GT anymore so I think there is something to be said for the upgrades you have done in which none have been useless or not provided another element of performance.If you wish to debate what is worth what to who and how it is worth I think that is another subject all together and goes back to attempting to skimp to try and save a buckThat's all fine and dandy but it will not net you anything in the application of choice. When ever I see something that has a high cost but will not provide advantages worth the cost I post it.. ie; SSD drives. I have been quite clear about the advantage of the right storage solution choices from drives, their size to controller cards, and, have demonstrated what that controller card does when compared to the SAME drive on a motherboard port. Those who have switched and who are using these devices know they would not go back to what they had, no more than you would ever go back to DDR2 and a 8800GTSo if you do not wish to spend the money on the 300GB solution, that's fine! If you do not think you will fill that 150 drive up past about 90GB (which takes into account the loss with a 64K cluster format with a min free space) and if cost is a factor, then by all means go for it. But it seems to me someone who has taken the time and effort, and cost, to go with a DDR3 system using an extreme processor and a excellent video solution would also wish to have all the advantages in their system. In that, the larger platter drive is a better choice. As for if it is worth it to you.. only you can make that call. :(

[Noel 4,487]

My FSX install is 138GB and I never expected it to become that large either.Here is the deal Noel.. you want specific answers and there absolutely no reason to go back and forth over what is better in what circumstance because you are missing the point to all of it.. including storage choices. You wish to discuss or obtain answers to questions that are in fact irrelevant to the real reason why the better storage solutions are of benefit. ie: better distance clarity because of faster texture loads. The bottom line is the less time the system has to deal with a storage solution, the better the result to the ENTIRE system. Its not ALL about texture loads in the distance its about reducing that drag on the system globally. Distance details have nothing to do with storage in the sense of loading textures.. the textures ARE ALL loaded but in the distance the system is placing the priority to the LOWER LOD mip-map on the texture (NOTE: there are 5 duplicate images on a single ground texture from 1024x1024 down to 64x64 for each step in distance from the aircraft) because its busy dealing with other things. The better storage solutions and controller cards RELIEVE the system of the storage burden which mean the textures in the distance then move up to a higher priority in displaying their LOD. So system A which is busy with poorer storage and other components is displaying distance using the lower res image on the texture map and system B is displaying the higher resolution image on the same texture because it has the overhead to meet the highest programmed priority for the distance that texture is being displayed. Now, the example above is exactly why when someone posts a screenshot and its somewhat sharp or fairly clean up close but blurs quickly within 3-5 miles of the aircraft (or worse further) its because of ALL their choices.. their el'cheapo choices from the CPU to the memory to the motherboard platform to the video card and finally their storage solution. It all adds up to global performance.I posted everything you need to know about how to get the most out of everything from the CPU to the memory to the video card and now the storage system. What ever you wish to do is up to you however I would say quite simply you are not running DDR2 on 8800GT anymore so I think there is something to be said for the upgrades you have done in which none have been useless or not provided another element of performance.If you wish to debate what is worth what to who and how it is worth I think that is another subject all together and goes back to attempting to skimp to try and save a buckThat's all fine and dandy but it will not net you anything in the application of choice. When ever I see something that has a high cost but will not provide advantages worth the cost I post it.. ie; SSD drives. I have been quite clear about the advantage of the right storage solution choices from drives, their size to controller cards, and, have demonstrated what that controller card does when compared to the SAME drive on a motherboard port. Those who have switched and who are using these devices know they would not go back to what they had, no more than you would ever go back to DDR2 and a 8800GTSo if you do not wish to spend the money on the 300GB solution, that's fine! If you do not think you will fill that 150 drive up past about 90GB (which takes into account the loss with a 64K cluster format with a min free space) and if cost is a factor, then by all means go for it. But it seems to me someone who has taken the time and effort, and cost, to go with a DDR3 system using an extreme processor and a excellent video solution would also wish to have all the advantages in their system. In that, the larger platter drive is a better choice. As for if it is worth it to you.. only you can make that call. :(

Thank you for the more detailed reply it will help me make the best choice. 138GB? What the heck do you have installed?! Mine's been around this level pretty much since I installed it with all the listed addons. I can't imagine what you have to go 5x as much as I am using. Where do I set the 64K cluster by the way.Nick, I'm not missing any points. That's not it. It's a case of ME making a judgement about what is skimping versus a worthwhile investment, and trying to tease out meaningful information from the technical stuff. We all have different budgets, etc. If I install a VRap, and don't notice anything improving, I will consider it a poor purchase. It's about trying to find out HOW MUCH improvement in my particular config I will see with a $200 purchase. Probably hard to answer that since you are not able to see what I see on my platform.Again, thanks alot for your expertise and sharing.

[Guest Nick_N]

Thank you for the more detailed reply it will help me make the best choice. 138GB? What the heck do you have installed?! Mine's been around this level pretty much since I installed it with all the listed addons. I can't imagine what you have to go 5x as much as I am using. Where do I set the 64K cluster by the way.Nick, I'm not missing any points. That's not it. It's a case of ME making a judgement about what is skimping versus a worthwhile investment, and trying to tease out meaningful information from the technical stuff. We all have different budgets, etc. If I install a VRap, and don't notice anything improving, I will consider it a poor purchase. It's about trying to find out HOW MUCH improvement in my particular config I will see with a $200 purchase. Probably hard to answer that since you are not able to see what I see on my platform.Again, thanks alot for your expertise and sharing.

Noel its all a combination of hardware. You are reducing the overhead to the system for every decision made in memory. memory latency, memory platform, motherboard, storage and setup to include the OS setup, defrag solution/strategy = TARGET: EFFICIENCY of CPU AND MEMORY CYCLESI usually place storage at the end of my list for importance however it really should not be overlooked. The use of O&O defrag as I laid out 'alone' attacks the issue from the perspective of basic geometry and that process DOES make a difference to the application in question. Larger platters increase the efficiency of that result. As I said as long as you do not see yourself going over 85-90MB in use the 150 is fine. In reality you would get more out of it and a much greater reduction of overhead to the CPU by placing it on the right controller card over the 300GB model. However since such a card goes for 300 bucks alone, my view is even though it will not provide the same relief to the system as a card the larger platter geometric advantage is the cheaper route. I understand budgets. People do not ask me how much.. they ask me what is best and I do not make suggestions based on skimping. I would much rather inform someone so they may purchase better solutions than have to come back later and walk them through tweaking for truly limited resultsADMIN TOOLS - COMPUTER MANAGEMENT - DISK MANAGEMENT - Right click the new drive which is typically unallocated space, select FORMAT and use the 64K option as the cluster or FILE ALLOCATION size dropdownall set and ready to go..

[Guest Nick_N]

Here is another tid-bit. Even though the textures are 1024x1024 (or 1m in resolution) FSX will go a step further and sharpen them further when the texture resolution slider is set to 7cm assuming the overhead is available to do it but it still forces the sim to maintain a higher LOD in priority. That is why I tell people to use 7cm over 1m when tuning FSX. Its not that one gets 7cm out of 1m textures.. (Roads and taxiways are 7cm though) its that it forces the sim to take it a step further and raise the priority to keeping the textures clearer. We are taking advantage of that with GEX Europe in texture production and when you see what is under the aircraft and how much detail a 1024 texture can really display, its because we figured out how to use 60cm resolution type highlight details in a 1024 texture with no perf loss. Well.. actually, I will confess... We got some help with advice from my friends Industrial Light and Magic. :(this is 400ft from the ground using 1024 textures and special processing to take advantage of the FSX 7cm texture setting...The beach is further in this one but the top of the hill with the houses is at about 800ft. .. same with the image below itand this is much higher ( I had to compress the hell out of these to post them which distorts clarity) but you can still pick up all the details even out in the distanceSo there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to this title.. but what one gets out of it all comes down to the combined choices made to obtain the end resultAll of those images were taken from my older Q/8800GTX tower which is what I use to design GEX.

[Noel 4,487]

Nick, tell me what to make of this . . .I have a 150Gb Vrap now. I'd like to clone my existing 250Gb 7200rpm SATA II drive to the new drive. The problem is, I use Seagate's DiskWizard for cloning, and it will require me to delete the existing partition on the Vrap. In doing so, will that kill the 64K clusters? Seems like it would, but I don't know. If it does, do I just copy the old drive (instead of cloning) to the Vrap in Windows after formatting and setting the cluster size in the Vrap? What do you know?Also, what the heck kind of controller are you using to get those benchmarks? This thing isn't even close--it's as Word Not Allowed's is. Is this effect mostly from the controller card you have, or is it the larger drive? If it's the latter, what % of the improved perf is attributable to the drive size versus the controller card.Again, what controller card? They range hugely in price and I'm not sure what to look for.Thank you,Noel