dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2445
share rss forum feed

Neosum
Premium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA

1 edit

SSD Discussion Again - AHCI vs RAID0

With SSD prices down a little bit and read/write speeds nearly double of a year or two ago, I'm finally considering the dive into SSD. I have a 320gb sata 6Gb/s hdd as the boot drive on my current system.

I'm looking at the 120gb Corsair Force GT:
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···rce%20gt

Rather than going with one 240gb, I was thinking about getting two 120gb in a raid0 configuration instead. What do you guys think?

I've searched around the net a bit and most of the reviews I've come across were several months old. There were discussions of TRIM support coming to raid0. Other discussions of whether there's any improvement at all vs a single ssd in AHCI.

Has anyone tried a raid0 configuration with one of the newer ssd drives on sata 6Gb/s? Has trim support been released yet? Does it even matter? Will I be blown away, with or without raid?

I don't "need" any upgrades since my current core2 quad system is running perfectly fine, but it's around that time again to treat myself to a new system. I will be building a new system based on the z77 chipset and either an i5 or i7 (but that discussion will be for another time). So it's not about whether or not I need a raid0 configuration, but more so rather would it be snappier for all around everyday things that we all do on our computers.
--
"If you keep on doing what you're doing, you'll keep on getting what you're getting"
»eazynetbiz.ws



rusdi
American V
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
Flippin, AR
kudos:2

1 recommendation

There are folks that run 'em in RAID 0.

Would you really notice any speed difference?
There was a thread here not too long ago, and I can't remember who commented about the subject, but the only noticeable difference in speed was in bench-test graphs. Real life, day-to-day use, probably wouldn't be perceptible from just a single SSD AHCI install.

Here's a nice article explaining why you want TRIM command with SSDs. It also explains how new MoBos pass through the TRIM command with RAID 0.
Pretty good read.
»www.anandtech.com/show/6161/inte···-test-it
Good luck!
--
Come fold for a cure with us @ Team Helix.


Neosum
Premium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA

Thanks. That was exactly what I was looking for.
--
My blog »writingforprofits.net



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

3 edits

BTW, topic/subject line of this thread is quite misleading -- AHCI vs. RAID0 doesn't quite make any sense (and that's what caught my attention), especially since it says "RAID0" (implying RAID-0 (striping) rather than "a SATA controller operating in RAID mode").

For definitions + understanding what AHCI mode is and what RAID mode is, please see this post of mine from some time ago:

»Re: ATA/ACHI/RAID confusion

(Please note that the post mentions the fact that TRIM support for RAID modes in Intel's RST drivers did not exist at the time; that, obviously, has been rectified very recently. )

If you are even remotely considering RAID-0, you absolutely need to do backups regularly. It doesn't matter if you're using an SSD or an MHDD -- SSDs fail just like MHDDs do. You have no redundancy with RAID-0, thus a single member of the array experiences any kind of error and you've lost your array. Only use RAID-0 if you can absolutely, no questions asked, live with losing everything on the array.

If I had to give you a general recommendation, it would be to avoid use of BIOS-level RAID. If you ever experience a disk-related issue or some kind of oddity that you can't figure out, the RAID aspect of it makes troubleshooting/diagnosing the problem extremely difficult without someone familiar with the complications and knows exactly what tools to use (not bragging, just stating it openly: I'm one such person, but we aren't a dime a dozen).

Instead, I tend to recommend people considering an SSD have two drives: one SSD (e.g. your C: drive) solely for the OS an most applications, and one MHDD (e.g. your D: drive) solely for games / data storage (movies, music, etc.).

It's very important to remember that you should not treat capacity on an SSD in the same way you do an MHDD, since the less space you have available on an SSD, the worst wear-levelling performs (which affects not only the lifetime of the drive but the speed as well). I can't find one of the bazillion threads where I've mentioned this, but you should try to only utilise, at most, 60-65% of your SSD capacity to ensure wear-levelling is effective. So a 120GB SSD means you should be using at most 72-78GBytes of it. Something to keep in mind.

And yes, absolutely use AHCI!
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Neosum

I’ve run SSD units in a RAID 0 configuration.

»SSD Raid 0 Array 4x60GB Setup Test Run

Personally I view it a little like CPU’s and GPU’s in that I prefer to buy the largest and fasts single solution that I can afford. I no longer run a RAID 0 SSD configuration (at the moment) but then I also have larger SSD models now. Currently I have the following models:

Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 64GB (3x)
Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 128GB (1x)
Corsair Force Series 3 120GB (2x)
Crucial M4 256GB (1x)
OCZ Vertex 2 120GB (1x)
OCZ Vertex Plus 240GB (2x)
OCZ Agility 60GB (1x)
OCZ Agility 3 360GB (1x)
OCZ Octane 128GB (1x)
Sandisk OEM mSATA 60GB (Asus Eee Slate EP121 Windows 7 tablet PC)

Again, I would just go with the biggest and fastest SSD you feel comfortable buying. Having said that I may try a 4x120GB RAID 0 array or a 4x240GB RAID 0 array in the near future,....


Neosum
Premium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to koitsu

said by koitsu:

BTW, topic/subject line of this thread is quite misleading -- AHCI vs. RAID0 doesn't quite make any sense (and that's what caught my attention), especially since it says "RAID0" (implying RAID-0 (striping) rather than "a SATA controller operating in RAID mode").

Actually, what I meant to say was a single ssd in ahci vs two ssd in raid0. To setup a bios level raid0, the sata controller would be in raid, not ahci. I assumed that people reading it would know what I'm asking. Sorry for the confusion. The question was whether or not it would be significantly faster over time for general usage that includes a little bit of everything.

said by koitsu:

If you are even remotely considering RAID-0, you absolutely need to do backups regularly. It doesn't matter if you're using an SSD or an MHDD -- SSDs fail just like MHDDs do. You have no redundancy with RAID-0, thus a single member of the array experiences any kind of error and you've lost your array. Only use RAID-0 if you can absolutely, no questions asked, live with losing everything on the array.

I've had a raid array fail on me before and do have weekly backups to an external 2tb usb drive. This will be my home hobby/gaming/tinkering pc, so weekly backups are more than sufficient for it. I fully understand the differences from a technical standpoint and am able to diagnose and fix problems that may occur. What I don't have experience with is actually using two ssd in raid0, so aside from online benchmarks, I don't know if it's significantly faster than a single ssd. If there's a wow factor moving from hdd to ssd, then would there be a double-wow factor moving to two ssd... That's really the question. I'm sure at some point, I'll be able to see for myself. For now, I'm relying on others who have experienced it and would like to hear what they have to say about their setups.

said by Octavean:

I’ve run SSD units in a RAID 0 configuration.

»SSD Raid 0 Array 4x60GB Setup Test Run

Personally I view it a little like CPU’s and GPU’s in that I prefer to buy the largest and fasts single solution that I can afford. I no longer run a RAID 0 SSD configuration (at the moment) but then I also have larger SSD models now. Currently I have the following models:

Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 64GB (3x)
Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 128GB (1x)
Corsair Force Series 3 120GB (2x)
Crucial M4 256GB (1x)
OCZ Vertex 2 120GB (1x)
OCZ Vertex Plus 240GB (2x)
OCZ Agility 60GB (1x)
OCZ Agility 3 360GB (1x)
OCZ Octane 128GB (1x)
Sandisk OEM mSATA 60GB (Asus Eee Slate EP121 Windows 7 tablet PC)

Again, I would just go with the biggest and fastest SSD you feel comfortable buying. Having said that I may try a 4x120GB RAID 0 array or a 4x240GB RAID 0 array in the near future,....

Thanks for sharing your experience. I've decided to go with a single 240gb ssd for now. I think the speed gains over my current hdd is significant enough with a single ssd. The risk factor of having two of them in raid0 just isn't worth the gains to me.
--
My blog »writingforprofits.net


rusdi
American V
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
Flippin, AR
kudos:2

I believe you will have more success with a single, (larger capacity) SSD AHCI install.
The risk of a RAID0 array breaking, as said is just as great with SSDs as with mechanical disks, and any speed gain would be slight.

If you have never used a SATAIII SSD, you are in for a treat!

Enjoy your new speedy drive!
--
Come fold for a cure with us @ Team Helix.



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to Neosum

said by Neosum:

Actually, what I meant to say was a single ssd in ahci vs two ssd in raid0. To setup a bios level raid0, the sata controller would be in raid, not ahci.

It's important that you read the information at the top of the link I provided: BIOS-level RAID (meaning "RAID mode") uses AHCI. But "AHCI mode" does not use RAID. I want to make sure you understand that, that's all.

said by Neosum:

I've had a raid array fail on me before and do have weekly backups to an external 2tb usb drive. This will be my home hobby/gaming/tinkering pc, so weekly backups are more than sufficient for it. I fully understand the differences from a technical standpoint and am able to diagnose and fix problems that may occur.

No offence, but I have trouble believing you here. No judgement being passed, just disbelief (and I expand on this a little later). Say you're using BIOS-level RAID with 2 disks (doesn't matter if they're MHDD or SSD) in RAID-0, and suddenly your array "starts acting weird". Can you explain to me how you determine which disk is causing the problem and what the actual problem is?

I'm intentionally avoiding mentioning certain tools/etc. because I want to make sure you know how to do this. It's one of the reasons why BIOS-level RAID (and hardware RAID for that matter) is generally "feh" -- without knowledge and familiarity with proper forensics tools you're "flying blind", meaning you don't know which disk is causing the issue. You can look at some of my posts here on the forum for examples of this -- it's happened so many times in the past here that it's unfathomable. What ends up happening is that people in this situation flail around like a chicken with their heads cut off and post on forums, etc. trying to find out "how to figure out what's wrong". Most people on the Internet have no idea how to diagnose this kind of situation (accurately/correctly)... you get the idea.

said by Neosum:

What I don't have experience with is actually using two ssd in raid0, so aside from online benchmarks, I don't know if it's significantly faster than a single ssd.

What you're saying here is (really!) that you don't know if a single disk (doesn't matter if it's MHDD or SSD -- again, really!) is faster than RAID-0. To me this means you don't understand what RAID-0 is or how it works, because otherwise you'd know that yes, absolutely, RAID-0 provides massive speed gains -- assuming all you care about is speed (i.e. reliability/redundancy is sacrificial).

Maybe a Youtube video will help (it's for SSDs but the RAID-0 concept/what it provides is the same for MHDDs) -- it's obvious they're doing RAID-0 because of the demographic they're trying to appeal to:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs


Overall, generally speaking, I tend to recommend most people avoid RAID and stick to single disk setups unless they know exactly what they're doing.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

Neosum
Premium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA

You obviously are looking to get attention and completely skipping over the purpose of this thread. I have nothing to prove you and will be the one to walk away from this. Who cares if you think you're the professional and everyone else knows nothing? I certainly don't. I know what I know and I ask when I don't, that's all that matters to me. What you're imposing and attempting to impose are not what I've asked. Period.

Sure, benchmarks show that two ssd in raid0 performs faster and I've seen some of them. Where speeds were seen up to 1.5x but not double and even degrading over time without trim. Whether or not that is noticeable in regular every day usage is what I'm asking. I've weighed the risks vs gains and decided against it, at least for now. That doesn't mean I won't experiment with it in the future.

I've had a raid0 as my boot device before. To me, the speed gains were not that noticeable and I chose not to do it after one drive failed on me. And yes, I found the faulty drive and got an rma from the manufacturer. I currently have a stripe partition through windows as a secondary storage drive. Again, no significant improvements other than moving large files.

If you want to contribute and offer suggestions, that's perfectly fine. But to undermine my knowledge and completely skip over my questions while creating and answering your own is utterly childish, arrogant and disrespectful.
--
My blog »writingforprofits.net



signmeuptoo
Bless you Howie
Premium
join:2001-11-22
NanoParticle
kudos:5
reply to koitsu

In that video he mentions super fast defrag. I am confused, I thought fragmentation wasn't an issue with an SSD install, it doesn't make sense to me. It isn't like a read head travel/data proximity issue exists with SSDs compared to MHDD, or am I wrong here? I mean, on an SSD you've got an array of ICs that store data, why would it matter -significantly- if part of a file is on one IC and and then the rest of the file on other ICs? (IC=Integrated Circuit/Chip, I'm old school.)

I can imagine there might be some delta t with fragmentation, but wouldn't it be infinitely small (but varies with drive technology).

Admittedly, I haven't read on exactly how SSDs work and the technology behind the ICs in them, partly because they are beyond my budget so I've sort of avoided thinking too much about them.

Thanks for the wear leveling comment, I had assumed that loading down of an SSD wouldn't be an important consideration compared to MHDDs, but I now see how it could be. I understand loading up the capacity of a MHDD (rotational velocity of disk(s) being the same but data stream varying with the linear velocity of access of data since data is moving at lower speeds closer in on a platter's radius.

Koitsu, is there a tutorial that discusses this stuff in lay language a home system builder who isn't an uber tech can understand?

Neosum, I think you might be over reacting to his comments, he is a good contributor here, try to not react to what he is saying that way, he's sharing knowledge with you, not insulting you.
--
Join Teams Helix and Discovery. Rest in Peace, Leonard David Smith, my best friend, you are missed badly! Rest in peace, Pop, glad our last years were good. Please pray for Colin, he has ependymoma, a brain cancer, donate to a children's Hospital.



signmeuptoo
Bless you Howie
Premium
join:2001-11-22
NanoParticle
kudos:5
reply to Neosum

said by Neosum:

You obviously are looking to get attention and completely skipping over the purpose of this thread. I have nothing to prove you and will be the one to walk away from this. Who cares if you think you're the professional and everyone else knows nothing? I certainly don't. I know what I know and I ask when I don't, that's all that matters to me. What you're imposing and attempting to impose are not what I've asked. Period.

Sure, benchmarks show that two ssd in raid0 performs faster and I've seen some of them. Where speeds were seen up to 1.5x but not double and even degrading over time without trim. Whether or not that is noticeable in regular every day usage is what I'm asking. I've weighed the risks vs gains and decided against it, at least for now. That doesn't mean I won't experiment with it in the future.

I've had a raid0 as my boot device before. To me, the speed gains were not that noticeable and I chose not to do it after one drive failed on me. And yes, I found the faulty drive and got an rma from the manufacturer. I currently have a stripe partition through windows as a secondary storage drive. Again, no significant improvements other than moving large files.

If you want to contribute and offer suggestions, that's perfectly fine. But to undermine my knowledge and completely skip over my questions while creating and answering your own is utterly childish, arrogant and disrespectful.

This brings to mind something I learned in LASER school through a lab I had to set up and perform. The LASER in this case was a TEA LASER and I focused the emission such that I got balls of light that shot across the room along the beam path. I could perceive the propagation of the balls of light and it was similar to the photon torpedoes in Star Trek. I, vicariously, fairly quickly caught on as to why I can see the balls of light shooting across the room even though the speed of light is too fast for the brain to process...

You see, the balls of light (LASER was a CO2 TEA, and as such, the beam is invisible since it is IR), were plasma balls. The air (containing moisture as well as gases such as hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen) was being super heated by the invisible beam coming to a focus and turning into plasma balls, and the plasma balls were propagating across the room at some unknown rate much slower than the speed of light.

Also, the LASER in question was pulsed by design, so...

I bring this up because we humans can detect velocity of any given thing up until a certain rate, and at that rate, our ability to perceive speed reaches the limits of our eyes and brain. We can't really tell the difference between, say, a jet at Mach 1 and one at (could it be?) at mach 10, but we CAN, some of us, see the difference of a baseball pitched as a curve versus a speed ball (though it is hard to do head on, and is one reason pitchers vary their delivery to trick the batter).

See, I just went technical on you also. Sometimes any one of us wants to impart knowledge or wisdom and it helps for us to take it as that, education being shared, NOT sniping...
--
Join Teams Helix and Discovery. Rest in Peace, Leonard David Smith, my best friend, you are missed badly! Rest in peace, Pop, glad our last years were good. Please pray for Colin, he has ependymoma, a brain cancer, donate to a children's Hospital.

Neosum
Premium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA

That's somewhat along the lines of what I'm trying to get information on. Benchmark speeds are nice, but a ssd in raid0 for everyday use that includes a little bit of everything is what I asked about. There's a point where our eyes wouldn't notice any perceived difference. I was trying to decide whether that speed increase was worth the effort.

Although many say that 60fps is as much as our eyes can perceive, as a gamer, I can definitely say that there's a huge difference between 60fps and 120fps in regards to the smoothness of the game play.

As for my reply, I don't think I'm overreacting at all. The amount of contribution does not equate to the right to put others down. It's obvious that people like that have something to prove. There's always a smarter guy around the corner and it's disrespectful and arrogant to assume they're not.

I've ran into people like that all of my life. It reminds me of an incident long ago where someone asked me if I understood html. I said I'm currently working as a web designer (at that time). His immediate response was, "Ok then, tell me the code to creating a link because I don't think you know." See my point? It's ok if you don't. I've gotten the information I asked. This thread can be closed.
--
My blog »writingforprofits.net



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to signmeuptoo

said by signmeuptoo:

In that video he mentions super fast defrag. I am confused, I thought fragmentation wasn't an issue with an SSD install, it doesn't make sense to me. It isn't like a read head travel/data proximity issue exists with SSDs compared to MHDD, or am I wrong here?

You're mostly correct. The problem is that filesystem defragmentation "solves" a lot of things -- the most prominent being that 1) it tries to ensure individual files are stored linearly, LBA-wise, on the disk (to reduce the number of seeks to read a whole file), and 2) to move files closer to the start of the disk (closer to LBA 0), since with MHDDs I/O speed tapers off as the actuator arms move inwards towards the spindle.

However, filesystem defragmentation also provides additional benefits such as the filesystem layer itself being able to benefit more what's called "read-ahead", where the I/O subsystem (in the OS, not the disk), when reading a file, proceeds to actually read some of the LBAs *past* that block and cache that data in memory. It provides speed-ups for some situations involving sequential/linear reads and sometimes non-linear; it's hard to explain tersely, as every situation is different. I'm sure Windows has this to some degree, I know FreeBSD does (vfs.read_max), and I'm sure Linux does as well. Another way to look at it, written in English: "so I need to read 1698 bytes of data, but let's read 32768 bytes instead and cache the 31070 we don't care about, so that if something else does want those 31070 bytes we can provide them from memory and not have to re-seek + re-read". (Yes, seeks don't matter with SSDs, but there is always ATA protocol overhead when issuing reads of any kind).

Filesystem fragmentation is somewhat of a tricky thing to explain; it's a simple term used commonly, but there's a lot involved in solving the problem itself given how storage subsystems combined with drivers and the filesystem layer itself behaves. There's so many levels of caching that go on under the hood that it's almost crazy.

So the question then becomes: does defragmenting a filesystem on an SSD provide you any benefits? The answer is NO for items (1) and (2) above, however the answer is SOMETIMES YES for the read-ahead stuff.

In general, I DO NOT recommend people defragment their filesystems residing on SSDs. Most people (the easy majority) don't know how to determine whether or not lack-of read-ahead is even applicable to their environment. Sometimes I worry even mentioning it, because folks tend to start getting OCD and worrying about things they know nothing about. :-)

said by signmeuptoo:

Koitsu, is there a tutorial that discusses this stuff in lay language a home system builder who isn't an uber tech can understand?

Probably. The only stuff I've read which is mostly accurate + decent is the "how hard disks / storage works" document over on storagereview.com. It's very very long, but it's in-depth.

said by signmeuptoo:

Neosum, I think you might be over reacting to his comments, he is a good contributor here, try to not react to what he is saying that way, he's sharing knowledge with you, not insulting you.

Well, I come off very brash/crass/rude (I'm this way in person as well), so I can understand his irritation -- meaning yes, I am aware of my own behaviour (my previous boss used to describe me as "prickly", which is extremely accurate :-) ). It can easily be interpreted as insult, so he's every right to feel how he does.

The point I'm trying to make is that understanding things correctly and using the right terminology (RAID vs. AHCI technologies, compared to "RAID mode" vs. "AHCI mode" settings in a system BIOS), as well as being honest with yourself (re: how to actually diagnose a fairly low-level disk problem (SSD or MHDD, doesn't matter)) is important.

I've become accustomed to seeing "forum dwellers" (any forum, not just here) somehow providing technical support and "in-depth knowledge" on subjects they actually have no idea about (and end up causing more damage than assistance). These are usually "enthusiasts" (to use a marketing term), not actual engineers. Everyone on the Internet seems to be a "tech wizard".

This is becoming very common on forums where people have "hard disk issues" and start doing things like recommending weird software (SpinRite is a common one -- thing has been debunked many times over on Slashdot) without actually doing a proper analysis first. Like I've said in other posts, the majority of people can't interpret SMART attributes correctly, so why would I trust the same people telling me "run some program to get your data back"? Even data recovery companies tell you that if you have a problem, do not run programs or do anything to try and "repair" the situation, because in most cases it makes it worse or you can lose even more data (in some cases without you knowing it; "oh, the program decided to write 0xFEEDFACE all over some LBAs on the drive that had nothing to do with the LBAs which had read failures... oh well, hope you don't mind some random files having that in them! Good luck figuring out which ones!").

Neosum, I do not (honest) necessarily believe you fall into this category -- it is downright inconsiderate of me to assume that you do -- but I'm certain you have seen guys like this on the Internet as well. I hope you can understand my reluctance to believe someone when they state up front that they're familiar with diagnosing hard disk problems, because after being on this forum for years, most people here don't. And that's totally okay: I'm here to help, teach, and provide accurate information as best as I can.

For sake of point, there's tons of things I don't know jack squat about. Don't ask me about lasers, circuit design or how to read a circuit diagram correctly, or how electricity *truly* works and how to harness it -- because I have no idea. Don't ask me how to design a filesystem, or how the Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris VMs work, or how things like hypervisors actually work under the hood -- because I have no idea. Don't ask me to explain how a car works, or things involving non-obvious uses of physics -- because I have no idea. I'm a total idiot when it comes to these things, and I'm happy to admit that. One of the phrases I love saying the most in life is "I don't know", because learning is always a great thing. "Love of learning is akin to wisdom".
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


signmeuptoo
Bless you Howie
Premium
join:2001-11-22
NanoParticle
kudos:5

BIL, an EE and software writer, likes to say "the more you know, the more you know you DON'T know". I'm borderline, I often don't even know I don't know.

uh, wha? ERM, uh, yeah, what he said... (that's me all the time, hah hah)

Years ago when I first found this forum I thought I knew something and tried to take on the air that I could actually help people, but now I realize I don't. Often I ask questions and look stupid, but I prefer looking stupid than thinking I am not stupid and inserting my foot in one of my top orifices.

This thread has me reflecting on my espoused love for Linux. I tell people how cool I think it is, and yet I'm not even passably literate in it. It's like saying I like Porsches, yeah, I like the idea of them, and want one (I know, pitiful), but I don't understand enough about them past the notion that I THINK they are cool.

Three letters describe me and computing: DOH!

My personal circle of people that come to me for help, I try to not put on airs that I know more than I do, because, invariably, their expectations of what I can do to help can get out of control. It's like electronics theory, yeah, I went to school for it, but I don't know enough about it because I didn't use what I learned in school and haven't studied it in years. Shoot, I forgot most of my optical physics, too.

Let's put it this way, I am hoping to go back to school...

I now realize that sometimes people in some tech forums don't try to respond to my questions because they don't know and don't want to admit it. I think the problem is, there are only just so many hours in a day, and years in a life, so bearing knowledge is sometimes directly measurable to what time a gal or guy has to focus on it!

What is nice about forums is that answers CAN sometimes come in nice, digestible blocks of information that is more time efficient then taking time to learn how to ask a question, let alone ask it.

That said, I still think Linux is cool, but I still don't understand the command syntax (what the various symbols and terms mean on a man page or help page on a command) I'd love to find a website that can help me interpret other web pages, and man pages that explain commands and the syntax of their modifiers. It is like hieroglyphics sometimes.

I don't understand the use of a [ or ] versus a ( or a { or any of the other symbols used that explain modifiers to OS commands, so when I see

COMMAND -term (term) [term, term-term] yadda yadda, I feel like an idiot. That said, telling me I'm an idiot in an OS forum doesn't help either, heh. Some say I am smart, but I'm only smart enough to get in trouble usually...

If I can ever learn how the braces work in explanations of Linux commands, I might start learning something (though the language used often is cryptic simply because the terms used are for those that already understand, uh...)
--
Join Teams Helix and Discovery. Rest in Peace, Leonard David Smith, my best friend, you are missed badly! Rest in peace, Pop, glad our last years were good. Please pray for Colin, he has ependymoma, a brain cancer, donate to a children's Hospital.



rusdi
American V
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
Flippin, AR
kudos:2

I sometimes get lucky, and (think) I know what's being asked.
Sometimes, unfortunately I (think) I know the answer, and try to be of some help.........sometimes I get lucky, sometimes not.
--
Come fold for a cure with us @ Team Helix.



signmeuptoo
Bless you Howie
Premium
join:2001-11-22
NanoParticle
kudos:5
reply to Neosum

I found this, thanks to this discussion helping me figure out how to ask google and actually ask about command syntax notation:

»pcsupport.about.com/od/commandli···ntax.htm

I may have to reread it a couple times, erm...



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to Neosum

I guess this is what you were referring to with respect to TRIM support coming soon for RAID 0 configurations:

quote:
TRIM on RAID 0 for Intel X79 Chipset Coming Soon
While the PC enthusiast community at large welcomed news of SSD TRIM command being made possible in RAID 0 setups, provided Intel 7-series chipset RAID controllers are used, users of Sandy Bridge-E HEDT platform, running Intel X79 chipset, didn't. The feature was advertised to be initially available only to users of 7-series client chipset (such as Z77, H77), with Rapid Storage Technology (RST) driver version 11.0 and above. Intel made amends by announcing that users of Intel X79 chipset will be able to take advantage of TRIM command in RAID 0 setups, with a future version of (Rapid Storage Technology Enterprise) driver, without being specific about the version or its release date.

Said Intel in its note, "Current RSTe drivers specific to X79 do NOT support TRIM on RAID 0, but an updated RST driver version coming soon will add support for X79 based systems, including the TRIM on RAID 0 feature. Note that on client 7-series chipsets (non X79), RST driver version 11.0 and beyond supports TRIM on RAID 0."

»www.techpowerup.com/170822/TRIM-···oon.html

It just seems to me like TRIM support has been coming for RAID for some time now.  The fact that some restrictions in terms of chipset are now being made may mean progress though.