NVMe: 2.5" SFF drives working in a normal desktop
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
Just cancel your order from them. Mine should be in soon.Just an update on this, I ordered cables from the company on June 7th, no updates, no cables.
Anyone else order and/or get any?
Hoping NEO's come in soon
I have installed the ASUS Hyper Kit on my new ASUS X99-Pro testbed. Same as Patrick, I bought 750 2.5inch just for that cable...
You can enable the Hyper kit mode in ASUS bios.
After that you can find P3700 in boot device list.
Some desktop benchmarks here.
After running Iometer QD32 128KB Sequence Write test for about 3 minutes , the driver limit the write speed from 2.1GB/s to 1.4GB/s due to high temperature. It's too HOT ! even can't touch the SSD case...
Finally I put a 12CM fan like this when running the benchmark.
If your Asus Hyper Kit gets hot - which is essentially pcb-t0-cable interconnect then that is not normal and a hazard.
Honestly not too sure what you're getting at.
I'm not clear on what your definition of "load generation" is other than having a lot of threads with high QD, which I specifically said was why the CPU utilization was so high, if there are other reasons why benchmarking software cause false CPU spikes/utilization please, let me know. I saw a steady utilization almost consistently during the entire Read/Write tests 4k or sequential that had higher QD & #Threads.
Some benchmarking software that you can't change the # Threads or # of QD don't tax the CPU at all.
For a single user as a desktop I think there's nothing to worry about but you're also never going to max out the drives performance.
I'm not clear on what your definition of "load generation" is other than having a lot of threads with high QD, which I specifically said was why the CPU utilization was so high, if there are other reasons why benchmarking software cause false CPU spikes/utilization please, let me know. I saw a steady utilization almost consistently during the entire Read/Write tests 4k or sequential that had higher QD & #Threads.
Some benchmarking software that you can't change the # Threads or # of QD don't tax the CPU at all.
For a single user as a desktop I think there's nothing to worry about
but you're also never going to max out the drives performance.If I'm reading this correctly ...
"Just hit 80% CPU utilization of total of 30ghz Intel R3 E5 CPU"
a single NVMe SSD required 30 x 0.80 = 24 GHz to drive a single SSD?
Am I reading that correctly?
I did also read the following comment about "load generation"
but 24 GHz seems to be quite excessive.
Why are so many cores involved in doing I/O with a single SSD??
This is the sort of CPU utilization which we usually see
doing routine benchmarks with a fast ramdisk, but
even then there are usually only 2 cores involved --
one to do computation, and the other to do the I/O.
"Just hit 80% CPU utilization of total of 30ghz Intel R3 E5 CPU"
a single NVMe SSD required 30 x 0.80 = 24 GHz to drive a single SSD?
Am I reading that correctly?
I did also read the following comment about "load generation"
but 24 GHz seems to be quite excessive.
Why are so many cores involved in doing I/O with a single SSD??
This is the sort of CPU utilization which we usually see
doing routine benchmarks with a fast ramdisk, but
even then there are usually only 2 cores involved --
one to do computation, and the other to do the I/O.
As Allyn Malventano observed at pcper.com,
the Supermicro AOCs are "pass-thru" cards,
not RAID cards with their own input-output controllers.
One suspect, then, is the efficiency of your Supermicro AOC
e.g. the driver may need optimization.
the Supermicro AOCs are "pass-thru" cards,
not RAID cards with their own input-output controllers.
One suspect, then, is the efficiency of your Supermicro AOC
e.g. the driver may need optimization.
As I said, high QD and high Thread.
QD 128 Threads 10 - 79%
QD 128 Threads 64 81%
QD 128 Threads 1 -Low %
QD 1 Thread 1 - Low %
Like @Patrick said, this is a very unlikely work-load for most anyone I mean the drive utilization was 98% most of the time during benchmarking, how often are people driving SSD at 100%? During certain business operations, but most other cases rarely.
I agree, it could be the SM card.
I have some AIC NVME drives to test next, and see what they do to the CPU.
My other thread mentioned 20% utilization on approx 50ghz (Intel too) via ESXI Win VM testing.
Soon I'll have my file server setup with NVME drives and we'll see what real world CPU usage is when when it's being used by a handful of VMs
QD 128 Threads 10 - 79%
QD 128 Threads 64 81%
QD 128 Threads 1 -Low %
QD 1 Thread 1 - Low %
Like @Patrick said, this is a very unlikely work-load for most anyone I mean the drive utilization was 98% most of the time during benchmarking, how often are people driving SSD at 100%? During certain business operations, but most other cases rarely.
I agree, it could be the SM card.
I have some AIC NVME drives to test next, and see what they do to the CPU.
My other thread mentioned 20% utilization on approx 50ghz (Intel too) via ESXI Win VM testing.
Soon I'll have my file server setup with NVME drives and we'll see what real world CPU usage is when when it's being used by a handful of VMs
So you're thinking the Benchmarking software is putting a load that would be impossible to put on normally?
Along the lines of how Prime95 wasn't accurate / properly for Haswell by overloading it to a degree impossible under any workload, even at 100%? (So I heard, it would def. overheat if not properly cooled!! LOL)
These are all things I plan to address with additional "real world" benchmarks in the next 2 weeks.
Good info to share.
I have notes someplace too which benchmark utils caused high-load and others that didn't. The ones that didn't were not high QD or Threaded though.