Final Words

I believe there's a very specific niche that is interested in something like the RevoDrive 3. A customer that needs the performance and is too resource limited to go after the more expensive solutions on the market. I believe it's a lot like what we did in the early days of AnandTech. A decade ago we couldn't get or afford powerful server hardware, but we needed the performance. Our solution was to build a bunch of desktops (using hardware that we did have available to us) and deploy them as our servers. The solution was incredibly fast and cost effective, exactly what we needed at the time. We of course later ran into reliability issues down the road when all of our desktop motherboards died at the same time (apparently we had a bad batch), but when they worked the systems served us well.

The RevoDrive 3 reminds me a lot of something we would've deployed back then: something that can deliver the performance but whose track record isn't proven. OCZ insists that the RevoDrive 3 isn't targeted at servers, although it fully expects users to deploy it in machines running server OSes.

The RevoDrive 3 X2's performance shouldn't be surprising. In fact, you should be able to get similar performance out of a 4-drive RAID-0 array of Vertex 3s. Unfortunately you wouldn't be able to do so on a 6-series Intel motherboard as you're limited to two 6Gbps SATA ports. You'd either need to invest in a 4-port 6Gbps SATA RAID card like this or look at AMD's 8/9-series chipset, which does make the RevoDrive 3 X2 a little more attractive. Ultimately this has been one of my biggest issues with these multi-controller PCIe SSDs, they rarely offer a tangible benefit over a DIY RAID setup.

For the majority of users the RevoDrive 3 X2 is simply overkill. I even demonstrated in some of our IO bound tests that you're bottlenecked by the workload before you're limited by the hardware. That being said, if you have the right workload - I've already shown that you can push nearly 1.5GB/s of data through the card and hit random IOPS numbers of over 180K (~756MB/s in our QD32 test). Even if you have the workload however I still have two major concerns: TRIM support and reliability.

While I'm glad you can finally secure erase the drive under Windows, missing TRIM is a tangible downside in my opinion. The only salvation is the fact that if you're running with mostly compressible data, SandForce's controllers tend to be very resilient and you probably won't miss TRIM. If your workload is predominantly incompressible (e.g. highly compressed videos, images or data of a highly random makeup) then perhaps something SandForce based isn't the best option for you to begin with.

The reliability issue is what will likely keep the RevoDrive 3 out of mission critical deployments. A single controller failure will kill your entire array, not to mention the recent unease about using anything SandForce SF-2281 based. OCZ tells me it hasn't seen a single BSOD issue on the RevoDrive 3 X2 thus far (it's currently running version 2.06 of the OCZ/SF firmware) however it'll be updated to the latest firmware before shipping in late July just in case.

As with anything else in the SSD space, I'd suggest waiting to see how the RevoDrive 3 X2 works deployed in an environment similar to your own before pulling the trigger.

AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

38 Comments

View All Comments

  • GullLars - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    This card will get decimated by even an 80GB ioDrive, not to mention the 320GB ioDrive Duo, in just about any real world scenario. They are designed from completely different standpoints.

    While both are highly parallell, the ioDrive is highly optimized for latency and can push close to 20.000 4KB random read IOPS (~75-80MB/s) at a QD of 1, while Revodrive 3 x2 reaches 13K at QD 3, and around 4-5K at QD 1.
    The ioDrive also handles mixed IO well, and scales really fast at low block sizes and queue depths, so you would need incredibly heavy parallell workloads to keep it at a notable QD (>10).

    What bothers me the most with the Revodrive 3 x2 is that it doesn't implement an onboard cache at all. With 64-512MB you could use it for read-ahead and hit those GB/s+ seq bandwidth numbers at a QD of 1 for fairly small block sizes.
    With a (super?)capacitor you could also safely use say 8-16MB of that cache for write buffering and saturate the array.
  • GullLars - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Correction, RevoDrive 3 x2 benched 7K 4KB random read IOPS @ QD 1 in AS SSD.
  • Jharne - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    The INF mentions VEN_11AB & VEN_1B4B which are both Marvell. So I'm guessing they built the controller.
  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    LOL. All the trouble they go through to hide the controller vendor and all you need to do is look at the vendor ID
  • VStrom - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    You can boot with this on x64 with an unsigned driver...you just need to load Windows with the signed driver validation disabled (F8 before Windows loads).
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    If you need to do this before every boot it's a non-option in the server world. In normal operation no keyboard/mouse/monitor will be attached, all interaction will be via remote desktop type services after it's booted.
  • VStrom - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    True, but I was referring to Andand's comment specifically about Win 7 saying "Windows 7 x64 won't boot off of the RevoDrive 3". When this ships, the driver will be ready and a non-issue for servers.
  • bacomatic - Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - link

    Apparently this has been fixed, I am booting Win 7 x64 from this drive with the current drivers.
  • quiksilvr - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    I would have figured with this strong staple in the 2.5" SSD market with TRIM enabled devices this would not be hard to to.
  • mikeblas - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    Comparing this device against consumer-level SSDs seems like a waste of time. Why not compare against fusionio?

    I'd also like to see a benchmark that runs for a sustained period. The problem with SSD is the ability to keep up with write loads. If you run the 4K random IO benchmark for 48 hours, does the IOPS rate spike or trend downwards, or does it stay flat? The write ratio of your benchmark is around 33%, which I don't think represents OLTP applications too well.

    The review doesn't comment on the stability of the drivers, their memory usage on the host, or the management and monitoring tools for the drive. Do I get a tool that measures remaps, does SNMP, or email alerting?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now