ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > Intel Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Asrock Fatal1ty X99X Killer SSD SSATA_? Issue
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search Search  Events   Register Register  Login Login

Asrock Fatal1ty X99X Killer SSD SSATA_? Issue
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
odiebugs View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 193 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote odiebugs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Asrock Fatal1ty X99X Killer SSD SSATA_? Issue
    Posted: 24 Jul 2015 at 1:29am
Even though the chipset has the 10 sata , from what I see, these four posts have the same bandwidth as the 6 intel with RAID.

Honestly I can't figure  if the 28 lanes were maxed out, if this has any affect on the 2.0 on the chip to become burdened. 

I also noticed that Intel has removed the Enterprise RAID from the X99 and dosn't have ROM switch like the X79 had.  Now there's only RST and no RSTe. 

Not sure if I can find if the UEFI has injected another AHCI in it for the other ports or if because there's still RAID on the six if the UEFI has a separate software firmware.  It's taking the X79 and X99 UEFI and seeing the changes to the UEFI. So it could be added code in the original one for the extra four. 


There are massive changes to the UEFI files inside the X99, I can't even find the Sata Driver or the CMScore.  

I wonder if Parsec can use the RST AHCI driver to switch over the four posts to show as storage devices to see what devise ID they have or what they have for it with windows driver.


Edited by odiebugs - 24 Jul 2015 at 1:40am
asrocking
Back to Top
parsec View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4996 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote parsec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jul 2015 at 1:04am
I'll need to check the datasheet of the X99 chipset to learn how the four secondary (my terminology) SATA III ports are implemented.

Intel has always provisioned the PCIe lanes used for the SATA ports from those provided by the board's chipset. Those have always been PCIe 2.0 lanes. The PCIe 3.0 lanes are used exclusively for the video card slots, and now for PCIe SSDs.

I'll be testing the SSATA ports on a SSD to check the performance, and will report back soon.
Back to Top
DevillEars View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 09 Jul 2015
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 52 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DevillEars Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jul 2015 at 12:11am
Some further "web-digging" elicited the following from an Intel Haswell-E review by AnandTech:
 
X99 will also support 10 SATA 6 Gbps ports from the chipset. This is a rather odd addition, because only six of those ports will be RAID capable. Most motherboards will list which ones are specifically for RAID, but this dichotomy makes me believe that the chipset might use a SATA hub on die in order to extend the number of possible ports.
 
If the reviewer at AnandTech is correct, this would explain the problems experienced with SSD usage on these ports as the hub will, effectively, function as a "multiplexer" to extend the number of connector ports while keeping the interface lane-count constant. Dividing the fixed lane bandwidth by more connector ports will see bandwidth degradation - particularly when data is being moved between multiple drives attached to the same SATA hub. Also, contention may also be the reason for some of the SSD tests failing due to timing issues?
 
My suggestion to the OP:
 
If you want to run your disks as explained, ignore the S_SATA ports and install an Intel 8-port 8x PCIe 3.0 RAID card which will provide the full bandwidth capability of a PCIe 3.0 lane for each port (The more I think about this, the more convinced I become that it is the solution for me as well...)
 
Dave


Edited by DevillEars - 24 Jul 2015 at 12:21am
If music be the love of food, eat on
Back to Top
DevillEars View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 09 Jul 2015
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 52 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DevillEars Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 11:43pm
One thought...
 
The X99 capabilities need to be considered in conjunction with the partnering CPU:
 
Scenario 1: X99 + Core i7-5820K (limitation of only 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes)
Scenario 2: X99 + Core i7-59xxK (support for 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes)
 
There may well be some - unpublished - constraints with regard to X99 capabilities when used with the 28-lane i7-5820K.
 
The constraint may well lie in the DMI interface between CPU and X99 and dictated by Intel's CPU implementation...
 
Guessing time... Smile
If music be the love of food, eat on
Back to Top
odiebugs View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 193 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote odiebugs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 11:22pm
Thanks Dave: 
                       Glad you popped over into this thread and posted this info, real nice of you. 
     
asrocking
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Online
Points: 22793 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 11:18pm
Thanks for the info Dave, that is very useful to know. 
Back to Top
DevillEars View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 09 Jul 2015
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 52 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote DevillEars Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 11:15pm
Hi,
 
I'm the "other poster with X99X Killer SATA challenges"...
 
Opening Intel's X99 chipset webpage shows the following from the block diagram:
 
a) CPU to Discrete Graphics: "Up to 40 lanes" (only 28 lanes for Core i7-5820K)
b) X99 to PICe 2.0: Up to 5Gb/s x1 bi-directional
c) X99 to 10 xSATA 3.0 Ports: Up to 6Gb/s (asterisk note states "all SATA ports capable of 6Gb/s")
 
NOTE THE USAGE OF THE WORDS "UP TO" IN THE SPECS...
 
Under "Features and Benefits" Intel's site contradicts the above as follows:
 
Feature: Serial ATA (SATA) 6 Gb/s
Benefit: Next generation high-speed storage interface supporting up tp 6Gb/s transfer rates with up to six SATA ports (Note reference 6)
Note 6: Actual number of ports available may vary by system configuration. Please consult your system vendor for more information.
 
This last Note 6 comment implies that ports 7-10 not offered as standard by Intel but implemented by mobo manufacturer...
 
Intel's website is not an easy site from which to extract detail, so checked out Wikipedia which has the following to say regarding SATA implementation in the X99 chipset:
 
Two Serial ATA (SATA) 3.0 controllers are integrated into the X99 chipset, providing a total of up to ten ports for storage devices and supporting speeds of up to 6 Gbit/s per port, with hardware support for the Advanced Host Controller Interface (AHCI) logical interface. Each SATA port may be enabled or disabled as needed. Six SATA ports provided by the first controller may be configured for Rapid Storage Technology (RST) 13.1, which supports RAID 0, 1, 5 and 10 levels; additionally, Smart Response Technology (SRT) disk caching allows the creation of hybrid volumes
 
SATA Express and M.2 are also supported, providing the ability for interfacing with PCI Express-based storage devices. Each of the X99's SATA Express ports requires two PCI Express 2.0 lanes provided by the chipset, while the M.2 slots can use either two 2.0 lanes from the chipset itself, or up to four 3.0 lanes taken directly from the processor. As a result, the X99 provides bandwidths of up to 3.94 GB/s for connected PCI Express storage devices.[
 
So, if Wikipedia entry can be believed, Intel HAVE implemented two SATA controllers within the X99 chipset, one - with 6 ports - being RAID capable; the other - with 4 ports - lacking support for RAID; but both groups offering AHCI mode at 6gb/s per port.
 
Unfortunately, this does not come anywhere near explaining the problems we're experiencing with bandwidth when using the second 4-port S-SATA controller... Confused
 
Dave
If music be the love of food, eat on
Back to Top
odiebugs View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 193 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote odiebugs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 9:47pm
Originally posted by Xaltar Xaltar wrote:

It has come to my attention that I was wrong. The X99X Killer does not use an Asmedia controller for any of the SATA ports, all ports are provided by intel's chipset with only the SATA3_x ports supporting RAID functionality. Please forgive my confusion, the socket 1150 boards are the ones that usually have ports provided by the Asmedia controller. 

There is a second post about problems with drive performance on the SSATA ports on this same board so whatever the problem is it is likely the same for both you and the other poster. 
 

Who would have thought, up until the X99, Intel only allowed 6 Sata 3 for chipsets.  Now looking at the chipset we can see how they have 10.

Like you said about the other poster,  they have a problem with speed on the S Sata, I guess we'll be looking for tests on these ports to see if there is a difference between the 6 that have RAID and the 4 that say no RAID support.  

It's not your fault Xaltar,  the manual should have this info very accessible  as they only provided 6 before. 


I only see one bench where someone went and benched all of the drive ports, and there was no difference  between them. 

So either there is a UEFI setting, or an actual  UEFI problem with Sata.  

Either someone or TECH needs to test them and see if any UEFI settings cause a problem with the S Sata ports.


Edited by odiebugs - 23 Jul 2015 at 10:00pm
asrocking
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Online
Points: 22793 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 9:40pm
It has come to my attention that I was wrong. The X99X Killer does not use an Asmedia controller for any of the SATA ports, all ports are provided by intel's chipset with only the SATA3_x ports supporting RAID functionality. Please forgive my confusion, the socket 1150 boards are the ones that usually have ports provided by the Asmedia controller. 

There is a second post about problems with drive performance on the SSATA ports on this same board so whatever the problem is it is likely the same for both you and the other poster. 
Back to Top
odiebugs View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 193 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote odiebugs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 11:26am
Most ASmedia Sata 3 controllers have around a Sata 2 speed, but yours are not operating correctly. 

If anyone has one of these boards can you post the devise ID of the ASmedia controller so we know what it has. 

Kinda helps when you know what series the controller is and what it's specs are.

P.S. Some hardware actually functions better off the generic Microsoft drivers than it's own MFG driver.  

But knowing the drivers are loaded and your speed and bench not finishing is a sign something is wrong. 

Also, at 64k the evo should be at around 400MB and not 200MB on the Intel, can you try another drive, sounds like the drive has a problem. 



 


Edited by odiebugs - 23 Jul 2015 at 12:21pm
asrocking
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.187 seconds.