<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>        <rss version="2.0"
             xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
             xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
             xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
             xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
             xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
             xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <channel>
            <title>
									Erratic RAID 0 Speeds - SoftRAID Volumes				            </title>
            <link>https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/</link>
            <description>SoftRAID Discussion Board</description>
            <language>en-US</language>
            <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 17:18:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
            <generator>wpForo</generator>
            <ttl>60</ttl>
							                    <item>
                        <title>Erratic RAID 0 Speeds</title>
                        <link>https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4559</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[ATTO&#039;s test is indeed generous. We do not use it, as it is not &quot;real world&quot;. AJA is a much better indicator of performance, as it is writing to the file system.

I will look into the Rob M...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[ATTO's test is indeed generous. We do not use it, as it is not "real world". AJA is a much better indicator of performance, as it is writing to the file system.

I will look into the Rob Morgan (barefeets) article and post back]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/">SoftRAID Volumes</category>                        <dc:creator>SoftRAID Support</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4559</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Erratic RAID 0 Speeds</title>
                        <link>https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4556</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, wh...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>
Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, which "theoretically" could get up to 25GB/s, in a test to try to "peg the meter" and find the mac throughput on the Mac Pro.

7GB/s is the max you can transfer data on the Mac Pro. I have confirmed this with other brands of NVMe cards also.
</blockquote>

I dug into this and found that no matter what NVME's in any configuration I create I cannot get passed 7000mb/s, as you suggested(I actually have gotten 7500mb/s to be technical). But there is something definitely throttling the bandwidth and I'm pretty disappointed by it. I'd be curious to hear from Apple why that is.

Anyhoo, I checked back with Amfeltec and noticed that they used the speed test app called ATTO. As does the tester in that link I posted before. So I went ahead and downloaded ATTO and to my surprise I was getting roughly 10000mb/s with my config. Hmmm, so I tested again with Blackmagic and AJA but was still showing the same bottlenecked speeds. Tested again with ATTO and got 10000mb/s.

ATTO tells me what I expected the speeds to be but the others do not. I suspected ATTO was being generous with its test results but I tested another config that I KNOW the max speed and ATTO checked out correctly. So I'm not sure which is telling the truth and which is lying. I spent too much money on this setup to not get my expected speeds.

Argggh!]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/">SoftRAID Volumes</category>                        <dc:creator>Jesse.Art</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4556</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Erratic RAID 0 Speeds</title>
                        <link>https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4554</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, wh...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>
Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, which "theoretically" could get up to 25GB/s, in a test to try to "peg the meter" and find the mac throughput on the Mac Pro.

7GB/s is the max you can transfer data on the Mac Pro. I have confirmed this with other brands of NVMe cards also.
</blockquote>

Can you take a look at here and let me know what you think? It appears in their test results that they can reach 12gb/s using the Samsung 970 Pro blades.

https://barefeats.com/mac-pro-2019-flash-raid-boards.html]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/">SoftRAID Volumes</category>                        <dc:creator>Jesse.Art</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4554</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Erratic RAID 0 Speeds</title>
                        <link>https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4553</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, wh...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>
Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, which "theoretically" could get up to 25GB/s, in a test to try to "peg the meter" and find the mac throughput on the Mac Pro.

7GB/s is the max you can transfer data on the Mac Pro. I have confirmed this with other brands of NVMe cards also.
</blockquote>

Argh! That’s terrible! With the four accelsior cards your total throughput is maxed at 7 gb/s?]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/">SoftRAID Volumes</category>                        <dc:creator>Jesse.Art</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4553</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Erratic RAID 0 Speeds</title>
                        <link>https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4548</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, wh...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Go back to Amfeltec. 12GBs is not possible.
They may be getting 12-14GB using a PC, but not a Mac pro. The Mac Pro bottlenecks at about 7GB/s

I proved this by using 4 Accelsior cards, which "theoretically" could get up to 25GB/s, in a test to try to "peg the meter" and find the mac throughput on the Mac Pro.

7GB/s is the max you can transfer data on the Mac Pro. I have confirmed this with other brands of NVMe cards also.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/">SoftRAID Volumes</category>                        <dc:creator>SoftRAID Support</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-4548</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Erratic RAID 0 Speeds</title>
                        <link>https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-866</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 13:11:27 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[I have a new Mac Pro with the following setup:

Amfeltec Squid Carrier Card 6 NVME
4 WD BLACK SN750 1tb NVME&#039;s
2 Barracuda 1tb NVME&#039;s
Softraid Raid 0

All NVME&#039;s are advertised to run...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[I have a new Mac Pro with the following setup:

Amfeltec Squid Carrier Card 6 NVME
4 WD BLACK SN750 1tb NVME's
2 Barracuda 1tb NVME's
Softraid Raid 0

All NVME's are advertised to run at 3000mb/s+ and the Amfeltec card is designed for and uses the 16x PCI-E slot.

When I created a 6 disk RAID 0 with Softraid I was generally getting 6000-7000mb/s R/W which was less than I expected. I considered that the Barracuda's were bottlenecking me so I tested each blade individually and it seems to be the case as they were testing erratically at 500-2000mb/s each. The WD Black's consistently tested at 2500-3000mb/s each which I found acceptable.

1. If I understand the math here shouldn't the 4 WD Black blades alone in RAID 0 be testing at 8-10000mb/s? I removed the Barracuda's and setup only the 4 WD Blacks in RAID 0 and I get roughly the same speed as with all 6.

2. Do the blades individually suffer a performance loss when in RAID 0 and if so does that explain the loss of performance overall?

The card has been tested at 12-14000mb/s using the Samsung 970 Pro blades(According to Amfeltec) which I believe are considered top of the line nvme's. I understand there will be some overhead that I have to account for but certainly I should be getting better speeds? And If I were to replace the Barracuda's with WD Blacks and setup 6 of them in RAID 0 then certainly I should be able to max out the card's performance, correct(Assuming the blades individually are performing as expected)?

What am I missing?]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/">SoftRAID Volumes</category>                        <dc:creator>Jesse.Art</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.softraid.com/softraid-volumes/erratic-raid-0-speeds/#post-866</guid>
                    </item>
							        </channel>
        </rss>
		
<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced (Requested URI contains query) 

Served from: forums.softraid.com @ 2026-04-25 12:18:59 by W3 Total Cache
-->