1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Fits: SSD info thread

Discussion in 'Storage' started by Fitseries3, Mar 22, 2009.

  1. Fitseries3

    Fitseries3 Eleet Hardware Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    15,509 (6.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,106
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Im going to take an evolution approach to this one. This should help you to understand everything you could possibly need to know about ssds right from the start.

    Yes, some of this information is summarized from an article found on Anandtech.com but i aim to take the above mentioned evolution approach to explain SSDs.

    1. Basics -

    Everyone knows what a flashdrive/jumpdrive/thumbdrive is. It has a single memory chip in it that stores data. This chip is capable of around 10mb/s read for a typical generic drive. The one i have here today just happens to do around 12mb/s read.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    The idea of a SSD stemmed from this basic device. Though more complicated, a ssd is generally the same as a flash drive, just larger and made of more chips.

    However... if these chips where chained together in one chain end to end they would still only perform at the 12mb/s read speed above.

    Solution? RAID! SSDs use arrays of memory chips in a "raid" in order to achieve the high speeds we have come to see. But how? You need a controller for raid don't you? YES. The drives have their own built in controller that controls data transports and management to and from the disk itself.

    So let us take what we have learned so far and put it into a real world example.

    Lets say we take 20 memory chips and make a drive. We use a simple controller to "raid" the chips that we know are capable of 12mb/s read individually. So that's 20chips x 12mb/s = 240mb/s read!!! Makes more sense now doesn't it?

    So where do the problems occur? Lets get more in depth of how this all works.

    2. Flash memory, indepth -

    NAND flash is made up of cells. each cell holds either 1 or 2 bits of data. These cells are organized into pages. Pages are the smallest structure that's readable/writable in SSDs. These pages hold 4kb each. Pages are then organized into Blocks. Each block has 128 pages in it therefore capable of holding 512kb of data. A block is the smallest level that can be erased in NAND memory.

    [​IMG]
    Source: Anandtech

    These blocks are then arranged in to planes. These planes then are arranged into what we see as the actual chips. Depending on the size of the chip, you can have differing groups of planes.

    [​IMG]
    Source: Anandtech

    So lets summarize what we just talked about.

    NAND flash chips are made up of blocks of pages that contain cells. Each block is 512kb and has 128 pages that are 4kb each. You can read and write data to each individual page IF each page is empty. If the page contains data, it cannot be overwritten. It must be erased first before data can be written to it again. So where is the problem? Remember how i said that the lowest level that can be erased is the block? That means in order to write to a page that has data in it already, you have to erase the entire block of 128 pages before data can be written to that page again. Like i said, you can write to 4kb pages but you must erase entire blocks of 512kb in order to be able to write in those blocks again. AH... now i see the problem emerging.

    Another thing to worry about, once you erase NAND memory it lessens the life span of the memory itself. NAND memory can be erased on average about 10,000 times before its not able to work correctly any longer. That right there makes the whole idea look pretty dumb.... but if you think about it in terms of performance, the benefits greatly outweigh the pitfalls.


    3. How does this relate to performance? -

    Lets say we have a simple SSD. It will have 1 block that contains 5 pages that hold the previously mentioned 4kb each. Let us also say we can only read 2kb/s and write 1kb/s. Now lets write some data to out theoretical drive.

    we are going to write a simple text file to the drive...

    [​IMG]
    Source: Anandtech

    Since the text file is small it fits in a single 4kb page. That leaves 4 pages free of our block. Now lets write a picture to the drive.

    [​IMG]
    Source: Anandtech

    Since the picture is 8kb it fills 2 pages of our block. Now 3 pages are full so we have filled approximately 60% of our drive or 3/5ths. Now lets say we dont need our text file anymore so we delete it. When you delete a file from a hard disk, whether it be SSD or mechanical, the OS simply tells itself that there is no data in that page anymore. The data is not erased however. That is how you can recover data from a drive that has lost its data or after you have deleted data. You cannot recover the data though after it has been overwritten.

    So lets say we want to now write a 12kb picture to the drive.

    [​IMG]
    Source: Anandtech

    If you remember what we talked about in the last section, the entire block has to be erased before the page is cleared for data to be rewritten to it again. To do that we need to relocate the data somewhere else until the entire block has been erased and the data can be written back to the drive.

    [​IMG]
    Source: Anandtech


    So what just happened? From what we normally see, we needed to write a simple 12kb file to a drive and thats what ended up happening. What really happened at the drive level is a bit more complicated though. We had to read 12kb into memory, erase the entire block, and then write 20kb back to the drive so if you do the math it took 26 seconds to perform an operation that should have taken only 12 seconds. Now to put this further into perspective, in a benchmark this event would look like the drive that normally writes at 1kb/s is now only writing at 0.46kb/s which is less than satisfactory causing disappointment and what appears to be "stuttering". This also points to another thing i want to cover. The more you use a SSD, the slower it gets.... to a certain point. Once you begin to fill a SSD it will have to start clearing entire blocks in order to write data to the drive again.

    4. Whats the solution? -

    There are 2 ways to begin to overcome the previously mentioned problem. The first one being cache and the second one being what Intel calls "Free Space".

    Now i bet you didn't know that most SSDs don't have any cache at all. That is one of the contributors to the stuttering we've heard about. So it seems as though if we just add cache to the drives the problem will be eliminated right? Not exactly. What if the drive needs to erase a block that contains data that is linked to many other blocks? To ensure that none of the data is lost or corrupted, we need to relocate the entire group of data so that the pages can be erased and the data can be rewritten to the drive again. Most mechanical hard drives have between 8 and 32mb's of cache depending on the capacity of the drive. On SSDs more cache is needed so we are now seeing drives with 64mb of cache integrated. The data can now be offloaded into the cache so the drive can perform the tasks it needs to complete before being able to rewrite to the drive.

    So what's this "Free Space" that Intel uses in its drives?

    Intel has generously included both cache and "free space" in their drives. In addition to the cache, the drive has a built in "overhead" of space to use for temporarily relocating the data thus eliminating the stuttering altogether.

    I still don't see the "free space"... where is it located? Free space is what i like to referring to as overhead. The Intel drives come in 32gb and 80gb sizes. For example, the 80gb drive will format out to ~79.98gb of usable space BUT actually has 100gb's of actual space that can be used collectively. The extra space that is used as "Free Space" is only seen by the drives internal controller, not the OS. This seamless integration is what makes the Intel drives perform without any hiccups and better than any other SSD to date.

    5. Defragmenting? -

    A common practice to keep your system up to speed is to defrag your hard drive regularly. This, however, will become a thing of the past when using SSDs.

    SSDs are purposely fragmented to allow data to be written across as many chips as possible. This allows faster read and write times because the controller has to read/write from/to many chips rather than just a single source. The raid effect is prevalent here again.

    Mechanical hard drives can read/write data faster on the outer portions of the disk but that drops way down as you proceed towards the spindle of the drive. Mechanical drives also have rotational latency. SSDs do not suffer from either one of these problems. Data can be read/wrote to all parts of the drive at the same speed regardless of where its being read from or stored. Yet another reason why defragmenting a SSD is pointless. Also, remember how I said that NAND memory can only be erased 10,000 times or so before it stops working? defragmenting your SSD would force the drive to relocate all the data thus shortening the drives lifespan drastically each time you defrag. NOT a good idea at all.

    So how do i restore my drive to that "Like New" speed?

    Format and reinstall. Intel includes a bootable disk with all of its SSDs that includes a few disk check and scan utilities as well as a ghosting and backup utility. They also have a special SSD tool that will return the drive to its "Like New" state of absolutely free and clear pages ready to be filled with data again.

    Stay tuned, more soon.

    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2009
    CStylen, Namslas90, Wile E and 13 others say thanks.
  2. CrAsHnBuRnXp

    CrAsHnBuRnXp

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,451 (2.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    635
    Interesting read thus far. Cant wait to see what else you post up.
  3. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,499 (1.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    i haven't had much time to research this, thanks for the start.
  4. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,656 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,833
    Very interesting so far.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  5. dark2099

    dark2099

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,396 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    755
    Location:
    where everyone wants to be
    Very interesting to see more about what we were talking about earlier fit. Can't wait to see how this all evolves.
  6. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,796 (3.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    Damn Fits you know alot of stuff, subscribed!
  7. Fitseries3

    Fitseries3 Eleet Hardware Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    15,509 (6.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,106
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    1st post updated again if you want to continue the read.
  8. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    nicely explained, and certainly makes more sense of things. props to you Fit, props.
  9. NapalmV5 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    no matter the ssd.. has to be defraged just as any hdd if crawling performance is not preferred

    non fragmenting storage/os/apps are decades away..

    whom ever says ssds dont need to be defraged dont know wth theyre talking about.. dont mean you fitseries3.. its been said since ssd intro without any intelligence/merit
  10. Cold Storm

    Cold Storm Battosai

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    15,014 (6.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,999
    Location:
    In a library somewhere on this earth
    I gotta say fits, that's pretty good read. Made me aware of more then I knew about them, and now wanting one!
  11. stock

    stock

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    348 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Props
  12. CyberDruid

    CyberDruid New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,888 (1.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    On top of a mountain
    Interesting read. Thanks. Intel looks like they are miles ahead of the game.
  13. CrAsHnBuRnXp

    CrAsHnBuRnXp

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,451 (2.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    635
    Got a question. I got a paper that I have to work on over the next 8 weeks covering emerging technologies. I choose to do mine on SSD's but the professor would like to know a bit more information before he approves or disapproves. He knows what SSD's are but he wants to know how SSD's would relate to networks of computers.

    Can anyone think of a reason or two on how SSD's would relate to networks of computers?
  14. Kursah

    Kursah

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    7,585 (2.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,564
    Location:
    Missoula, MT, USA
    One idea comes to mind for future technologies (and emerging) is improved latencies and faster bandwidth, for networking this means even better transfers between pc's over a network. With ssd's amazing with seek and getting better and better with bandwidth it is only going to become the standard in the future because of technology in use and being improved upon today. Lol...I haven't had to write a paper in about a decade, don't necessarily miss it. I like writing guides and mini-reviews better. But really, everythings getting faster at not only throughput, but in seeking what it needs and becoming more efficient. SSD's, quad+ cores, DDR3+, sata3, ssd's, shader cores/stream cores, all are definately a plus of emerging and improving technology.

    Sorry if that reason sucks! It is pretty damn general lol! :toast:
    CrAsHnBuRnXp says thanks.
  15. Fitseries3

    Fitseries3 Eleet Hardware Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    15,509 (6.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,106
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    yes..... hard disks have been the bottleneck for years. thats one of the many reasons raid was developed.

    in any type of server, data must be accessed as fast as possible and ssds have an advantage of super fast reads which is ideal for server applications.
  16. Studabaker

    Studabaker New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,116 (0.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Location:
    Somewhere in the underground
    You ought to split the lower part of Defragmenting off into a section called 'Optimizing', and there you can give info about shutting off services like Indexing and Superfetch also which I heard needs to be done for SSD to work properly in Vista.
  17. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Very, very nice Fit. The way SSDs work makes a bit more sense to me now.
    Fitseries3 says thanks.
  18. Fitseries3

    Fitseries3 Eleet Hardware Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    15,509 (6.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,106
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    i'll give this a bump for anyone who hasnt seen it
  19. wolf2009 Guest

    nice, thanks for posting. that block, page, cell, 4kb, 128, 512kb stuff really confuses you and has to be read really carefully.
  20. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    This thread: I like it.
    Fitseries3 says thanks.
  21. Cold Storm

    Cold Storm Battosai

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    15,014 (6.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,999
    Location:
    In a library somewhere on this earth
    Man, everytime I read this, and look threw it, i go to Newegg, go into my account, and force myself to not hit the button for a ssd.. Damn funds! :roll:
  22. Fitseries3

    Fitseries3 Eleet Hardware Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    15,509 (6.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,106
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    if i had the funds to keep up with the hardware to keep this thread going i would.
  23. Flyordie

    Flyordie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,870 (0.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    247
    [​IMG]
    A good flash drive for under $8.
    Ignore the CPU usage, I am running F@H CPU+GPU.

    SanDisk has been very good to me when it comes to SSDs. I hope they make it out of this recession in good standing, because losing them would make me sad.
    Also, I recommend this post to STICKIE!
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page