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

[SSD] Discussion and experiences thread

Discussion in 'Storage' started by mudkip, Aug 23, 2009.

  1. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    [​IMG]SSD Power[​IMG]



    Advantages
    1. Faster start-up, as no spin-up is required (RAM & flash).
    2. Typically fast random access for reading, as there is no read/write head to move (RAM & flash).
    3. Extremely low read latency times, as SSD seek-times are orders of magnitude lower than the best hard disk drives, as of 2008.(RAM) In applications where hard disk seeks are the limiting factor, this results in faster boot and application launch times (see Amdahl's law)
    4. Relatively deterministic read performance
    5. unlike hard disk drives, performance of SSDs is almost constant and deterministic across the entire storage. This is because the seek time is almost instant and does not depend on the physical location of the data, and so, file fragmentation has almost no impact on read performance.
    6. No noise: a lack of moving parts makes SSDs completely silent, apart from cooling fans on a few high-end and high-capacity SSDs.
    7. For low-capacity flash SSDs, low power consumption and heat production when in active use, although high-end SSDs and DRAM-based SSDs may have significantly higher power requirements (flash).
    8. High mechanical reliability, as the lack of moving parts almost eliminates the risk of "mechanical" failure (RAM & flash).
    9. Ability to endure extreme shock, high altitude, vibration and extremes of temperature: once again because there are no moving parts.This makes SSDs useful for laptops, mobile computers, and devices that operate in extreme conditions (flash).
    10. Larger range of operating temperatures. Typical hard drives have an operating range of 5-55 degrees C. Most flash drives can operate at 70 degrees, and some industrial grade drives can operate over an even wider temperature range.
    11. For low-capacity SSDs, lower weight and size: although size and weight per unit storage are still better for traditional hard drives, and microdrives allow up to 20 GB storage in a CompactFlash 42.8×36.4×5 mm (1.7×1.4×.2 in) form-factor. Up to 256 GB, as of 2008 SSDs are lighter than hard drives of the same capacity.
    12. When failures occur, they tend to happen predominantly while writing, or erasing cells, rather than upon reading cells. With magneto-mechanical drives, failures tend to occur while reading. If a drive detects failure on write operations, data can be written to a new location. If a drive fails on read, then data is usually lost permanently.

    Disadvantages

    1. Cost: SSD prices are still considerably higher per gigabyte than are comparable conventional hard drives: consumer-grade drives are typically US$1.50 to US$3.45 per GB for flash drives and over US$10.00 per GB for RAM-based compared to about US$0.38 or less per gigabyte for hard drives.
    2. * Capacity: As of 2008, far lower than that of conventional hard drives (Flash SSD capacity is predicted to increase rapidly, with experimental drives of 1 TB,[30][31] but hard drive capacity also continues to expand, and hard drives are likely to maintain their capacity edge for some time).[32]
    3. * Asymmetric Read vs. Write Performance: Unlike other architectural elements in the memory hierarchy, storage devices based on NAND Flash memory suffer from write performance that is typically two orders of magnitude slower than read performance. Many computer applications rely on synchronous patterns of read/write operations, wherein a given write or update must be completed and the write confirmed before additional application read requests can be issued. These include transaction processing applications, computer operating system "boot-up" and even basic forms of parity-based RAID. For these applications a Flash SSD can actually be slower than a hard disk drive, due to the inability of applications to place subsequent read-requests into the device queue until previous write operations have been completed and acknowledged.[33]
    4. * Lower storage density: Hard disks can store more data per unit volume than DRAM or flash SSDs, except for very low capacity/small devices.
    5. * Limited write (erase) cycles: Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[18], while high endurance cells may have an endurance of 1–5 million write cycles (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a computer).[34][35][36] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called wear leveling), rather than rewriting files in place.[37] In 2008 wear leveling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer level devices.[18] However, effective write cycles can be much less, because when a write request is made to a particular memory block, all data in the block is overwritten even when only part of the memory is altered. The write amplification, as referred by Intel, can be reduced using write memory buffer.[38] In combination with wear leveling, over-provisioning SSD flash drives with spared memory capacity also delays the loss of user-accessible memory capacity. NAND memory can be negatively impacted by read and program (write) disturbs arising from over accessing a particular NAND location. This overuse of NAND locations causes bits within the NAND block to erroneously change values. Wear leveling, by redirecting SSD writes to lesser-used NAND locations, thus reduces the potential for program or write disturbs.[39] An example for the lifetime of SSD is explained in detail in this wiki.[dubious – discuss] SSDs based on DRAM, however, do not suffer from this problem.
    6. As a result of wear leveling and write combining, the performance of SSDs degrades with use . Eventually, wear leveling will use each page on the drive at least once, so further writes always involve a block erase. Although write combining (if supported by the device) offers advantages, it causes internal fragmentation in the SSD which degrades the sequential read speed. However, such fragmentation can be mitigated by the operating system, using the TRIM command.

    from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_state_drive


    Settings Shortlist for SSD's:

    • Alignment: Yes
    • Defragmentation : No disable
    • Indexing : No disable
    • Swapfile on SSD: Yes
    • Let 10% of your SSD space untouched: your choice
    • Raidcontroller: your choice
    • Cachingsoftware: Yes, If using Micron
    • Superfetch :No disable


    Populair SSD's :

    OCZ Vertex
    Intel X-25M


    Must Read:

    Alignment and why it's important
    The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD

    Benchmarks

    My OCZ Vertex 30GB in Raid0 :

    [​IMG]

    :toast::toast:
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2009
  2. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    SSD's owners , unite!:toast:
     
  3. Jakethesnake011

    Jakethesnake011 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    353 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Location:
    Western Mass
    Here is my Results with my 128 gb Patriot Torqx SSD. I love the drive and I think it is a great item to buy. My Windows 7 bootup time is 16 seconds after the Gigabyte Post screen clears and Shut down is 6 seconds. Now my question is the graph for the HDTune Read results, to me it seems to be bouncing around very much and not a flat line with small variations in the read performance. I am using the wiper Beta program Patriot is providing, it is like a TRIM utility for the SSD's. And some of my Random access speeds, the Intel kills in this area all other drives are very slow in the small random access speed range.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  4. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Nice nice, could you do a benchmark with Crystalmark?
     
  5. largon

    largon

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,782 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    IMO, there is no benchmark or screenshot that depicts the effect a solid state drive will have on system responsiveness, fluidity and overall user experience improvement. For example, one can set the storage HDDs to power off if not used for few minutes. Surprisingly noisy, those, conventional HDDs...
    ;)

    *virtually hugs his Vertex 60GiB*
     
  6. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    Does anyone think the OCZ summit series is any good ?
     
  7. largon

    largon

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,782 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    ^It's an SSD and it doesn't have a jMicron controller. Thus, it's good.
    MB/s doesn't mean squat anyways.
     
    DrPepper says thanks.
  8. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I prefer the Vertex , better firmware support for it
     
    DrPepper says thanks.
  9. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    I'm just looking to improve my experience with the OS. An increase in responsiveness is what I'm looking for as well as opening apps quicker.

    Vertex is more expensive though :( Is it a major difference in support ?
     
  10. Fitseries3

    Fitseries3 Eleet Hardware Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    15,509 (5.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,107
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    my supertalent ultradrive gx 64gb

    [​IMG]
     
  11. DarkEgo

    DarkEgo

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,393 (0.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    226
    120Gb vertex.
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Fitseries3

    Fitseries3 Eleet Hardware Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    15,509 (5.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,107
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    whooa

    what firrmware you have on there?

    i think you need the newest so you can use trim.

    that doesnt look as good as it should.
     
  13. DarkEgo

    DarkEgo

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,393 (0.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    226
    That is an old SC. I took that when I first got it. Now it is a little better, but I can't take a new SC till I get a new pump. I am on a P4 now, and I refuse to hook a drive that nice up to a P4.
     
  14. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Why not? Even with a P4 it should be fast
     
  15. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    nobody with a SSD?
     
  16. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    I just noticed Crucial has the M225 series priced pretty nicely, and I'm seriously thinking about getting a 256Gb version...
    Clicky

    I've had good experiences with Crucial using their memory, anybody know more about their SSD's?
    As far as I've heard the M224 series were pretty crap, and the only review I've read so far at TweakTown mentions the M225 as a pretty solid performer.
    I mean this review
     
  17. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    For that price i think you'd be better off with 2 x intel postville 80GB
     
  18. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    Intels: 80Gb, €190 each or
    Crucial: 256Gb, €478 or
    Crucial: 128Gb, €263

    €2.375/Gb (Intel) vs €2.08 (128Gb) or even €1.86 (256Gb) makes quite a difference.

    Them Crucial M225's arent bad performers either. In randoms, Intels make up for everything, but sequentials aren't that far apart really.

    Also note that loads of shops cannot get a hold of the Postvilles. Ordering directly from Crucial works like a charm.

    Plus, I want a minimum of 200Gb. I want to be able to install quite a few games and applications on it, not just the OS. My last 200Gb OS partition got rather filled up.
     
  19. Paulieg

    Paulieg The Mad Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    11,914 (4.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,979
    Location:
    Wherever I can find the iron.
    I just bought a 60GB OCZ Summit. It was the Newegg Shellshocker the other day. I couldn't resist. It should be here today. Anything that I need to be aware of when installing this thing and installing Vista on it?
     
  20. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Then go for it ;)

    just make sure you use the shortlist in the OP and everything will be okay ;)
    also check if there'a firmware update for your SSD when it arrives.
     
  21. rpsgc

    rpsgc

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Messages:
    696 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Location:
    Portugal
    Just to clarify, which item of the shortlist is not handled by default by Windows 7?

    I'm planning to buy a 128GB M225 next month. Say what you will about the G2 but only 80GB just won't work and 160GB is too expensive, I'm not rich thank you.
    (not to mention they are out of stock almost everywhere)
     
  22. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,671 (2.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,775
    Location:
    Chicago
  23. dark2099

    dark2099

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,400 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    755
    Location:
    where everyone wants to be
    Guess I will put this in here, picked up a couple of 60GB OCZ Summit drives a week ago, just before Newegg had them on Shell Shocker. Figured I would do a comparison of some different settings for Raid0 and Windows tweaks. Compared between Raid0 with a 64k and 128k Strip size, did a few more tests on 128k, but it was better performing so decided to show how things changed with Windows tweaks. I'll start with the 64k and move to 128k. All benchmarks are ATTO 2.34 and HD Tach 3.0.1.0

    Basic Non varying system specs:
    MB: Gigabyte GA EX-58 Extreme
    CPU: Intel Core i7 920 D0
    HDD: 2x 60GB OCZ Summit
    PSU: Enermax Revolution85+ 1050w
    OS: Windows 7 x64 Build 7600

    Raid0 64k
    For this I had 6GB of Crucial DDR3 D9JNL chips, and my 920 clocked at about 3.2GHz with Turbo always on, Ram was at 1240MHz 7-7-7-20 1T. I had used the HDDs for a few hours at this point and had installed a few programs.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Raid0 128k
    For this I had switched to 3GB of G.SKill HZ 1600 opertating at 1066MHz 8-8-8-20 1T, and the 920 at 2.833GHz (Turbo always on) and had just finished a fresh install of Windows 7. First shots are the first boot, no updates or anything, then pictures of windows tweaks, installed Intel Matrix Storage Manager and Enabled Volume Write-Back Cache, then disabled Intexing from Right Click to Properties on the OS drives, then disabled the windows write-cache buffle flushing service, restarted, and ran the tests again, and those reuslts are the last 2 pictures.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  24. Thrackan

    Thrackan

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,482 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    656
    500MB/S! I drooled...
     
  25. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Nice scores dude! although i find your read scores a bit low , your write scores are nice though ;)
     

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

Share This Page