A Whole Bunch of Solid State Disk Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Decibel said:
-The drives write to unused space before rewriting any cells.
- If you rewrite a file it is written to unused cells, not to the cells it was on.
- Intel, at least, not sure about the others, moves unchanged data periodically so that the cells that are being used least are available to be used.

If you buy a 60GB drive and write 60GB a day (though, who could?) you can rewrite to that drive for more than 27 years. (If MLC.) Don't worry too much about the 10,000 write "problem."
Click to expand...

The new Intel 8820 firmware has cut down on the aggressiveness of data swapping so lifespan will be a little older.

Well I think your numbers are a little optimistic--Intel's 80GB X25-M (8610 firmware) is rated at 100GB/day for 5 years. So all things equal, a 60GB MLC would survive 6.25 years at that pace.


Buyerchoice said:
Hey everybody,

I am trying to decide between the OCZ Vertex and Intel. Can someone explain why Anand makes such a big issue about 4k RANDOM WRITES? I mean, I have used a FREE program called Process Explorer to determine that with 31 processes running, there are no write bytes happening when the system is not in use. Although Windows Explorer does READ 664 bytes about every 2 seconds, there are NO WRITES going on.

Further, a 4k write would happen in 1/250 of a second even if the WRITE speed at 4k was only 1 MB per second. The Vertex drive does 11.39 MB per second according to Jason on this thread. Therefore, one 4k write would take just 1/2848 of a second. Yes the Intel does 55 MB per second on 4K writes but is all that speed really needed? Can anyone explain? Are there a ton of 4k writes while browsing the internet or doing other things? Any insight anyone?
Click to expand...

Anand may have a misconception about disk paging. Typically its sequential as data is flushed from RAM. The only time where random writes is critical is lack of RAM, which is why ReadyBoost is so beneficial for systems with laptops with a low amount of memory. If you can afford an SSD you can afford 4 gigs of RAM.

That said, is a slightly faster gaming drive...otherwise differences are imperceptible.
 
Been fun reading this thread. :p

Wasn't Intel going to slash prices again this month? It seems that prices have been staying the same for a while now. Though the prices have dropped dramatically in the last 6 months. The 80Gb X25-M was selling when released for something like ~700$, and soon you could get one for 500$. Now they seem to be selling for almost 300$. Perhaps by the end of this year one could possibly get a 160Gb model for the same price.
 
DonDon said:
OMG, I am getting so sick of hearing about this, but here is my 2 pennies on the matter.

Yes, there are a few instances where SSD's are slower than hard drives. But in 80% of the time, SSDs far exceed the performance of hard drives.

Why would you limit yourself to be faster 20% of the time when you could be faster 80% of the time? The argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It matters a heck of a lot if that 20% of what the drive does accounts for the majority of the instances where speed matters most.
 
yacoub35 said:
It matters a heck of a lot if that 20% of what the drive does accounts for the majority of the instances where speed matters most.
Click to expand...

/Don sticks his tongue in his cheek./

You know, the rantings of the ignorant will never cease to amaze me. :rolleyes:

/Don removes his tongue from his cheek./ ;)

Anyone who peruses the Data Storage Systems will see post after post, thread after thread from people who actually use SSDs (like me,) who absolutely love them (like me,) and swear they will never willingly use a magnetic drive ever again (hey, a hat trick for Don.) If you want to try and concoct some screwy scenario where a minor disadvantage is magically transformed into a major catastrophe, be my guest. In the mean time, I will continue to use and enjoy my SSDs.

Yes there are a few instances where a SSD is not going to work. If you need a very large amount of storage in a single drive system (laptop,) then an SSD is not for you. If you are going to frequently overwrite all of the data on the drive, ditto. If you are on a budget, and a 30 gig boot drive aint enough. Sorry, check back next year. And they are not cost effective bulk storage and prolly won't be for a long time if ever.

Don
 
R0N1 said:
Been fun reading this thread. :p

Wasn't Intel going to slash prices again this month? It seems that prices have been staying the same for a while now. Though the prices have dropped dramatically in the last 6 months. The 80Gb X25-M was selling when released for something like ~700$, and soon you could get one for 500$. Now they seem to be selling for almost 300$. Perhaps by the end of this year one could possibly get a 160Gb model for the same price.
Click to expand...

Right now Intel is at 50nm and will be moving to 32nm NAND soon. Intel really doesn't typically slash prices, instead just cutting production and let it go EOL while resellers clear out stock (look at QX9775 prices). My guess is Intel will keep their price points ($300-400 bottom tier, $600-800 top tier) but double their capacity again.
 
After paying $400 for a 32g E, I am surprisingly ok with paying $400 for a 64g E.
 
drgnfang said:
After paying $400 for a 32g E, I am surprisingly ok with paying $400 for a 64g E.
Click to expand...

I hear you. I am going to be picking up a drive for my laptop shortly and have been eying one of the Intel -E models. I could prolly live with 32 gig, but 64 would be a lot nicer. I just can't stomach $760 bux for a drive for a computer that I paid $450 bux for a couple of years ago.

Don
 
Ok, the X25-M just got installed in my Lenovo R61. It took ~10min to install Win7 from a flash drive.

Results..

CrystalDiskMark.png

hdtach.jpg

hdtune.jpg

everest.jpg


Hmmmm..... :eek:
 
Those numbers look like IDE mode to me. There's a pretty big jump moving to AHCI. It's an idiosyncrasy of Intel drives. Most SSDs have a neglible difference but with the Intel X-series there's almost a 50% drop when you run in IDE.
 
DonDon said:
/Don sticks his tongue in his cheek./

You know, the rantings of the ignorant will never cease to amaze me. :rolleyes:

/Don removes his tongue from his cheek./ ;)

Anyone who peruses the Data Storage Systems will see post after post, thread after thread from people who actually use SSDs (like me,) who absolutely love them (like me,) and swear they will never willingly use a magnetic drive ever again (hey, a hat trick for Don.) If you want to try and concoct some screwy scenario where a minor disadvantage is magically transformed into a major catastrophe, be my guest. In the mean time, I will continue to use and enjoy my SSDs.

Yes there are a few instances where a SSD is not going to work. If you need a very large amount of storage in a single drive system (laptop,) then an SSD is not for you. If you are going to frequently overwrite all of the data on the drive, ditto. If you are on a budget, and a 30 gig boot drive aint enough. Sorry, check back next year. And they are not cost effective bulk storage and prolly won't be for a long time if ever.

Don
Click to expand...

I'll chime in here, using 3 vertex 30GB in raid 0, normaly read is about 550mb/s write is about 300mb/s

Installed windows 7 on it, worked amazing, installed vista on it, hickups all day long 0.0 and read speed is now reading @ 90mb/s

Weird eh? Disabled page file, still. I wonder what's causing it.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I'll chime in here, using 3 vertex 30GB in raid 0, normaly read is about 550mb/s write is about 300mb/s

Installed windows 7 on it, worked amazing, installed vista on it, hickups all day long 0.0 and read speed is now reading @ 90mb/s

Weird eh? Disabled page file, still. I wonder what's causing it.
Click to expand...

Hmm, sounds like some kind of driver issue. I have 3 X 64 gig Patriot Warps into an ICH10R controller on Vista 64 and it works great.

Don
 
Happy Hopping - I'm dissapointed that you come into this thread and consistantly doubt what everyone is telling you, while demonstrating that you have not researched SSD technology.

Reading just ONE decent article on wear-leveling and the nature of flash-based storage would have answered all your questions and concerns about performance, writes per day, and reliability. Insead, you decided to derail this thread about SSD testing.

I admire Don's ability to remain civil and patiently answer your questions, and I cringe at your judgemental attitude. We're not here to sell you SSDs, or assuage your fears. :rolleyes:

Nice benchmarks! Thanks for all your hard work!
 
Here's a real-world whitepaper on SSD under SQL, if anyone is interested. (some of the reasons for having all these drives was for this whitepaper.

It is all about the latency for end users. Interesting power differences though as a side note. 1 SSD = at least 12 15k SAS disks in IOPS/latency from what I've seen.

Working on one about Citrix/Terminal Services now, scaling with 64-bit; and then a third hopefully on VDI using heavy compression with linked clones. (SAN hot spots, boot storms, etc)

http://www.kingston.com/ssd/pdf_files/MKP_104_KingstonWhitepaperSSDColorFINAL.pdf
 
styx0r said:
Happy Hopping - I'm dissapointed that you come into this thread and consistantly doubt what everyone is telling you, while demonstrating that you have not researched SSD technology.

Reading just ONE decent article on wear-leveling and the nature of flash-based storage would have answered all your questions and concerns about performance, writes per day, and reliability. Insead, you decided to derail this thread about SSD testing.

I admire Don's ability to remain civil and patiently answer your questions, and I cringe at your judgemental attitude. We're not here to sell you SSDs, or assuage your fears. :rolleyes:

Nice benchmarks! Thanks for all your hard work!
Click to expand...

My wife used to be a teachers aide for Special ED students, and she taught me that you need to be calm and rational with Special People, and eventually they still never get it. ;)

Don
 
you can pick up all 128GB for

Corsair S128 $299 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233075
better get the one below i guess as for $40 more you get 200+MB/s reads and just under that for writes
above is first gen samsung SSD

g.skill falcon $339 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231256
SUPER TALENT UltraDrive ME $355 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609394
OCZ vertex $377 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227395
all above are Indilinx drives (thay are all the same performance once firmware is updated as they all use the same firmware from Indilinx)

new egg does not do the new samsung 128GB (second gen) but its lower then the vertex

80GB for $/£ 400, no thanks the 64gb or 128gb drives are as fast (even the S128 ), goto 3:50 secs and look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsIHsr0bxEg (he is talking about the Corsair S128 reviewed before)

@DonDon
I have 3 X 64 gig Patriot Warps
Click to expand...
sounds like JMicron drives, if you use JMicron drives in RAID it hides the Write problems with them drives, raid is not needed on the Indilinx or samsung controllers
 
greenfrogman said:
you can pick up all 128GB for

Corsair S128 $299 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233075
better get the one below i guess as for $40 more you get 200+MB/s reads and just under that for writes
above is first gen samsung SSD

g.skill falcon $339 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231256
SUPER TALENT UltraDrive ME $355 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609394
OCZ vertex $377 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227395
all above are Indilinx drives (thay are all the same performance once firmware is updated as they all use the same firmware from Indilinx)

new egg does not do the new samsung 128GB (second gen) but its lower then the vertex

80GB for $/£ 400, no thanks the 64gb or 128gb drives are as fast (even the S128 ), goto 3:50 secs and look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsIHsr0bxEg (he is talking about the Corsair S128 reviewed before)


sounds like JMicron drives, if you use JMicron drives in RAID it hides the Write problems with them drives, raid is not needed on the Indilinx or samsung controllers
Click to expand...


I am assuming that, as of today, nothing beats the Intel drives overall, other than in cost per gig?
 
alot of users are to interested in the Read and Write speed of SSDs

its only Heavy random writes intel are beating other drives with and under norm for home users you not likely going to be Writing Lots very small files at the same time, if you are then intel is for you maybe (but you can do the same affect with 2-3 SSDs that cost less) but you have to be Writing 100000 of 512byte files to slow most SSDs down (listed above) mine drops to around 2MB/s write

on the ones i listed above it handles it better then my drive due to more data rate (200+MB/s Read / 190MB/s write)

good review that has the random write access time test as well (bit insane with close to 20k of IOPS for small 512byte Write test) but that be the same for all Indilinx drives with new firmware
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/954/5/ and page 6 has random access tests (see how poor an JMicron is on it)
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/974/3/


for norm use or even gamers use 1 vertex Set to AICH mode on its own can out do intel for cheaper cost and performance , SSDs are not like HDDs , constant reads and writes are Very fast and access speeds are what HDD can't match, as i posted on that you tube link at 3:50 basically what most users will find out any ssd thats second gen or even first gen samsung or any vertex you not see any performance change between them apart from in benchmarks or if your video editing very big files or moving alot of data around, that is Not likely on an SSD due to its size
 
Last edited:
aamsel said:
I am assuming that, as of today, nothing beats the Intel drives overall, other than in cost per gig?
Click to expand...

The "best bang for the buck" in my opinion is hands down the Vertex's.

Intel X25-E beats them all of course, but is spendy.
 
JasonSTL739 said:
The "best bang for the buck" in my opinion is hands down the Vertex's.

Intel X25-E beats them all of course, but is spendy.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that in day to day use you won't see a difference in the vertex vs the intel -- how huge is the difference going from a standard 7200rpm drive to a vertex ssd in real world performance? Is it worth the $200 you'll spend today? Or hold off for the next (or next, or next) generation?
 
anonuser said:
I'm assuming that in day to day use you won't see a difference in the vertex vs the intel -- how huge is the difference going from a standard 7200rpm drive to a vertex ssd in real world performance? Is it worth the $200 you'll spend today? Or hold off for the next (or next, or next) generation?
Click to expand...

Single 7200RPM drive to a Vertex is a gigantic difference to me in real world usage. Worth every dollar. To the point where I swapped every machine I have over to SSD for OS/programs/swaps, laptops, two systems, and an entire ESX server (6X 64GB X25-E's at the moment, running vSphere 4.0 with a set of Win2008 VMs)

There is a "crispness" that the benchmarks cannot show. You have to feel it.
 
JasonSTL739 said:
Single 7200RPM drive to a Vertex is a gigantic difference to me in real world usage. Worth every dollar. To the point where I swapped every machine I have over to SSD for OS/programs/swaps, laptops, two systems, and an entire ESX server (6X 64GB X25-E's at the moment, running vSphere 4.0 with a set of Win2008 VMs)

There is a "crispness" that the benchmarks cannot show. You have to feel it.
Click to expand...

Do you have any personal experience with Vertex vs Intel? Currently, my Windows 7 partition is 60gb so I could easily fit a 60gb Vertex into my configuration. I know that these drives probably won't even be on sale within six months to a year and the next generation will be out but that's how it goes with technology. From my understanding, SSDs have finally gotten to a place performance and cost wise where I may feel comfortable dropping some coin.

BTW -- You have some seriously deep pockets my friend... do you have any job openings at your company? :)
 
anonuser said:
Do you have any personal experience with Vertex vs Intel? Currently, my Windows 7 partition is 60gb so I could easily fit a 60gb Vertex into my configuration. I know that these drives probably won't even be on sale within six months to a year and the next generation will be out but that's how it goes with technology. From my understanding, SSDs have finally gotten to a place performance and cost wise where I may feel comfortable dropping some coin.

BTW -- You have some seriously deep pockets my friend... do you have any job openings at your company? :)
Click to expand...

I ran 3, and then 4 30GB Vertex's, then swapped to 3X X25-E's in my workstation. Very little difference in use that I can tell - used the Vertex's for 40 days or so, Intel presently for around 30.

Laptop went from 120GB Vertex to 80GB X25-M to 64GB X25-E, then back to a 120GB Vertex. Real world=little difference in day-to-day usage. A bunch of VM's running would show it, however.

I'd buy a 120GB Vertex if a single drive - the extra cache does make a difference.
 
JasonSTL739 said:
I'd buy a 120GB Vertex if a single drive - the extra cache does make a difference.
Click to expand...

Hmm... double the cost and I don't really have a use for double the capacity. I suppose it could be transplanted to a notebook in the future as I upgrade my desktop, but that's a little more than I wanted to pay.

If the difference in cache really makes a difference maybe I should just hold up on the purchase.
 
anonuser said:
Hmm... double the cost and I don't really have a use for double the capacity. I suppose it could be transplanted to a notebook in the future as I upgrade my desktop, but that's a little more than I wanted to pay.

If the difference in cache really makes a difference maybe I should just hold up on the purchase.
Click to expand...

I'd go with less cache before I'd not have an SSD ;)

If you are running a single disk for your OS, it should be ridiculously faster.
 
JasonSTL739 said:
I'd go with less cache before I'd not have an SSD ;)

If you are running a single disk for your OS, it should be ridiculously faster.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a Samsung HD501LJ which was one of the faster cheap drives when I built this computer a couple years ago. It's a 60gb OS partition and the rest for data.

There is currently a deal at meritline for a 60gb vertex for $179 after a $30 rebate.
 
JasonSTL739 said:
...I'd buy a 120GB Vertex if a single drive - the extra cache does make a difference.
Click to expand...

Has the Vertex firmware become stable, i.e. would I likely buy one, flash it if necessary, and not need to re-flash it?

I am assuming that OCZ has not come up with a way (like Intel has) to flash the drives without blowing all the data away?
 
aamsel said:
Has the Vertex firmware become stable, i.e. would I likely buy one, flash it if necessary, and not need to re-flash it?

I am assuming that OCZ has not come up with a way (like Intel has) to flash the drives without blowing all the data away?
Click to expand...

Stable yes, however I suspect future firmware will require a wipe. I don't find that to be a big deal, but I realize some do.

v1.1 (1370) is the current release.
 
Man, you guys are going to cost me a lot of money. All this SSD talk is really getting me excited to change all my drives over. I have a Dell XPS, MacBook Pro and my gaming rig that I would buy drives for. I think the Vertex might be the one.

I'd have to RAID the vertex's in my gaming rig, do these drives respond well to RAID 0?
 
AppaYipYip said:
Man, you guys are going to cost me a lot of money. All this SSD talk is really getting me excited to change all my drives over. I have a Dell XPS, MacBook Pro and my gaming rig that I would buy drives for. I think the Vertex might be the one.

I'd have to RAID the vertex's in my gaming rig, do these drives respond well to RAID 0?
Click to expand...

Snag a single 120GB for your laptop, and welcome to the future. It will totally change the machine!
 
AppaYipYip said:
Man, you guys are going to cost me a lot of money. All this SSD talk is really getting me excited to change all my drives over. I have a Dell XPS, MacBook Pro and my gaming rig that I would buy drives for. I think the Vertex might be the one.

I'd have to RAID the vertex's in my gaming rig, do these drives respond well to RAID 0?
Click to expand...


They thrive in RAID 0. In fact, if you buy 3, you will prolly cap your controller. At least on Read speed anyway.

It's really fun the first time you download an app to your drive, and go to install it. You will see the progress bar show up for a second, and before it can update, it will be done. Very cool.

They sell a special version of the Vertex for the Mac. Don't know why. I guess Mac users are just used to paying more for hardware, and were not comfortable paying the same price for hardware as a PC user. ;)

I would buy the first one for your XPS. After you try it, you will really be hooked.

Don
 
DonDon said:
They thrive in RAID 0. In fact, if you buy 3, you will prolly cap your controller. At least on Read speed anyway.

[..snip..]
Click to expand...

This is something I've been wondering: Theoritically, how many ssd's would it take to saturate the bandwidth of most hardware-based raid controllers; assuming similar performace? For instance, I use an LSI 8708ELP.
 
dot_Zen said:
This is something I've been wondering: Theoritically, how many ssd's would it take to saturate the bandwidth of most hardware-based raid controllers; assuming similar performace? For instance, I use an LSI 8708ELP.
Click to expand...

4 or 5 samsung, vertex or falcon SSDs (200MB/s) should do it (most raid cards can only do 850Mb/s)
 
greenfrogman said:
4 or 5 samsung, vertex or falcon SSDs (200MB/s) should do it (most raid cards can only do 850Mb/s)
Click to expand...

Wow. I know this isn't exact, but if it's close it's amazing! Consider, currently, for data systems to increase I/O throughput you'd have to run an insane amount of SCSI/SAS.

4 or 5 SSD's would mean that throughput could be reached quickly, and every physical drive thereafter would specifically target expandability.
 
once you start thowing random I/O into the mix more SSDs would be needed but it depends if the controllers can handle 5000 up to 13000 IOPS per SSD you add (some ssds can do 10k (samsung vertex falcon) up to 20k intel), but i am quite sure they can i think you can become CPU bound at some point or network limited
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top