# [SSD] Discussion and experiences thread



## mudkip (Aug 23, 2009)

SSD Power







> A solid-state drive (SSD) is a data storage device that uses solid-state memory to store persistent data. An SSD emulates a hard disk drive interface, thus easily replacing it in most applications. An SSD using SRAM or DRAM (instead of flash memory) is often called a RAM-drive, not to be confused with a RAM disk.
> 
> The original usage of the term solid-state (from solid-state physics) refers to the use of semiconductor devices rather than electron tubes, but in this context, has been adopted to distinguish solid-state electronics from electromechanical devices as well. With no moving parts, solid-state drives are less fragile than hard disks and are also silent (unless a cooling fan is used); as there are no mechanical delays, they usually enjoy low access time and latency.



Advantages

Faster start-up, as no spin-up is required (RAM & flash).
Typically fast random access for reading, as there is no read/write head to move (RAM & flash).
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)
Relatively deterministic read performance
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.
No noise: a lack of moving parts makes SSDs completely silent, apart from cooling fans on a few high-end and high-capacity SSDs.
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).
High mechanical reliability, as the lack of moving parts almost eliminates the risk of "mechanical" failure (RAM & flash).
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).
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.
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.
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


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.
    * 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]
    * 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]
    * Lower storage density: Hard disks can store more data per unit volume than DRAM or flash SSDs, except for very low capacity/small devices.
    * 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.
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 :


----------



## mudkip (Aug 23, 2009)

SSD's owners , unite!


----------



## Jakethesnake011 (Aug 23, 2009)

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.


----------



## mudkip (Aug 23, 2009)

Nice nice, could you do a benchmark with Crystalmark?


----------



## largon (Aug 23, 2009)

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*


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 23, 2009)

Does anyone think the OCZ summit series is any good ?


----------



## largon (Aug 23, 2009)

^It's an SSD and it doesn't have a jMicron controller. Thus, it's good. 
MB/s doesn't mean squat anyways.


----------



## mudkip (Aug 23, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Does anyone think the OCZ summit series is any good ?



I prefer the Vertex , better firmware support for it


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 23, 2009)

largon said:


> ^It's an SSD and it doesn't have a jMicron controller. Thus, it's good.
> MB/s doesn't mean squat anyways.



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. 



mudkip said:


> I prefer the Vertex , better firmware support for it



Vertex is more expensive though  Is it a major difference in support ?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Aug 23, 2009)

my supertalent ultradrive gx 64gb


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 23, 2009)

120Gb vertex.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Aug 23, 2009)

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.


----------



## DarkEgo (Aug 23, 2009)

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.


----------



## mudkip (Aug 23, 2009)

Why not? Even with a P4 it should be fast


----------



## mudkip (Aug 25, 2009)

nobody with a SSD?


----------



## Thrackan (Aug 27, 2009)

mudkip said:


> nobody with a SSD?



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


----------



## mudkip (Aug 27, 2009)

Thrackan said:


> 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?
> ...



For that price i think you'd be better off with 2 x intel postville 80GB


----------



## Thrackan (Aug 27, 2009)

mudkip said:


> For that price i think you'd be better off with 2 x intel postville 80GB



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.


----------



## PaulieG (Aug 27, 2009)

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?


----------



## mudkip (Aug 27, 2009)

Thrackan said:


> Intels: 80Gb, €190 each or
> Crucial: 256Gb, €478 or
> Crucial: 128Gb, €263
> 
> ...



Then go for it 



Paulieg said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## rpsgc (Aug 31, 2009)

Just to clarify, which item of the shortlist is *not* handled by default by Windows 7?



Thrackan said:


> I just noticed Crucial has the M225 series priced pretty nicely, and I'm seriously thinking about getting a 256Gb version...
> Clicky



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)


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Aug 31, 2009)

Anand's latest just posted today:

The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD

Another essential read in the series that began with his X25-M review.


----------



## dark2099 (Aug 31, 2009)

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.  











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.


----------



## Thrackan (Aug 31, 2009)

500MB/S! I drooled...


----------



## mudkip (Aug 31, 2009)

Nice scores dude! although i find your read scores a bit low , your write scores are nice though


----------



## DanishDevil (Aug 31, 2009)

That's farking nuts dude!


----------



## t_ski (Sep 2, 2009)

My two OCZ Summit 60GB drives in Raid 0:












For comparison, 4 x 250 GB Seagate 7200.11 drives:











Dark, I didn't see that much difference with buffer-flushing turned on.  How much difference did you see?


----------



## mudkip (Sep 2, 2009)

The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD

*must read*


----------



## Thrackan (Sep 2, 2009)

mudkip said:


> The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
> 
> *must read*



must include moar brands


----------



## dark2099 (Sep 2, 2009)

t_ski said:


> My two OCZ Summit 60GB drives in Raid 0:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090831/HDtune_2x60GB_raid0-2.png
> 
> ...



Actually I have since turned it off, haven't done tests again so don't know if it helps or not.


----------



## t_ski (Sep 2, 2009)

I did test with it on & off for both arrays, and I did not see any noticable difference.  I thought for the extra risk factor, was definitely not worth it.

I would appreciate if anyone else has any more performance tweaks (especially for the ICHR10 chipset), please post them


----------



## t_ski (Sep 4, 2009)

WTF is this?!?!?!


----------



## Asylum (Sep 4, 2009)

Looks like a failure on 1 of your disc or your raid array.
Or it was just a glitched test.
Run it again.


----------



## t_ski (Sep 4, 2009)

That was the second run.  First was long zones, the second was short.


----------



## t_ski (Sep 4, 2009)

HD Tune shows the same thing:


----------



## t_ski (Sep 4, 2009)

OK, being the smart techie I am, I figured it out:






The answer?  I turned off the OC and ran the chip at stock.  Seems I still have some more tweaking to do


----------



## t_ski (Sep 7, 2009)

Here is an interesting read - SSD tweak guide at Bjorn3D:

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1661


----------



## dark2099 (Sep 8, 2009)

Ok, so I'm still a little unsure, but can someone using Win 7 show me how to turn on swapfile, cause I have never seen options for those in any of the places I've looked, also can anyone with Win 7 also verify if when you go into select drives for the Windows based defrag schedule, that any SSD drives are not listed.  Thanks.


----------



## t_ski (Sep 8, 2009)

Open Windows Explorer:






Right click the drives or array and clock properties:






That takes you to the defrag schedule:






Mine is already off.  For the swapfile, press Windows+Pause/Break to get to system properties, then go to the advanced tab:






lick on performance options and then go to that advanced tab:






Under virtual memory hit change:






That's where you'd need to uncheck it or alter it if you need.


----------



## dark2099 (Sep 8, 2009)

Thanks t_ski, had the pagefile turned off, never heard it referred to swapfile before though.  And check out the scheduling like I did in this SS, as you can see, in the select drives part, my C: drive (2xOCZ Summits in Raid0) isn't there, so does that mean that Windows knows it's a SSD and automatically exclude it?


----------



## t_ski (Sep 8, 2009)

I don't think so.  Mine was on.  You probably tweaked it and forgot about it


----------



## dark2099 (Sep 8, 2009)

Was like that too when I was using the 3 OCZ Solid Series SSDs iirc.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 8, 2009)

I keep getting asked how to setup a ssd raid for best performance because it seems ppl are getting crap performance out of their drives.

here you go...

well first off...

make sure the drives are updated to the newest firmware.

then your ready to setup.

in raid, if you are using the onboard intel controller in the southbridge then you want to set a 64k stripe for best performance. this may not be an option on all boards. if it isnt then choose 128k stripe. 

once thats done you'll need to run fdisk from a vista install disk. to do this, let it load the dvd to the menu. hit install at the first screen and then repair at the second screen. then choose command prompt. 

at the command prompt type fdisk and hit enter

now your in fdisk....

type "list disk"

there should be only one, the raid you created. it should be disk 0 or disk 1.

depending on the answer, type "select disk 0" (or 1 or whatever yours is) and hit enter.

now, do the same thing with the partition command.

type "list partition" and hit enter. there shouldnt be any but if there is type "select partition 0" (or 1 or whatever it is)

this is the magical one.... 

if you set a 64k stripe then you need to set a 64k offset. same goes if you set a 128k stripe and so on.

type "create partition primary align=64" (or 128k and so on) and hit enter.

then type "active" and hit enter.

now type "exit" then hit enter and type "exit" again and your ready to install your OS. 

DONT let the installer format the drive again. it can mess up your previous settings you worked so hard to set.

as soon as you get into windows turn off indexing, windows search, prefetch, superfetch, and autodefrag.

install intel matrix storage drivers and reboot. once your back into windows, locate the matrix storage console in the start menu and open it.

find the raid drive and right click it and enable write back cache. now reboot again.

now run your benches and show me what you get.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Sep 8, 2009)

Hey fit

I just installed vista 64 on my 30gb vertex.  I read in the ocz forums that vista aligns the drive correctly when you format it during install.  Is this not correct?  I have benched with crystal mark on mine and my scores are a little low.  I am using AMD chipset though(780g).

I know with XP you need to manually format the drive.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 8, 2009)

i wouldnt trust the installer. do it on your own to ensure best performance.


----------



## t_ski (Sep 8, 2009)

Vista and Windows 7 align the drive correctly, but XP does not.  This is from Big Tony at OCZ.


----------



## mudkip (Sep 8, 2009)

DrunkenMafia said:


> Hey fit
> 
> I just installed vista 64 on my 30gb vertex.  I read in the ocz forums that vista aligns the drive correctly when you format it during install.  Is this not correct?  I have benched with crystal mark on mine and my scores are a little low.  I am using AMD chipset though(780g).
> 
> I know with XP you need to manually format the drive.



Vista *SP1 */Win 7 does everything automatic


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Sep 8, 2009)

here is a crystalmark from a single ocz vertex 30gb....  I think my scores are a little low.  The drive is full though, there is only about 4gb free.  Vista 64 takes up bloody 20gb


----------



## techspec6 (Sep 20, 2009)

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57599

Here's my spreadsheet I created for setting and checking disk alignment.  It's for RAID and/or single disk.  The second post has some valuable information also.

Jason


----------



## techspec6 (Sep 20, 2009)

Here's a benchmark from my EVGA x58 SLI's ICH10R onboard raid controller with 3x Vertex 30GB drives.






Jason


----------



## mudkip (Sep 23, 2009)

Very nice dude


----------



## Jasper005 (Oct 19, 2009)

*Recommend a SSD?*

Hi Guys, was thinking about getting a 60GB SSD to go with Windows 7. I just read that AnanTech article which was a great help, but also made me realise that this stuff is a bit more complicated than picking up a new HDD! 

I don't want to spend huge money and only really plan on putting Windows 7, office and a game on the SSD. 

Is the Vertex worth an extra £70 over the Corsair? Is something due out soon that will blow everything out of the water price / peformance wise? Any other suggestions? 

Thanks!

64GB Corsair, Extreme Series X64 MLC-Flash, 2.5" SSD, SATA II, Read 220MB/s, Write 135MB/s, Retail £149.72

60GB OCZ Technology, Vertex SSD, MLC-Flash, 2.5", 1 x SATA 3Gb/s, Read 230MB/s, Write 135MB/s  £217.97


----------



## t_ski (Oct 19, 2009)

I have three OCZ Summits and they run quite nicely in Raid 0:


----------



## t_ski (Oct 20, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> I keep getting asked how to setup a ssd raid for best performance because it seems ppl are getting crap performance out of their drives.
> 
> here you go...
> 
> ...



Just noticed this in your suggestions.  Shouldn't this be "diskpart?"  "List," "Select" and "Active" are diskpart commands IIRC.


----------



## Laurijan (Oct 20, 2009)

I am tempted to buy this.. heck i would buy it now if i had the bucks:
http://www.jimmspc-store.fi/tuote/SSDSA2MH080G2C1?t=false


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 20, 2009)

Still waiting for affordable SSD's in the 256GB or higher range. Throughput isn't all that important, since I hardly notice a limit in my normal HDD's, but the accesstimes...


----------



## mudkip (Feb 4, 2010)

Just bought an Intel Postville 80GB for my netbook. (HP Mini 311c)





almost no bottleneck by the slow Atom CPU.

I'd recommend a SSD upgrade for every netbook/notebook user.


----------

