The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 18, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Disappointed, I went back to OCZ
OCZ was worried. The last time I reviewed one of their SSDs I was truthful about it, and it hurt their sales considerably. Customers were returning drives, and to OCZ’s credit, they stepped up and even accepted some returns themselves - something that most manufacturers wouldn’t have done. Regardless what they had told me, there was some admission of fault there. Those JMicron drives were nothing short of crap.
As soon as OCZ started getting word that I wasn’t pleased with Vertex, they went into a state of panic. These drives all do very well in synthetic HDD tests like HDTach and ATTO, that’s generally all they’re reviewed in, so that’s all they’re tested in. But now OCZ was hearing that the Vertex wasn’t passing some of my tests and they had no idea what it was failing or why.
I tend to do a good job of keeping what tests I run secret until the review is published, so there isn’t any unfair optimization. I purposefully introduce new tests to our performance suites to help keep manufacturers honest and optimizing for real world usage scenarios rather than specific benchmarks. OCZ had no idea what I was running, but they knew that the Vertex wasn’t doing well.
Summit on the other hand was performing just fine, but that’s an expensive drive. Vertex was supposed to be good, it should’ve been good, there’s no reason for it to be performing this poorly. I ran the infamous iometer test to see what was going on:
| Iometer 4KB Random Writes, IOqueue=1, 8GB sector space | IOs per second | MB/s | Average Latency | Maximum Latency |
| Original Pre-release OCZ Vertex | 20.7 | 0.08 MB/s | 48.2 ms | 484.5 ms |
How on earth is this acceptable at all? Average latency of 48.2ms and a maximum latency as bad as the Apex and G.Skill Titan drives? I’ve heard some SSD vendors dismiss the iometer results but let me caution you against that. What these numbers are telling us is that on average, when your OS goes to write a 4KB file somewhere on your drive, it’ll take nearly 50ms. That’s 4.5x longer than a 5400 RPM 2.5” notebook drive and that’s the average case. What part of that sounds acceptable? Anyone who tells you otherwise is delusional.
I thought for sure that the drive was broken and that we’d made no progress since last fall. But the drive hadn’t launched yet, while there were glowing reviews of it, no one had wasted any money. I wrote an email to Ryan Petersen, OCZ’s CEO. I described my findings and told him that while the Vertex’s performance was better than any of the JMicron solutions, it was unacceptable for anything other than perhaps extremely light, single-tasking usage.
I told him it sucked. He said that wasn’t fair. We argued over email but he came back and asked me what I needed to see to make the drive better.
I told him I’d need an average response time in the sub-1ms range and a max latency no worse than Intel’s 94ms. I didn’t think it would be possible. I was prepared for OCZ to hate me once more. He told me to give him a couple of days.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
250 Comments
View All Comments
matrixireland - Thursday, December 24, 2009 - link
hi would like to know what you pros think of the;Golden Leopard ASAX-ZIF1.8-SSD? what would you add to it?
And how would you rate it against other ssd?
Specifications:
product description
ASAX-ZIF1.8-SSD is a high-performance design solid state drive based on the high-end micro-control IC with flash memory storage medium integrated advantaged of high speed,convenient ,aseismatic,energy-saving etc.
specification
Model
Size
Interface
Material
ASAX-ZIF1.8-SSD
1.8inch 70×54×6mm
ZIF
Aluminum-magnesium alloy appearance ,drawbench and colorful oxidation surface,elegant temperament
performance
read speed:80- 96Mbytes/second write speed:50- 60Mbytes/second
support ATA-7 V3 PIO/multi word/ultra DMA MODES
Low power TFBGA,4 channel of flash controller,masked ROM and data SRAM
SAMSUNG flash keeps the data faster on reliability and endurance
Dynamic and static wear-leveling prolong NAND FLASH and SSD for longer life
8/16 bit BCH ECC data error correction ability effectively guarantee the data read security.
Design consideration
Capacity
16G/32G/64G/128G/256G
Average access time
<0.25MS
operating temperature
0-85°
power consumption
DC Input Voltage(3.3V or 5 V ± 10%)Read and write:135mA/194Ma wait:70mA
shock
1500G
Application
the Laptop, pc, server,workstation,portable media player,digital collection apparatus and any computer equipment which need consecutive read and write speed and high reliability storage.
jay401 - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
yeah, he wants "more expensive than" or "too expensive for".Spoelie - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Second page as well:missing charts before and after this paragraph:
"The chart above shows how much faster these affordable MLC SSDs were than the fastest 3.5” hard drive in sequential transfers. But now look at random write performance:"
Spoelie - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
chart 1 on page 2 now shows sequential read but the paragraph is changed to mention random read ;)page 21: As far as I know, this is THE one of THE only reviews
Some very surprising benchmark results for the ocz vertex, I thought the new firmware tanked sequential read speeds (to 80-90) based on the explanation beforehand, but not according to the actual graphs.
Spoelie - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
third page, first table, first column: SSD and HDD entries are switchedmikaela - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
yeah great info. also great resourceSpoelie - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
page 19: I’d never reviewed it'd & -ed?
HolyFire - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
"I'd never reviewed it" is correct. "I'd" here means "I had", it's Past Perfect tense.FishTankX - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
That should have bolded "too"FishTankX - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Also, I think the velociraptor vs X-25 figures are swapped. 6 odd ms for the intel drive and 0.11ms for the velociraptor..