The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Random Read/Write Speed
This test writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random writes that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see). I perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time:
As we established in previous articles, the disk operations that feel the slowest are the random small file reads and writes. Both of which are easily handled by an SSD. A good friend of mine and former AnandTech Editor, Matthew Witheiler, asked me if he'd notice the performance improvement. I showed him the chart above.
He asked again if he'd notice. I said, emphatically, yes.
Now this is super interesting. Intel's X25-M G1 drops from 40.8MB/s when new down to 26.3MB/s in a well used state. Unfortunately for the G1, it will never get TRIM and will spend more time in the lower performance state over the life of the drive. But look at what happens with the X25-M G2: it drops from 36.1MB/s to 35.8MB/s - virtually no performance is lost. In fact, the G2 is so fast here that it outperforms the super expensive X25-E. Granted you don't get the lifespan of the X25-E and the SLC drive should perform better on more strenuous random write tests, but this is a major improvement.
The explanation? It actually boils down to the amount of memory on the drive. The X25-M G1 had 16MB of 166MHz SDRAM on-board, the G2 upped it to 32MB of slower 133MHz DRAM. Remember that Intel doesn't keep any user data in DRAM, it's only used for the remapping, defragmenting and tracking of all of the data being written to the drive. More DRAM means that the drive can now track more data, which means that even in the heaviest of random-write workloads you could toss at it on a normal desktop you will not actually lose any performance with the drive in a used state. And this is the drive Intel has decided to grant TRIM to.
The G2 is good.
The Indilinx drives do lose performance here. They drop from roughly 13MB/s down to 7MB/s. We're still talking ~5x the speed of a VelociRaptor, so there's no cause for alarm. But it's clear that even Indilinx's SLC drive can't match Intel's random write performance. And from what I hear, Intel's performance is only going to get better.
This is what the X25-M price premium gets you.
Bahahaha, look at the hard drive scores here: 0.7MB/s and 0.3MB/s? That's freakin' terrible! And that's why your system feels so slow when you start it up, there are a ton of concurrent random reads and writes happening all over the place which your hard drive crunches through at roughly 0.5MB/s. Even the Samsung based OCZ Summit manages a significant performance advantage here.
The Indilinx drives all cluster around the 30 - 40MB/s mark for random read performance, nothing to be ashamed of. The Intel drives kick it up a notch and give you roughly 60MB/s of random read performance. It's a noticeable improvement. As our application launch tests will show however, loading a single app on either an Indilinx or Intel drive will take about the same amount of time. It's only in the heavy multitasking and "seat of the pants" feel that you'll have a chance at feeling a difference.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
295 Comments
View All Comments
GourdFreeMan - Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - link
You would, in fact, be incorrect. I refer you to ANSI/IEEE Std 1084-1986, which defines kilo, mega, etc. as powers of two when used to refer to sizes of computer storage. It was common practice to use such definitons in Computer Science from the 1970s until standards were changed in 1991. As many people reading Anandtech received their formal education during this time period, it is understandable that the usage is still commonplace.Undersea - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Where was this article two weeks ago before I bought my OCZ summit? I hope this little article will jump start samsung.Thanks for all the hard work :)
FrancoisD - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Hi Anand,Great article, as always. I've been following your site since the beginning and it's still the best one out there today!
I mainly use Mac's these days and was wondering if you knew anything about Apple's plans for TRIM??
Thanks for all the fantastic work, very technical yet easy to understand.
François
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Thanks for your support over the years :)No word on Apple's plans for TRIM yet, I am digging though...
Take care,
Anand
Dynotaku - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Amazing article as always, now I just need one that shows me how to install just Win 7 and my Steam folder to the SSD and move Program Files and "My Documents" or whatever it's called in Win7 to a mechanical disk.GullLars - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
A really great article with loads of data.I only have one complaint. The 4kb random read/write tests in IOmeter was done with QD=3, this simulates a really light workload, and does not allow the controllers to make use of the potential of all their flash channels. I've seen intels x25-M scale up to 130-140 MB/s of 4KB random read @ QD=64 (medium load) with AHCI activated. I have not yet tested my Vertex SSDs or Mtron Pro's, but i suspect they also scale well beyond QD=3.
It would also be usefull to compare the different tests in the HDDsuite in PCmark vantage instead of only the total score.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
The reason I chose a queue depth of 3 is because that's, on average, what I found when I tried heavily (but realistically) loading some Windows desktop machines. I rarely found a queue depth over 5. The super high QDs are great for enterprise workloads but I don't believe they do a good job at showcasing single user desktop/notebook performance.I agree about the individual HDD suite tests, I was just trying to cut down on the number of graphs everyone had to mow through :)
Take care,
Anand
heulenwolf - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Anand,I'd like to add my thanks to the many in the comments. Your articles really do stand out in their completeness and clarity. Well done.
I'm hoping you or someone else in the forums can shed some light on a problem I'm having. I got talked into getting a Dell "Ultraperformance" SSD for my new work system last year. Its a Samsung-branded SLC SSD 64 GB capacity. As your results predict, its really snappy when its first loaded and performance degrades after a few months with the drive ~3/4 full. One thing I haven't seen predicted, though, is that the drives have only lasted 6 months. The first system I received was so unstable without explanation that we convinced Dell to replace the entire machine. Since then, I'm now on my second SSD refurb replacement under warranty. In both SDD failures, the drive worked normally for ~6 months, then performance dropped to 5-10 MB/sec, Vista boot times went up to ~15 minutes, and I paid dearly in time for every single click and keypress. Once everything finally loaded, the system behaved almost normally. Dell's own diagnostics pointed to bad drives, yet, in each case, the bad SSD continued to work just at super slow speeds. I was careful to disable Vista's automatic defrag with every install.
My IT staff has blamestormed first Vista (we're still mostly an XP shop) and now SSDs in general as the culprit. They want me to turn in the SSD and replace it with a magnetic hard drive. So, my question is how to explain this:
A) Am I that 1 in a bazillion case of having gotten a bad system followed by a bad drive followed by another bad drive
B) Is there something about Vista - beyond auto defrag - that accelerates the wear and tear on these drives
C) Is there something about Samsung's early SSD controllers that drops them to a lower speed under certain conditions (e.g. poorly implemented SMART diagnostics)
D) Is my IT department right and all SSDs are evil ;)?
Ardax - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Well, first you could point them to this article to point out how bad the Samsung SSDs are. Replace it with an Intel or Indilinx-based drive and you should be fine. Anecdotes so far indicate that people have been beating on them for months.As far as configuring Vista for SSD usage, MS posted in the Engineering Windows 7 Blog about what they're doing for SSDs. [url=http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/suppor...">http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/0...nd-q-a-f...]Article Link[/url].
The short version of it is this: Disable Defrag, SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, and Application and Boot Prefetching. All these technologies were created to work around the low random read/write performance of traditional HDs and are unnecessary (or unhealthy, in the case of defrag) with SSDs.
heulenwolf - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Thanks for the reply, Ardax. Unfortunately, the choice of SSD brand was Dell's. As Anand points out, OEM sales is where Samsung's seems to have a corner on the market. The choices are: Samsung "Ultraperformance" SSD, Samsung not-so-ultraperformance SSD, Magnetic HDD, or void the warranty by getting installing a non-Dell part. I could ask that we buy a non-Dell SSD but since installing it would preclude further warranty support from Dell and all SSDs have become the scapegoat, I doubt my request would be accepted. Additionally, the article doesn't say much about drive reliability which is the fundamental problem in my case.I'll look into the linked recommendations on Win 7 and SSDs. I had already done some research on these features and found the general concensus to be that leaving any of them enabled (with the exception of defrag) should do no harm.