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
New vs Used SSD Performance
We begin our look at how the overhead of managing pages impacts SSD performance with iometer. The table below shows iometer random write performance; there are two rows for each drive, one for “new” performance after a secure erase and one for “used” performance after the drive has been well used.
| 4KB Random Write Speed | New | "Used" |
| Intel X25-E | 31.7 MB/s | |
| Intel X25-M | 39.3 MB/s | 23.1 MB/s |
| JMicron JMF602B MLC | 0.02 MB/s | 0.02 MB/s |
| JMicron JMF602Bx2 MLC | 0.03 MB/s | 0.03 MB/s |
| OCZ Summit | 12.8 MB/s | 0.77 MB/s |
| OCZ Vertex | 8.2 MB/s | 2.41 MB/s |
| Samsung SLC | 2.61 MB/s | 0.53 MB/s |
| Seagate Momentus 5400.6 | 0.81 MB/s | - |
| Western Digital Caviar SE16 | 1.26 MB/s | - |
| Western Digital VelociRaptor | 1.63 MB/s | - |
Note that the “used” performance should be the slowest you’ll ever see the drive get. In theory, all of the pages are filled with some sort of data at this point.
All of the drives, with the exception of the JMicron based SSDs went down in performance in the “used” state. And the only reason the JMicron drive didn’t get any slower was because it is already bottlenecked elsewhere; you can’t get much slower than 0.03MB/s in this test.
These are pretty serious performance drops; the OCZ Vertex runs at nearly 1/4 the speed after it’s been used and Intel’s X25-M can only crunch through about 60% the IOs per second that it did when brand new.
So are SSDs doomed? Is performance going to tank over time and make these things worthless?
"Used" SSD performance vs. conventional hard drives.
Pay close attention to the average write latency in the graph above. While Intel’s X25-M pulls an extremely fast sub-0.3ms write latency normally, it levels off at 0.51ms in its used mode. The OCZ Vertex manages a 1.43ms new and 4.86ms used. There’s additional overhead for every write but a well designed SSD will still manage extremely low write latencies. To put things in perspective, look at these drives at their worst compared to Western Digital’s VelociRaptor.The degraded performance X25-M still completes write requests in around 1/8 the time of the VelociRaptor. Transfer speeds are still 8x higher as well.
Note that not all SSDs see their performance drop gracefully. The two Samsung based drives perform more like hard drives here, but I'll explain that tradeoff much later in this article.
How does this all translate into real world performance? I ran PCMark Vantage on the new and used Intel drive to see how performance changed.
| PCMark Overall Score | New | "Used" | % Drop |
| Intel X25-M | 11902 | 11536 | 3% |
| OCZ Summit | 10972 | 9916 | 9.6% |
| OCZ Vertex | 11253 | 9836 | 14.4% |
| Samsung SLC | 10143 | 9118 | 10.1% |
| Seagate Momentus 5400.6 | 6817 | - | - |
| Western Digital VelociRaptor | 7500 | - | - |
The real world performance hit varies from 0 - 14% depending on the drive. While the drives are still faster than a regular hard drive, performance does drop in the real world by a noticeable amount. The trim command would keep the drive’s performance closer to its peak for longer, but it would not have prevented this from happening.
| PCMark Vantage HDD Test | New | "Used" | % Drop |
| Intel X25-M | 29879 | 23252 | 22% |
| JMicron JMF602Bx2 MLC | 11613 | 11283 | 3% |
| OCZ Summit | 25754 | 16624 | 36% |
| OCZ Vertex | 20753 | 17854 | 14% |
| Samsung SLC | 17406 | 12392 | 29% |
| Seagate Momentus 5400.6 | 3525 | - | |
| Western Digital VelociRaptor | 6313 | - |
HDD specific tests show much more severe drops, ranging from 20 - 40% depending on the drive. Despite the performance drop, these drives are still much faster than even the fastest hard drives.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
250 Comments
View All Comments
siberx - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
This is, very likely, the best article I have ever read, period. Online, in magazines, about any subject... this was an absolutely fantastic read. Suddenly, all smoke surrounding SSDs has cleared and the truth shines through in editorial brilliance. It's great to see that at least some computer news sites out there can still cut through the crap and get to the heart of the issue. My already high opinion of AnandTech has risen even further.Thank you for taking the immense time it must have taken to compile and assemble all this information - this article is now a must-read for *anybody* considering purchasing an SSD, and it's just about all the background you could need in one place.
In addition to all the extremely useful general SSD information contained within, the detailing of the issues with the JMicron controllers as well as OCZ's efforts to address the concerns to produce the best product possible (despite the reduced marketability to the uninformed) is reassuring and comforting in a world where tech companies seem more concerned with how much they can deceive their customers instead of producing quality products.
In short, the article is a win on all fronts, thank you greatly for posting it. When I purchase my first SSD (which I'm considering doing reasonably soon) this article, its information and suggestions, and OCZs actions to resolve the issues with its drives will definitely be at the forefront of my mind.
jkua - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
I have to say, I really appreciate the effort and throughness with which you have covered the state of the SSD market today. As an engineer and scientist, I applaud your methods in tracking down and reporting the major issues with SSDs. As a consumer, I really appreciate the timeliness of this article as I was just thinking of putting an SSD in a netbook for a robotics application where mechanical drives are not ideal.Cheers!
jkua - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
That said, one thing I would have like to have seen is some numbers on power consumption for these drives compared to average mechanical desktop and laptop drives.aamsel - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
Anyone have a link to the Intel HDD ERASE program that Anand referred to?HolyFire - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/download.html">http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/download.html (includes HDD erase 3.1)http://cmrr.ucsd.edu/people/Hughes/SecureErase.sht...">http://cmrr.ucsd.edu/people/Hughes/SecureErase.sht... (version 4.0)
AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
AWESOME ARTICLE.The huge difference in read/write flash performance looks a lot like this article: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=257...">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=257...
wind glider - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
Thanks for the orgasmic review.wicko - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Had a really good read here, thanks for the history and info, Anand. The only thing I don't understand is what the importance of random write is? What kind of task would benefit from high random write speeds (maybe copying many files at once)? I'm tempted to pick up a vertex drive but it depends on whether or not random write will be important for me. But the price... whoa, pretty damn expensive here in Canada.. http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=36023&a...">http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?...X120G&am... - $625 for a 120GB!!! I kind of want 2, for RAID0, I have a lot of games installed (steam folder alone is 100GB lol). Might even have to raid 3 of em.. but not for $1800 lol.strikeback03 - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
As mentioned in the article, the OS in general makes lots of random writes. Send an IM, it writes to a log. Load a website, it caches some images.AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
>I'm tempted to pick up a vertex drive but it depends on>whether or not random write will be important for me.
Keep in mind, its random write is twice as fast as mechanical HDs.
>But the price...
It's only $110USD/32GB.