Show us your SSD performance

DreemWarrior · 12 Apr 2011

Dave76 said:

Great SSD, mine is now in my laptop, adds some serious zoom

Sequential Read seems alright, maybe even on the high side.

The access times should be in the 0.09....ms range.

Updated firmware?
ACHI or IDE?
Driver?
Intel Toolbox? Did you run the optimization?
Any tweaks?

You can get most of this info from the AS SSD benchmark, you don't have to run the benchmark, it is in the upper left corner when you open it.

lol no I just installed the OS and ran test. Its a SATAII I believe. This is my first SSD so I'm in new territory here. :) Thanks for the heads up.

Shootist · 12 Apr 2011

DreemWarrior said:

Dave76 said:

Great SSD, mine is now in my laptop, adds some serious zoom

Sequential Read seems alright, maybe even on the high side.

The access times should be in the 0.09....ms range.

Updated firmware?
ACHI or IDE?
Driver?
Intel Toolbox? Did you run the optimization?
Any tweaks?

You can get most of this info from the AS SSD benchmark, you don't have to run the benchmark, it is in the upper left corner when you open it.

lol no I just installed the OS and ran test. Its a SATAII I believe. This is my first SSD so I'm in new territory here. :) Thanks for the heads up.

Well your motherboard BIOS has a setting that may make it run faster.
AHCI is a setting that adds some extra features. It is the drive setup screen and in the same place as IDE. Not sure of your board so I'm not going to tell you how to get to it. Buit if you find that setting enable it.
SSDs are basically the same as spinning hard drives except they don't spin and there are other things you should and should not do with them.
I'm new to SSDs also. Will be installing my first tomorrow night. But I have read up on them.
Good luck with yours.

whs · 12 Apr 2011

Thanks guys for the update of Acronis. There are so many versions floating arouns that I cannot keep track of all of them. And I myself have not used Acronis in a long time, so I am grateful for your inputs.

Shootist · 13 Apr 2011

Just got done installing and loading my most recent image on the Intel 320 120GB SSD.

Booted system from a Mustang PE boot USB stick. Opened CMD and made one partition, 100MB offset 1024 active. checked and everything looked good

Then I closed that and opened TI 2011. Loaded up the image and it took maybe 7 minutes.
Closed TI opened CMD did the check and everything is aligned.

Rebooted, entered BIOS, set first boot device Intel, save/exit. Had to reboot one more time after 7 loaded for the first time.

Average of 230+MBs. Access time .01MS

Sorry don't had a SS, forgot to save it.
So when you make a FULL image of a spinning drive that has correct alignment and then load that full image on a SSD the alignment is carried over.

Been opening some of my programs, Photoshop CS5, Live mail (which took forever before), Word and the like.
Quick Quick Quick.

Thanks.

Dave76 · 13 Apr 2011

You might want to check the basic SSD settings have been made.

Win7 does this when installed on a SSD, but using an image I'm not sure if it does.

MS Support and Q&A for Solid-State Drives

Have you run the Intel SSD Toolbox?
The Intel SSD Mangement Tools > System Configuration Tuner will optimize your Win7 settings for the SSD.

Basics:
Turn off Defrag on the SSD
Disable Superfetch, this is recommended by Intel

Enable write caching

Turn off write cache buffer flushing if you have a UPS
With lots of RAM reduce the Page File

If you make a lot of image backups consider turning off system restore.

Cr00zng · 20 Apr 2011

Here's a benchmark for the OCZ Vertex 3, 120 GBs:

Show us your SSD performance-ocz_v_3.png

The motherboard is P8P67 LE , CPU i5-2500K. no OC...

The values are not as advertised and the access time should be in 0.06 area instead of the 0.111.

And if I compare it to the Crucial C300 128 GBs SSD that my machine has:

Show us your SSD performance-p7p55d-e-pro_no-oc.jpg

Crucial beats OCZ Vertex 3 in the overall score and there isn't much noticeable difference in speed using the two machines. The machine with the OCZ SSD seems a shade faster in standard use, but that could be contributed to the CPU and the different chipset as well. At this point, I don't really see much value in the OCZ Vertex 3...

I am not sure why the OCZ doesn't perform better; all drivers are at the latest version, write-cache is enabled, etc...

whs · 20 Apr 2011

i think that proves again that the access time rules and the R/W speeds are of secondary importance for the OS. That will be different once we can afford SSDs for massive data storage/transfer.

Dave76 · 21 Apr 2011

Agree with whs, access times are important.

Those access times look about right for OCZ, the Intel SSDs have always had better access times than other SSDs.

One review shows them at 0.213/0.248, others 0.0820/0.280, which are better than the OCZ Gen2s I've seen.

Cr00zng · 21 Apr 2011

It would be hard not to agree with a guy, who lives in the summer at the origin of Danube river, but I'll try... :)

The part I disagree with is when "we can afford SSDs for massive data storage/transfer"...

First, it's doubtful that SSDs will be affordable for massive storage anytime soon, at least not for home users yet; say, about 3-5 years we are looking at. During this time, they should work on the network connections as well that is the limiting factor in data transfers over the network. The current and widely used 100 Mb/s networks' bandwidth can easily be saturated with a traditional HDD; the SATA 2 SSDs can easily exhaust the gigi network connection, more so the SATA 3 SSDs. We'd need 10 gigi network connection to exceed the current Vertex 3 SSD read throughput. In 3-5 years I am pretty sure that we'll have SATA X, or whatever, that will also saturate the bandwidth of the high end network connection whatever that maybe.

Internally, within the machine, it is obviously different and there's something where OCZ Vertex 3 performs better than Crucial C300.

Doing an image creation with Macrium Reflect takes two minutes and thirty seconds, despite that the 120 GBs drive has 34 GBs of it used up. The same image creation takes close to six minutes on the Crucial C300 128 GBs drive that has 30 GBs used.

Or maybe it's the Sandy Bridge architecture...

whs · 21 Apr 2011

Cr00zng said:

It would be hard not to agree with a guy, who lives in the summer at the origin of Danube river, but I'll try... :)

The part I disagree with is when "we can afford SSDs for massive data storage/transfer"...

First, it's doubtful that SSDs will be affordable for massive storage anytime soon, at least not for home users yet; say, about 3-5 years we are looking at. During this time, they should work on the network connections as well that is the limiting factor in data transfers over the network. The current and widely used 100 Mb/s networks' bandwidth can easily be saturated with a traditional HDD; the SATA 2 SSDs can easily exhaust the gigi network connection, more so the SATA 3 SSDs. We'd need 10 gigi network connection to exceed the current Vertex 3 SSD read throughput. In 3-5 years I am pretty sure that we'll have SATA X, or whatever, that will also saturate the bandwidth of the high end network connection whatever that maybe.

Internally, within the machine, it is obviously different and there's something where OCZ Vertex 3 performs better than Crucial C300.

Doing an image creation with Macrium Reflect takes two minutes and thirty seconds, despite that the 120 GBs drive has 34 GBs of it used up. The same image creation takes close to six minutes on the Crucial C300 128 GBs drive that has 30 GBs used.

Or maybe it's the Sandy Bridge architecture...

I don't think we disagree. I was only pointing out the significance of access time versus R/W times for the OS. And then went on to say that R/W speeds will have a bearing once we use SSDs for large data transfers.

For images you run at the speed of the receiving disk which is most likely a HDD or an external drive. The best times I have achieved with a Vertex2 to HDD was 3.6 min for an image of a 21GB OS (about 11GB compressed).