Looking to Upgrade to a New SSD

[whs]

Come back when you have the SSD. Then the acid test will start.

 

[Pantz]

LMAO i sure will WHS... and thanks for all your help

 

[whs]

No problem. Any time.

 

[Pantz]

Hello again, well i bit the bullet and purchased a
Samsung 840 Series 120GB 2.5 inch SATA Solid State Drive: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

and i have been doing some research, and this may be easier than i thought. LOL
I found this link on " DATA" migration
Samsung SSD - A Guide to using the Samsung Data Migration Tool - YouTube

The only question i have is ,

Since i currently only have 44Gigs of DATA, on my 312 GIG, C:\ partition , i should not have any trouble migrating the "DATA: from my HD to my new SSD ? .

Thanks in Advance.

 

[whs]

44GBs of data will easily migrate to a 128GB SSD - no problems. If this is a Dell system though, it will also migrate the recovery partition because that's where the bootmgr is - if not, you get only the small 100MB system partition. That we can fix later.

 

[Pantz]

Hello again, this is not a dell. its a custom build. so i guess i don't have to shrink the 312 C:\ partition ?

Just install the SSD and run the Samsung migration software reboot, let the migration finish, reboot and change the SSD to the 2nd Boot device after the CD/DVD drive, and its done.?

Thanks in advance.

 

[GeneO]

The 840 Pro version uses MLC chips while the 840 uses TLC chips.
MLC has 2 bits per cell.
TLC has 3 bits per cell.
Most consumer SSD are MLC but you will see more TLC in the future.
TLC is the newest way to get more data on the same number of chips and there by cut the cost.
In theory TLC will not last as long as it gets more use per chip and may reach its write limit faster. So it depends on your budget.

Jim

The 840 TLC performance is lower than that iof the 840 PRO MLC as well. I expect that is partially because has higher density and hence fewer NAND chips.

 

[whs]

You got it. No need to shrink. If the data fits, the tool will migrate the C partition and do proper alignments. Check the alignment anyhow once you run from the SSD - just to make sure. http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/113967-ssd-alignment.html?ltr=S

 

[whs]

The 840 Pro version uses MLC chips while the 840 uses TLC chips.
MLC has 2 bits per cell.
TLC has 3 bits per cell.
Most consumer SSD are MLC but you will see more TLC in the future.
TLC is the newest way to get more data on the same number of chips and there by cut the cost.
In theory TLC will not last as long as it gets more use per chip and may reach its write limit faster. So it depends on your budget.

Jim

The 840 TLC performance is lower than that iof the 840 PRO MLC as well. I expect that is partially because has higher density and hence fewer NAND chips.

In real life that makes no difference. The performance boost comes from the fast access times - and they are the same.

 

[GeneO]

The 840 Pro version uses MLC chips while the 840 uses TLC chips.
MLC has 2 bits per cell.
TLC has 3 bits per cell.
Most consumer SSD are MLC but you will see more TLC in the future.
TLC is the newest way to get more data on the same number of chips and there by cut the cost.
In theory TLC will not last as long as it gets more use per chip and may reach its write limit faster. So it depends on your budget.

Jim

The 840 TLC performance is lower than that iof the 840 PRO MLC as well. I expect that is partially because has higher density and hence fewer NAND chips.

In real life that makes no difference. The performance boost comes from the fast access times - and they are the same.

I was thinking sequential reads were better, but they are the same.

Random writes are 3 time better on the pro. Random reads are better but not by a significant amount. So they aren't the same.

 

[whs]

The 840 TLC performance is lower than that iof the 840 PRO MLC as well. I expect that is partially because has higher density and hence fewer NAND chips.

In real life that makes no difference. The performance boost comes from the fast access times - and they are the same.

I was thinking sequential reads were better, but they are the same.

Random writes are 3 time better on the pro. Random reads are better but not by a significant amount. So they aren't the same.

None of that makes any real difference for the OS which does very few read/writes and only in 4K blocks. Compare the 4K nums and you will see that there is really no point to make any fuzz about it.

 

[kbrady1979]

The "Sequential" numbers that are advertised mean absolutely nothing for most users. If you are transferring a big file from the SSD to a HDD, you are only going to go as fast as the HDD will let you. I wish they would just stop advertising those numbers to be honest.....most of the drives out today are up against the SATA III wall anyway. The numbers that actually mean anything are the Random 4K Read/Writes, not the 32/64 thread either, and the access times.

To be perfectly honest, the most important things to consider today in an SSD are manufacturer and controller. Size isn't even much of a concern because the standard today is 128GB and if you want more than that, get 256/512GB. It's not like it was a few years ago when you had to settle on a small capacity because the 120/128GB drives are several hundred dollars.

 

[GeneO]

In real life that makes no difference. The performance boost comes from the fast access times - and they are the same.

I was thinking sequential reads were better, but they are the same.

Random writes are 3 time better on the pro. Random reads are better but not by a significant amount. So they aren't the same.

None of that makes any real difference for the OS which does very few read/writes and only in 4K blocks. Compare the 4K nums and you will see that there is really no point to make any fuzz about it.

Excuse me, 3x the performance on 4k random writes is not insignificant.

 

[Pantz]

Thanks WHS. i think i will let the software do the migration, see you in a week or so ... LOL

Thanks

 

[kbrady1979]

I was thinking sequential reads were better, but they are the same.

Random writes are 3 time better on the pro. Random reads are better but not by a significant amount. So they aren't the same.

None of that makes any real difference for the OS which does very few read/writes and only in 4K blocks. Compare the 4K nums and you will see that there is really no point to make any fuzz about it.

Excuse me, 3x the performance on 4k random writes is not insignificant.

Are you referring to the 4KB Random Writes......32000 IOPS vs 90000 IOPS?

 

[whs]

Thanks WHS. i think i will let the software do the migration, see you in a week or so ... LOL

Thanks

Sure, I'll be glad to see you back in a week.

 

[whs]

I was thinking sequential reads were better, but they are the same.

Random writes are 3 time better on the pro. Random reads are better but not by a significant amount. So they aren't the same.

None of that makes any real difference for the OS which does very few read/writes and only in 4K blocks. Compare the 4K nums and you will see that there is really no point to make any fuzz about it.

Excuse me, 3x the performance on 4k random writes is not insignificant.

You are fascinated by numbers, I am fascinated by real life. You calculate how long it takes to read ten 4K blocks at the high IOPS and than you multiply by 3. Both numbers will be faster than a blink of the eye that neither you nor I will be able to differentiate - other than on paper.

 

[GeneO]

None of that makes any real difference for the OS which does very few read/writes and only in 4K blocks. Compare the 4K nums and you will see that there is really no point to make any fuzz about it.

Excuse me, 3x the performance on 4k random writes is not insignificant.

Are you referring to the 4KB Random Writes......32000 IOPS vs 90000 IOPS?

Yes. What else?

Or you can go here and form your own conclusion:

AnandTech | Bench - SSD

 

[kbrady1979]

Unfortunately, the advertised speeds are pretty irrelevant. They show you the Sequential Read/Write speeds and the 4KB Random Read/Write speeds. Sequential speeds, as I mentioned above, mean nothing to 99% of users, and the 4KB Random Read/Write speeds mean nothing to probably 95% of users. What they are showing you is Random 4KB Read/Write speeds with a queue depth of 64. That would be mean something for say, a server, which works in high queue depths. A home computer will normally be in the range of QD 1-4.

Here is a snippet of my Samsung 830 128GB with the speeds that are actually tangible highlighted.


Note: The 4K-64Thrd is what manufacturers advertise.....for my Samsung 830, the specs say 80000 IOPS Read, and 30000 IOPS Write. That would be great IF I normally worked in a queue depth that high.

 

[GeneO]

I wasn't commenting on the sequential speeds, though they are important for certain applications. I was referring to the 4k write speeds and yes, I know these are at queue depths greater than one and 3x is an exaggeration, but they are significant in many applications and not just servers - on the order of 15% I reckon on light loads. That is the order of % of a generation of processor or graphics card or the order of magnitude we overclock to.

And here is some more performance measurements at lower queue depths (3) that show some significant differences:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6337/samsung-ssd-840-250gb-review/6

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/12/19/samsung_840_series_tlc_250gb_ssd_review/5#.UUpoLFfSCsM

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/02/19/samsung_840_120gb_ssd_review/10#.UUpprVfSCsM