Show us your SSD performance

[whs]

If you take an image of a complete drive, it is called a clone. That is different to imaging which goes per partition. And most free imaging programs cannot do cloning. For that you usually need the commercial versions.

 

[Shootist]

If you take an image of a complete drive, it is called a clone. That is different to imaging which goes per partition. And most free imaging programs cannot do cloning. For that you usually need the commercial versions.

I beg to differ with you on this. Most all imaging program can make a image of a complete drive and restore that image at any time, a hour/day/week/month/whatever time later, and preserve the structure of the drive as it was when the image was made. That is not cloning.
Cloning is a direct copy from one drive to another in REAL time, Now.
So if you want to call a image of a complete drive that is store for any length time a clone you can but it really isn't the same thing.

I don't know of any program that does cloning to store that clone for use at a later time/date.
And cloning is a bit by bit copy where as a image is compressed and then expanded on restoring that image.

 

[whs]

If you take an image of a complete drive, it is called a clone. That is different to imaging which goes per partition. And most free imaging programs cannot do cloning. For that you usually need the commercial versions.

I beg to differ with you on this. Most all imaging program can make a image of a complete drive and restore that image at any time, a hour/day/week/month/whatever time later, and preserve the structure of the drive as it was when the image was made. That is not cloning.
Cloning is a direct copy from one drive to another in REAL time, Now.
So if you want to call a image of a complete drive that is store for any length time a clone you can but it really isn't the same thing.

I don't know of any program that does cloning to store that clone for use at a later time/date.
And cloning is a bit by bit copy where as a image is compressed and then expanded on restoring that image.

Well, since you know all this stuff, no need for ma to comment any further.

 

[Shootist]

Sorry if somehow I pissed you off. I wasn't trying to.

No I don't know all this. I am learning as I go. Yes somethings I do know, others I learn and hopefully retain.

Thanks for all your help.

 

[DreemWarrior]

Here's the test on my new intel X25-V...

 

[Dave76]

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.

 

[IownAmoneyPit]

If you take an image of a complete drive, it is called a clone. That is different to imaging which goes per partition. And most free imaging programs cannot do cloning. For that you usually need the commercial versions.

I beg to differ with you on this. Most all imaging program can make a image of a complete drive and restore that image at any time, a hour/day/week/month/whatever time later, and preserve the structure of the drive as it was when the image was made. That is not cloning.

That is correct Shootist but you first must individually select/tick the box of each partition to image the whole drive but also having the option of restoring fewer partitions than backed up. In which case you are imaging all partitions of the drive.

A true Clone to which whs is referring to backs up the entire selected drive without asking for partition selection then asks for a destination where the data is immediately transferred.

@ whs some free versions of Acronis will also clone the drive, My Western Digital version does both imaging and cloning wheras the Intel - data migration tool (also Acronis) will only immediately clone one drive to another offering to upgrade to the full version if you want more features.

Cloning is a direct copy from one drive to another in REAL time, Now.
So if you want to call a image of a complete drive that is store for any length time a clone you can but it really isn't the same thing.

I don't know of any program that does cloning to store that clone for use at a later time/date.
And cloning is a bit by bit copy where as a image is compressed and then expanded on restoring that image.

 

[IownAmoneyPit]

:focus:

 

[Shootist]

That is correct Shootist but you first must individually select/tick the box of each partition to image the whole drive but also having the option of restoring fewer partitions than backed up. In which case you are imaging all partitions of the drive.

A true Clone to which whs is referring to backs up the entire selected drive without asking for partition selection then asks for a destination where the data is immediately transferred.

@ whs some free versions of Acronis will also clone the drive, My Western Digital version does both imaging and cloning wheras the Intel - data migration tool (also Acronis) will only immediately clone one drive to another offering to upgrade to the full version if you want more features.

Honestly I haven't Cloned a drive in years. I tried it once with some proprietary drive makers software, back when big drives were 1-5GBs, and it took hours and hours. I could of and did do a reinstall of the OS and all my software in less time.

Yes all Aconis TI versions I have used have the ability to clone a drive but I have never used that feature so I have no idea how it work with TI. After my first experiences with cloning I opted for imaging as my method of moving OS programs and data from one drive to another or direct copying from drive to drive in the case of Data only.
If you and whs say the cloning feature in TI can save a clone of one drive to later be placed on another drive then OK I take your word on that. But that was not my original experience with cloning software. You had to connect both drives, boot the PC from a disk (floppy or CD) with the software, select the source disk then the destination disk and click OK. Then wait.

I'm going to reimage my main drive tonight in preparation for the arrival of the SSD so I'll give the clone feature a try. I'm going to take that image & load it on another 250GB drive, Make all the changes to the partitions sizes so all the partitions will fit on the SSD without having to resize them during the restore then make another image of that drive to load on the SSD. Making sure the alignment stays in the correct place with each image/restore.

 

[essenbe]

You are right. The WD version of Acronis does have a clone feature. I used it recently. It takes about 10 minutes and works perfectly.

 

[DreemWarrior]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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:



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]

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]

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]

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]

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).