Not sure why the other thread about the OCZ Vertex got locked, but I was going to add a note that they are in-stock at Amazon as well, for slightly cheaper than ZipZoomFly.
Printable View
Not sure why the other thread about the OCZ Vertex got locked, but I was going to add a note that they are in-stock at Amazon as well, for slightly cheaper than ZipZoomFly.
They are all instock at mwave right now. I just ordered the 120gb vertex and the woman told me they only have 17 left in stock so these are moving quickly.
30gb is out at both places.
id be interested in the 30/60gb vertex/apex/summit
but since they only offer castrated 30/60gb instead of the same performance as the 120/250gb ones.. if they continue the trend no ocz ssds for me.. ever :down::down:
ill wait for the supertalent ultradrives and if prices are better on the intel x25e then x25e it is
They are now available on Newegg as well.
OCZ Vertex 250GB 64mb cache - $875
OCZ Vertex 120GB 64mb cache - $415
OCZ Vertex 60GB 32mb cache - $245
OCZ Vertex 30GB 32mb cache - $135
No rebate or free shipping. Eh, maybe zipzoomfly will get another order in soon.
I'm very tempted to pick up the 120GB Vertex but must save up some cash first unfortunately.
Thnx, pulled the trigger for 2x30Gb for ghetto RAID0 action :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by scotb75
While these ATTO benches are impressive.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=500
I'm wondering if there's any chance of a comparison of a higher level benchmark - perhaps Vantage with the X-25 and the 3x Vertex RAID0?
Pulled the trigger on 2 30gb vertex raid 0 action to! If I want a bit more space or a performance boost I will just add another!
For those of you who plan to RAID 0 these drives what controllers do you plan to use? Is it as necessary with the Vertex drives, which have their own cache, to use a hardware controller with a cache? Thanks.
Most chipsets seem to be able to do no more bandwidth than a single Vertex at the maximum sequential speed. The X58 chipset seems to be able to do 3 (there may be a little bit capped). All hardware controllers I'm aware of come with cache, although since the drives are cached this won't give a massive performance increase. The Dell 5/i might do for 2. An Adaptec 2405 or equivalent would do 3. A 5 series Adaptec would do 4. Adaptec aren't the only manufacturers out there.
This drives seem to be my next C:/ drive. They perform really good for the price.
So where are the official reviews at???
I see people buying these and and foot, and testing them on their own!!! AGAIN!
We want some real world reviews and good comparisons!! Whats the deal!?
OCZ Forums has a ton of reviewers with some interesting results.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Hardware RAID doesn't work so great with the Vertex's it seems. Go ICHxR...
Going to use Onboard ICH10R at first because this controller has been getting some amazing results so far, in my opinion it seems to be better than hardware raid, but not sure about performance after 4 drives though! I'm only getting two first to see how it goes!Quote:
Originally Posted by D749
Picked up my 2x30 GB Vertex drives up today, gotta love MWave's Will Call pickup!
My first RAID setup...and with SSDs at that!
can't wait..
We want test numbers! :cool:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=218230Quote:
Originally Posted by D749
You mean that?
Basically from what i gather there a good entry level SSD on their own or with onboard RAID. when it comes to a dedicated RAID controller the onboard cache interfers with it and actually gives lesser performance.
entry level? I don't really get that feeling...these are now OCZs flagship SSD drives...I don't really consider these entry level....what's considered high end SSD then?Quote:
Originally Posted by acidpython
Intel ssd SLC E version?Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangeblast
MLC is budget, no matter the brand.
Its however for desktop a good balance bwteen cost/performance with MLC.
I think that our definition of high end differs!Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
X25-e is bargain bin junk that degrades just as much as the x25-m!
I think they might be included in my favourite cereal pack soon!
The following link is what I think most of us would consider high end or at least high end mainstream! i.e. we might have to save up for it for a month or to!
http://www.gadgetquid.com/storage/te...torage-device/
Edit: Perhaps the X25-e could be considered high end, if a degradation fixing firmware was released to help some of their customers faltering X25's off their crutches
Was quoted USD $25,000-$40,000 for a base TexasMemory device FYI (direct) but they were offering 25% off roughly at the time. On top you have to add whatever extra features you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
You could be looking at $50,000-$60,000 per device in all possibility (if my old quote is still somewhat accurate).
The Intel/Kingston X25-E is currently the highest performing SATAII 2.5" device on the market. Hopefully a firmware update will cure any "wierdness" in operation.
Hi LevishQuote:
Originally Posted by Levish
I think that sales guy may have been adding a time constraint to try to close the deal!
I know the X25-e is a great performer being SLC. but I would like to highlight that there are some MLC's that outperform SLC's, so I believe the metric to determine if a drive is 'High End' should not be based on "is it SLC or MLC?"
but how does it perform relative to the cross section of other ssd's available!
:up:
FYI - If you purchased a vertex from newegg, they just listed a rebate form you can fill out. Even though it wasn't up yesterday, it IS backdated for purchases from 3/1.
What do you mean by "outperform"? If you're talking only about max throughput, then yes that statement is true. If you look at most other aspects, this is typically, not true. I think people need to remember that there is more to a drive's performance than just max read/write speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
So your X25-m wouldn't outpace this SLC bad boy? http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/163...ive/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
Edit: “The Bottom Line: The Crucial CT32GBFAB0 gave us a good first look, but when it comes to real world performance the drive ran out of fizz and performed like a bad MCL drive.”
"but I would like to highlight that there are some MLC's that outperform SLC's"
Should my above statement be amended to something more accurate?
I forgot to put typically in my post-Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
And because what you said is typically true, I think my comment still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
"I know the X25-e is a great performer being SLC. but I would like to highlight that there are some MLC's that outperform SLC's, so I believe the metric to determine if a drive is 'High End' should not be based on "is it SLC or MLC?"
but how does it perform relative to the cross section of other ssd's available!"
Anyone getting close to spec numbers on the Vertex in both Read and Write?
So do these stutter at all? I'm considering a 30gb or 60gb vertex for a new asus 1000he netbook. I'm not going to put up with any problems such as stuttering though; in that case I'd just happily grab an intel x-25m and completely forget about ocz stuff.
I ordered a 60gb and got it for little over 200$ after rebates and discounts. Should be here next Wednesday. Will let you know if it stutters.
looks like vertex play very nice with adaptic raid card
2x30GB Vertex on Adaptec 5805
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9846/atto.png
Vertex: 30gb x 3 + Adaptec 5405
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6447/18228092.png
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8011/69021506.png
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8986/65777361.png
2x Vertex 120G Adaptec 2405 Raid
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...8&d=1236199296
from OCZ forums
I don't see how that first screenshot of the 2 vertexs showing over 800mb/s is real. There has got to be something else going on to achieve those numbers. That is DOUBLE the amount of read speed of the combined drives total read speed. :eek:
That image
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9846/atto.png
is not on this thread anymore.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=218753
Any way, I can't trust 800 MB/s of just 2 vertexes.
Hmmm.
Does the larger capacity Vertex stack up to a G Skill Titan? I'm playing with that now and am taking a wait and see on the degradation issue. @ $300 for 128GB it's priced better than the OCZ product.
Any ATTO on a single Vertex using the onboard controller?
Here's an ATTO of my Titan on the D5400XS
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/600/attossd.jpg
It's just the cache of the raid card.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRW21
The Vertex will be better than the Titan. The Titan is an internally RAID0'ed drive. The Vertex is a single drive, plus it has cache.
The Apex is also internally RAID0´ed or not?
So has anyone somewhere done some real life file copy and multitasking tests or are we still throwing all those hundreds of MB synthetics around in awe and waiting for some bad news to hit the fan when first batches are sold out?
Where are all those review sites at?
All I see is lots of trusting people buying their drives blindly and testing ATTO, IOmeter... +one maybe two slim and early reviews...
Apex = TitanQuote:
Originally Posted by Bla$nA
Same SSDs, slightly different firmware giving the Titan the edge.
I'm very close to purchasing 3 120GB Vertex's. The read speeds are almost exactly what my Titans do, but the writes are a different story. Write performance is pretty solid on the new Vertex's.
The OCZ forums have a bunch of people's first hand experience using their brand new Vertex's. Yeah, there's a lot of noobs on there running synthetic benchmarks, but there's also quite a few threads with some valuable info.
Nobody has reported any stuttering as of yet except for one guy. He has 2 Vertex's in R0, and said he gets pauses when copying HUGE amounts of data to the array, but the info is sketchy in his post.... so far I think people are pleased.
But yeah, I need more info before dropping another $1,200...
OR, I just keep my Titans since they're working just fine, just a little slower on the writes....
Brahmzy, really don't see the point if you have SSD already, the improvement will be minimal for a large amount of money dropped.
Yes, apex are internally raid 0. So, basically...60gb apex is technically two 30gb ssds in Raid 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bla$nA
2x30gb raid 0 128k Aligned, 128k stripe, On board ICH10R, XP OS drive 1/4 full.
No sign of stutter what so ever!
No tweaks yet except disk Alignment and WB cache enabled.
Better how? Single drive to single drive how could it be better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
Are you saying the Titans do not scale as well in RAID?
Are there some metrics you could show me to back that?
It is much better at small random writes. 10-20 per second on the Titan and 2450 per second on vertex. That is the biggest difference. You may or may not notice it depending on your usage patterns. Vertex also reads faster, but the difference is not too drastic. If you are happy with your drive right now and see no stuttering then just keep it...Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberDruid
It has cache, better IOPS. Will handle smaller read/writes better.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberDruid
Thanks guys. When I got the Titan I knew absolutely nothing about it :D But the price was too good to pass up.
Any other benchmarks? PCmark Vantage, CrystalDisk, MFT-
How come your atto scores are low on the Titan drive? When I had my 256g titan with atto it was right at 160write and 250 read. This was on the R2E ICH10r.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberDruid
Here are my results on Vista with my single Vertex 120gb aligned to 128. I am currently running it as my OS drive and its very very snappy! It is leaps and bounds faster than my WD6400AAKS. Loading times for my games are ridiculously low and there are zero stuttering problems. I can install multiple games/programs at once and still surf the internet will no stalls.
can you post a crystaldiskmark 1000Mb run?
Here is my crystalmark. The difference between my ATTO and this crystalmark is that the ATTO was done before I was using the vertex as my OS drive. The crystalmark was done while using the vertex as my OS drive. The drive is currently at 30% capacity.
vey very nice:up:
I just noticed because I was looking at the 4k results, your sequential writing is lower than the 512k?
That is probably an artifact of having the OS and program on the disk you are testing.
Hi babalouj
Would you mind running another test?
This is a test that Marios created. and only takes a couple of minutes. I have attached the batch file as a zip file.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marios
^ by short stroking ssds performance drops doesnt increase as on hdds
ive tried it on my ssds.. best to have any ssd @ 100%
marios/anyone else saying smaller ssd partition increases performance.. mind posting some benches?
Hi NapalmV5, That reference is to HDD on another thread. Marios asked me to try a small partition on a SDD to confirm his suspicion that performance would drop. I tried to find out but could not get my SDD to create a smaller partition.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Out of interest how much of a performance drop did you see? Did you have problems creating a smaller partition on your SSD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by babalouj
Why is the write speed so low?
They aren't bad :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by JRW21
Only thing that is sort of weak is the 4k random writes. But the ATTO looks fine.
Anyone else thinking ATTO isn't very accurate with the Vertex? Results i've seen are all over the place.
I'd really like to see some benchmarks other than ATTO- Anyone? Don't worry, I ain't gonna attack/make fun of any numbers or anything. Just want to see some real results- I'll keep my thoughts to myself.... :up:
2x30gb - ICH10R 128K Stripe 128k Alignment, write back cache enabled, No tweaks other than that. Might get a couple more or though the fourth might be capped by the onboard raid, but 3 drives looks to perform great, so may just go with 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
Attachment 96001
Attachment 96002
Thanks for posting-
Did anyone measure if this "alignment" is beneficial in real world situations? If yes by how much?
The thing is... I feel that if it really shows to be a benefit of alignment then Vertex is once again an SSD product not really intended/suited for the masses as you must once again jump through hoops to run it as best as it can run...
I mean it isnt really an issue if the difference isn't noticeable. But than if we are already at that "its fast enough" point, than why all the Raids and future products... j/k :D
It should only be mainly beneficial for Xp users as Xp does not align the drive. If you start with a completely fresh drive in vista, vista aligns the partition.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
I run XP and tested a single 30gb drive without any alignment, and if I remember correctly atto showed that it had read speeds of 140-150 mb/s as opposed to 190-200 mb/s. I the time I did save the bench marks so i could compare them, but in my excitement to get them up to speed I forgot to transfer them to another disk before I re-partitioned.
I couldn't tell you If they ran a OS without any problems as I didn't install anything on it at that point.
Changes based on what SSD you have. Aligned versus unaligned makes no difference for my X25-Es in sequential rates or in random reads/writes. I haven't done any real world tests though.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Wrong. Tony (OCZ) is saying "you have to align" with Vista 64 as well as disable indexing and prefetch on the Vertex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=52462
My guess is results are affected by the implementation, or otherwise, of alignment, OS cache and other tweaks recommended by OCZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
Still no reviews, but at least now you can see Vertex customer feedback on the OCZ forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Rhys, I have owned a OCZ SDD. I now own 2 Intel X25-E SDD's. I have run them for two months as my primary OS with none of the OCZ recommended tweaks and have not bothered with alignment. I have not noticed any affects of the reported degradation of the X25-M on my X25-E's despite running synthetic benchmarks. If I had I would not be hiding the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
Are you basing your statement on the PC Perspective review? Is so there are a few issues that I have with that review, which is specifically on the X25-M and NOT the X25-E by the way.
First, it is unclear from the review what exactly they mean by a drop in performance in terms of what that actually equates to outside of synthetic benchmarking. If it is a drop in benchmark performance that is not exactly a revelation. If it is a drop in performance in real world scenarios they failed to quantify what that meant in real term use.
It is unclear from the review if the reported drop in performance occurred after benchmarking the drive and continued use afterwards in normal use. Intel SDD's adapt to usage patterns so if they were synthetic benchmarking and then using the drive afterwards that would not be reflective of users experience.
Where did the statement "We will attempt these [fixes] by following Intel’s own advice on the matter, exploring two of their suggested methods." come from? When Intel issued the drives for review they asked reviewers to format the drives after each synthetic benchmark test. Why? Because the drives adapt to user usage patterns that would affect the validity of the tests. Intel have stated that they have not be able to replicate the reported findings in the PC Perspective review, so I somehow doubt they gave this advice to PC Perspective in response to the "problem" they "discovered".
Again I own Intel SDD drives and I have not seen the slightest degradation in real term use, but if I did would it be the end of the world? Not really. I use Windows image back up. It takes me 10 minutes to wipe the drive and restore the image. Defragging a HDD takes ages and admittedly whist you can do other tasks at the same time spending 10 minutes every couple of months to wipe the drive and reinstall the image would hardly seem to be the end of the world.
I can only comment on the X25-E, but perhaps owners of the X25-M could comment on their experience degradation?
Regarding the 800 MB/s reads on the previous page...
That was my post over at OCZ, and the speed is clearly just a product of the 512k cache on the 5805. I posted the result in order to dispel some early rumors that began surfacing there that Vertex have issues with Adaptec cards - they obviously do not. Here you can see that the Atto result should not be taken at face value:
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6103/62261685.png
This means that either A) Tony doesn't know what the fudge he's talking about, or B) The Vertex reports incorrect geometry to Windows Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by audienceofone
Vista (GUI or DiskPart) automatically aligns to the drive's reported geometry.
While it's true that XP does not do alignment, that doesn't mean you can't create an aligned partition for XP using Vista WinPE (e.g. download the AIK to create a WinPE bootable solution on optical or USB memory stick).
wow performance degradation seems MUCH heavier on vertex drives than even Intel drives.
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=52526
Two X25-E degraded to the maximum (nearly a month of usage + a bunch of iometer runs):
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1...5edegraded.jpg
The sequential writes are between 150-250MB/s, the 512kb writes are pretty stable and the 4kb writes are between 90-120MB/s. The reads are all dead stable.
:eek: Rhys, I've attached HDDErase. Looks like you are going to need it as adding more drives to your array ain't going to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Lol Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by audienceofone
What is special about HDDErase? could I not just delete the raid partition in 'Disk Management' so that it is a RAW drive again, and then use diskpar to rebuild the partition and then image back over the OS (XP).
As you said "Defragging a HDD takes ages and admittedly whist you can do other tasks at the same time spending 10 minutes every couple of months to wipe the drive and reinstall the image would hardly seem to be the end of the world."
My raid array is still running ok so far and it is just over 75% full (so might add another drive anyway even if I'm not after additional performance), ATTO & HD Tach show only a relatively small difference from when the drive only had an OS on it, so I will see how it goes.
I think there is talk of supporting the trim function (will work in windows and Linux) in upcoming firmware releases, so this should help out allot, and the drives performance should see an upgrade also!
Has anyone heard anymore regarding Intel's solution for fragmentation?
Here is my X25-M after one run of IOmeter. Less than 2 hours after doing a clean install on it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...icture1-14.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...icture1-13.jpg
Happens everytime I do a large Iometer run. It took me a while to figure out what was causing it.
Hi LowfatQuote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
Thanks, I will be sure not to run Iometer then!
What method do you use to get your drive back up to speed?
:up:
@ Rhys, bottom line is that synthetic benchmarks don't really mean jack with SDD's. It's user experience that matters and if your SDD's aren't being affected I wouldn't be too bothered with benchmark results. If your user experience is being affected the good news is that a quick format and re-image should get you back to full performance and it's much quicker than defragging a HDD, so no big deal :)
As far as I know Intel gave out HDDErase 3.3 to reviewers to enable them to format X-25-E after each test. They asked reviewers to format after each benchmark because benchmarks affect the way the Intel drives perform due to the way they adapt to usage. I don't know if HDDErase is the most applicable way to format on an OCZ drive, but I'm sure the guys at the OCZ forum could advice you.
@ lowfat, out of interest have you tried not running synthetic benchmark to see if a perceivable drop in speed occurs based on real world use? If so that would be concerning, if not does a in synthetic benchmark really matter?
I've seen relatively small drops in synthetic benchmarks on the X25-E's but absolutely no perceivable drop in real world use.
When the SSD is brand new from the factory or has been secure erased, all the cells contain no data in them. All the drive has to do is write data to them to get the job done. Once all the cells have been filled even once, what the drive will have to do in order to make a new write is to delete the previous contents of the cell first, and only then make that write operation. Naturally this takes about double the time than writing to a blank cell.
When you fill up the drive with IOMeter test file, all the cells become "filled" and even after you erase the test file, they are still filled because the drive does NOT know which cells contain valid user data and which do not. So it is not about how much space you are currently using, its more about how much space you've used so far overall.
The above applies to most of the performance SSDs...
I have no idea why Vertex drives are seeing a drop in the reads... That logically should not happen and doesn't happen to all the X-25 drives. The degradation should only apply to the writes.
A possible solution to performance degradation is to make a program that would be aware of the internal wear leveling algorithms of the SSD in question and would be able to tell the drive which cells do not contain valid user data so it could go ahead and do the erasing whenever you want it to and not right before doing writing operations. I believe Intel is working on something like this, but it seems like they aren't having too much luck. Programs like this would be SSD specific for obvious reasons... There won't be one program that will support all SSDs.
I used HDDerase 3.30 as mentioned above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
I am trying to follow the comparison here but I may be misreading, or not have seen, some of the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Doesn't lowfat's CrystalDiskMark benchmark on the X-25M show the exact same or worse degradation of reads and writes as the the same bench performed on the Vertex by "Bob Dobalina" in the OCZ forum?
Or is there otherwise a pattern of evidence that Vertex degrades more?
Maybe M$ could do this on OS level? I don't think it is anything an end user should be concerned with. In Intel is probably trying to this on firmware level...Quote:
A possible solution to performance degradation is to make a program that would be aware of the internal wear leveling algorithms of the SSD in question and would be able to tell the drive which cells do not contain valid user data so it could go ahead and do the erasing whenever you want it to and not right before doing writing operations. I believe Intel is working on something like this, but it seems like they aren't having too much luck. Programs like this would be SSD specific for obvious reasons... There won't be one program that will support all SSDs.
But it does sound logical... cells marked for deletion should at least be deleted when the drive is idle... Something like reverse of write back caching - cache the info on what cells need to be emptied... and empty them on idle time
:)
I think Bob's reads degraded a lot too? Lowfat's X25-M is showing 244MB/s reads; 250 is normal so that is fine, no degradation of reads while the vertex had quite a lot. Writes are both bad percentage wise. Vertex 195 to 75 for two drives, X25-M 70 to 27 for one drive. Actually, both drives degraded to exactly 38.5% of their original write performance. What an odd coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane
The degradation isn't really a big issue, as other have stated, you just need to set up a system where you take an image of ur boot array, then wipe it, then put the image back on. The defrag of HDDs takes a similar amount of time so I don't see what the problem is for enthusiasts.
Someone might want to tell this guy about the performance degradation before he spends tons of time and money...
Who is OCZ letting run the place over there?
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=52566
I am sure they'll make a sticky soon to explain everything to people. There are lots of posts about it now all over the place.
Until microsoft fully supports ssd's, performance may always drop. Supposedly windows 7 will offer better support for ssd users but I think we need a totally different OS
From what I hear Linux may be a good choice, it already has Trim commands ect! seems to evolve faster than windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by WRC
But of course the drives need to be able to support those commands.
Edit: Microsoft might improve W7 support with a service pack or in a next RC.
I don't know which degrades worse, but sure did look like reads were beginning to suffer badly in places in the atto. Also PCper results show a pretty bad reduction in read speed also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane
It seems convenient that because the x25 'Learns' usage patterns, the drive was wiped after each benchmark. This would have also prevented the reviewer from discovering the degradation problem.
Intel say they can't replicate PCper results! Not sure I believe that.
Are all the review sites still hung over from CEBIT or something? Where are the Vertex reviews?
Ordered a 60GB and 120GB Vertex today... should arrive tomorrow, what do you guys wanna see for testing? I was thinking HDTach R/W, ATTO, Crystaldisk and maybe a few IOmeter runs on the ICH10R. Didn't know you had to fully erase the disk afterwards to get it back up tp speed yet, thanks for that - any other tools out there? Cause I can't find that one anywhere for download.
This whole degrading performance/defrag issue is another dropped ball by SSD manufacturers and MS. Plugged one hole-alignment in Vista and W7, here goes another one... This should be handled at FW or OS level, not HyperFast/PerfectDisk...Quote:
Originally Posted by WRC
Agreed. Obviously we're not the first to suddenly find out about this. I'm sure engineers/devs at M$ and the SSD manu's know about these limitations. Will this continuie toplague any future SSDs? Or is it perhaps and technology issue that will be addressed at the hardware level? I think it needs to be addressed at the hardware level. I don't want my OS having to worry about anything more to do with starge than is absolutely necessary. It should be able to read and write at will. I think the controllers on these things need to be more intelligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by F@32
Again, I vote that the OS should remain storage - independant for the most part until there is one hardware standard. Unfortunately, that will never be the case, so it needs top happen below the OS.
No offense but all those benches are done all over the place 100x already:(Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Try and be creative and give us some real world results, large and small file copies, load times and compare that to other storage setups you can get your hands on.
Any real world experience you can share will be appreciated:)
So people have shown that all over the place, including difference between 32mb and 64mb cache models of Vertex? I must have missed that ;)
Sure I'll try and do a few real world benches as well, unfortunately I won't have time to do a proper review/comparison because these drives are way overdue already, and I got customers waiting for their builds :(
Exactly. Why do people buy a SDD drive? To run benchmarks made for HDD? Surely people want something that gives snappy OS and program performance and if so the question is not how benchmarks are affected but how does real usage get affected, which is something no-one seems to have answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
That said, I'm intrigued as to what is happening to here.
An SDD that shows 50% of written data is not showing how may cells have written data. In addition technology is being used to limit wear by distributing data across cells to limit the times they are written......if you try to shrink a SDD partition you can't do it.
Wear technology and the lack of ability to flush the cells of unwanted data. I'm still trying to get my head round this so please bear with me.......
If you have a 32GB SDD drive and during the Win 7/ Vista install process temporary files create 24/26 GB of written data the cells are technically 80% full as the files that were temporarily written are still kept on the SDD cells.
Does that not mean that the SDD is already 80% degraded by just installing the OS. Add a few basic programs and take into account temporary files being written in the process and the drive's cells are likely to be 100% full, so why would a 32GB drive benchmark well on a fresh install and then see a significant drop in performance after a few days?
From what I understand it does not matter how much data is in the cell, it takes the same time to overwrite it. So once the cells are full the drop in performance should be definable based on how many cells are being overwritten.... but is it?
The other thing that is puzzling me...in the scenario of a 32GB drive OS install leaving all cells with written data, how does the drive know where to distribute data to prevent wear? Assuming it does know how to overwrite data on cells that are not required why can't a process be developed to clear data that is not wanted? If wear distribution can only work on cell with no data does the drive wear out quicker as a result?
I guess what I am getting at is this.
1. Does degradation affect real use performance? (I can answer this at least for the X25-E. No).
2. If the time taken to overwrite a cell is quantifiable the drop in performance should match depending on how much data is being overwritten. (If it isn't that would seem to raise more questions).
3. Does degradation occur quicker on smaller drivers in comparison to larger drives? (If it doesn't that would seem to raise more questions).
I'm just an end user of SDD technology trying to work this out. Thanks for hearing me out.
Deleted
Audience are you trying to spread a pack of lies?
Go to any hardware manufacturers support forum and you'll see plenty of problems with the hardware.
You don't have to disable prefetch or indexing, those are just tweaks that OCZ suggest may improve performance.
You have to format the drive every couple of days? That's just rubbish. The guy that had severe performance issues had used a piece of software not designed for SSDs, and had to use another piece of software to fix it.
What hardware compatibility issues? Again you're talking rubbish. Any compatibility issues from the OCZ forums seem to be with very old hardware or with weird hardware.
It wasn't delayed for months. Another lie.
Deleted
Of course it was delayed. It wasn't delayed for months though. You need to realise that people see XS as a source of information, and posting a pack of lies is irresponsible. There's perhaps a grain of truth behind each of them. Yes some people have had problems, yes it was delayed, yes eventually performance can become degraded. But why the enormous exaggerations?
Halk, I don't think I exaggerated anything that I did not read from the words of OCZ's own moderator, but fair enough I've deleted the posts as I don't really want to detract from the questions in my earlier post, which is not OCZ specific btw.
This version works for the Intel drives, later ones don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool