|
Dogen posted:Since video editing is a sequential task, and raid 0 only improves sequential performance, I'd say you would see some benefit there, though I don't know how much. RAID 0 will improve random performance as well on SSDs. It doesn't help on mechanical drives because of seek times. That said, SSDs get such good random performance already you're very rarely disk bound on random accesses anyway.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
Zhentar posted:RAID 0 will improve random performance as well on SSDs. It doesn't help on mechanical drives because of seek times. It should, a little, because of the increase in throughtput. Just like a 50mb/s internet connection will transfer a 100k file faster than a 10mb/s one will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:RAID 0 will improve random performance as well on SSDs. It doesn't help on mechanical drives because of seek times. It only helps with QD over 1, which is not most things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:my SSD is getting 2MB/s reads. Time to get a new motherboard because this contoller is hosed Its far more likely that the SSD is dieing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Its far more likely that the SSD is dieing. Read speeds on my samsung F3 are 40/35 poped the SSD in my other PC ran a bench got max SATA II speeds and +25k IOPS
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
I have a 64Gb samsung 830, and my write speeds seem to be really low compared to benchmark numbers that I've seen. Sequential read speed is around 500 Mb/s or so, but sequential write speed is only around 160 Mb/s. All of my sata ports are listed as sata600. The motherboard is an Asrock 890GX Pro3. I checked the sequential write speed of a WD caviar blue attached to the same motherboard and it's only 40 Mb/s less than my SSD. What's going on here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
Sleipnir posted:I have a 64Gb samsung 830, and my write speeds seem to be really low compared to benchmark numbers that I've seen. Sequential read speed is around 500 Mb/s or so, but sequential write speed is only around 160 Mb/s. All of my sata ports are listed as sata600. The motherboard is an Asrock 890GX Pro3. I checked the sequential write speed of a WD caviar blue attached to the same motherboard and it's only 40 Mb/s less than my SSD. What's going on here? is it set to AHCI mode in the bios?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:is it set to AHCI mode in the bios? I just checked again, and it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Sleipnir posted:but sequential write speed is only around 160 Mb/s... What's going on here? The benchmarks you've seen are probably for 128GB or 256GB drives. Your 64GB works internally like a RAID 0 array with 8 drives in it. The 128GB+ drives work like a RAID 0 array with 16 or more drives. This doesn't matter for reads (which are already bottlenecked by other factors with only the 8-way spread), but for writes, you only get half the throughput you would with a 128GB drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
DNova posted:32,256 is bad. (It is not evenly divisible by 4,096). I don't really know what the deal is with fixing that. I ended up following this Lifehacker tutorial for shifting my partition offset. It's probably kludgy, but it worked. I ended up having to create a MBR on the SSD manually, since the Linux boot disc I made didn't have dd, and the Windows install disc I burned (legally-- I got the OS through MS's student promos, and the cheapasses at Digitalriver only gave me an ISO to play with) kept having trouble. Reassigning drive letters was another adventure, but I got through that too. Now to copy the little programs I run every boot over onto the new root drive. Thanks a lot again, DNova. I really appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:The benchmarks you've seen are probably for 128GB or 256GB drives. Your 64GB works internally like a RAID 0 array with 8 drives in it. The 128GB+ drives work like a RAID 0 array with 16 or more drives. This doesn't matter for reads (which are already bottlenecked by other factors with only the 8-way spread), but for writes, you only get half the throughput you would with a 128GB drive. Oh, that makes sense, thanks for explaining. I'm pretty happy with the drive nonetheless; it's a lot snappier as an OS drive compared to what I had.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
 OCZ Trip report:So I would like to say I didn't read the OP before making my poor decision but it was more like cognitive dissonance. Anyhow, just wanted to say that I had an OCZ Vertex 3 that installed windows fine and ran quick and was having no problems... Then I tried to steammove Skyrim to the SSD and windows hanged and then BSOD (yay!). But what's better is afterwards the SSD ceased to exist as far as the BIOS was concerned (obviously it knows better than me) with no amount of powering on/off or resetting the CMOS would fix. Suffice to say that I am fortunate enough to get a store credit which I will be using on either an Intel or Crucial drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
ChiliMac posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Thanks for that. I really wonder what OCZ is doing to cause all these failures, it seems like just soldering a controller, some flash, and some random components to a PCB would be a pretty easy thing not to gently caress up, yet somehow their drives fail at least twice as often as similar competitor drives. They just do lovely basic electronics work is I think a big part of the problem. Just looking at their power supplies (I haven't seen a teardown of any SSDs) you see lovely design, lovely wiring, and you have to assume their QA is also lovely or they would stop the worst units getting through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Dogen posted:They just do lovely basic electronics work is I think a big part of the problem. Just looking at their power supplies (I haven't seen a teardown of any SSDs) you see lovely design, lovely wiring, and you have to assume their QA is also lovely or they would stop the worst units getting through. It's a shame that they bought out PC Power and Cooling. The pre-OCZ Silencer in my fileserver works great, but I wouldn't consider buying one now. Hopefully their purchase of Indilinx pays off, but given their track record I kinda doubt it. future ghost fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Dec 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Dogen posted:or they would stop the worst units getting through. How do you know they don't? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
grumperfish posted:Keep in mind that they also basically got laughed out of the DRAM market. They claim they pulled out to focus on SSD's, but their 2.2V DDR2 modules basically all exploded so it was probably more to get out of honoring warranties and returns. They may have released some un-certified no name poo poo box PSUs in the past but the stuff they are putting out now like the Z series is decent enough. Then again, who knows what direction the wind blows with OCZ when their name rides on the OEMs they partner up with? As much as I loathe OCZ I admit they are a sales and marketing wunderkind. They have this knack of jumping on board at just the right moment to steal market share like buccaneers on the high seas of computer technology. They slap all the right stickers on the products of their OEM partners and give them edgy names like Vertex and Agility, which shouldn't impress you but secretly it makes you go "oooohh" against your better judgement. They are masters of this poo poo and like all successful privateer marketeers, they are utterly ruthless and have no qualms about sac'ing OEMs that made their name and replacing them with low cost alternatives whilst ramping up the sales rhetoric to squeeze the $$$. As much as Intel has a reputation for reliability, the 320 product launch was a bit of a wet fart and they had a firmware recall back in July of this year. So their gen3 stuff is bit like the SSD version of netburst where they have allowed much smaller companies to beat them in the short term. But hey, its Intel and you can never count them out. After getting a bloody nose from AMD over Socket 939/Athlon 64, they came back to mercilessly pummel AMD year on year since Conroe. They are still punching AMD in the nuts, for the hell of it at this point. Most of the really important SSD companies right now are ones that small fish like you and me have never heard of (i.e. Fusion-IO). OCZ have still managed to swashbuckle themselves a niche on the consumer level purely on the strength of their marketing. Its amazing really given their history in this market segment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
I may be an edge case, but my Crucial M4 has started to act up again. It first started going wrong in November, but I zeroed the drive and it seemed to have fixed the problem. When the problems started up again (every process hanging in sequence, BSODs about 'critical system threads being terminated', etc), I ran HDDScan on it and it came up with 932 bad blocks in little clusters, so I'm guessing the flash itself is going bad.
Lediur fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Dec 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
quote:As much as Intel has a reputation for reliability, the 320 product launch was a bit of a wet fart and they had a firmware recall back in July of this year. So their gen3 stuff is bit like the SSD version of netburst where they have allowed much smaller companies to beat them in the short term You are understating the reliability of the Intel 320s imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
Lediur posted:I may be an edge case, but my Crucial M4 has started to act up again. It first started going wrong in November, but I zeroed the drive and it seemed to have fixed the problem. When the problems started up again (every process hanging in sequence, BSODs about 'critical system threads being terminated', etc), I ran HDDScan on it and it came up with 932 bad blocks in little clusters, so I'm guessing the flash itself is going bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 07:09
|
|
|
My Intel 320 120GB drive runs like lightning from my perspective, but apparently my benchmarks are about half of what they should be: I've got AHCI enabled in the OS and BIOS, and the drive is hooked up through a SATA 3 connector on the motherboard. The motherboard itself is a GA 770TA-UD3 with 4 GB of RAM and an AMD X3 435 processor, if those might have any bearing on things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Could be, but do you have the latest firmware on the drive? First thing I did back in November, then I checked the iastor / link state power management settings and all that jazz. I'm probably going to send it back to Crucial for a warranty replacement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
So I set up a RAID-0 2 drive SSD array in the bios, then installed windows 7 onto that "drive". I am now realizing that I don't think Windows knows that it is in fact installed on an SSD. Isn't it supposed to detect that and disable certain things like defrag, prefetch, etc? Is there a way I can force Windows to install as if it's being installed on an SSD? What exactly does it it change? Will I need to make these adjustments manually? Thanks! EDIT: Although this article is a bit old, I think this guy may have answered my question - http://vladsnotes.hrybok.com/PermaLink,guid,b337fd48-7f00-4633-a31a-2a22352fbf90.aspx Treytor fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Dec 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 15:05
|
|
|
First, I wanna say thanks for the OP. It was immensely helpful in picking an SSD. I just picked up the crucial M4 128 gb and installed it into my case and connected it via SATA 6gb. My computer detected it and everything and it's reading as 119 gb unallocated space (where the other 9 gb went is beyond me.) I have read through the entire SSD thread but am yet to see a definitive go-to formatting guide. I would just like to move my windows operating system and games on the SSD in the easiest, most user-friendly method possible. I'm not terribly incompetent with tech but this is my first time building a new rig/formatting drives. Can someone point me to a guide or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Chronos13 posted:First, I wanna say thanks for the OP. It was immensely helpful in picking an SSD. I'm pretty sure the difference in data is because the capacity on the box is measured with regular decimal metric prefixes, where 1GB equals 1000MB, and on your computer it's measured in binary prefixes, wehre 1GB is 1024MB. So you aren't losing any capacity. Correct me if that's wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Farking Bastage posted:This is from a Dell Latitude E6410. I'm pretty sure it's only a SATA2 controller in this one, but I've had difficulty verifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm pretty sure the difference in data is because the capacity on the box is measured with regular decimal metric prefixes, where 1GB equals 1000MB, and on your computer it's measured in binary prefixes, wehre 1GB is 1024MB. So you aren't losing any capacity. Correct me if that's wrong though. Well, there are 128 binary gigabytes of flash memory in the drive. The other 9GiB is spare area used for wear leveling, to extend the lifespan of the drive. That said, I'm betting it's not a coincidence that the spare area set aside happens to be pretty much exactly the same as the difference between binary and decimal gigabytes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:Well, there are 128 binary gigabytes of flash memory in the drive. The other 9GiB is spare area used for wear leveling, to extend the lifespan of the drive. That said, I'm betting it's not a coincidence that the spare area set aside happens to be pretty much exactly the same as the difference between binary and decimal gigabytes. Hrm, the internet seems to say that what I thought was correct, but NAND manufacturers stick in some extra anyways to use for wear leveling. Weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Hrm, the internet seems to say that what I thought was correct, but NAND manufacturers stick in some extra anyways to use for wear leveling. Weird. One part racket, one part behind the scenes drive life expansion while still preserving, effectively, the appearance of standardized sizes. GB vs. GiB is loving us again (but this time rather more gently than usual!) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What pdf?  Suffice it to say that it was kind of a big deal like a year or two ago. Some guy was basically like "hey why won't SSDs replace mechanical hard drives for a long loving time if ever" and answered the question in a really nice presentation. "Worth it" is up to you. Honestly, computers are really really loving cheap - I mean come on, people pay $40K+ for cars when a lovely Kia will probably suffice, or three figures and up for a bottle of wine; if you like computers and spend a lot of time using them then an SSD is really no big deal. I actually got my ex an SSD before I had one; I got her an 80GB first-gen X25-M for $150 in March 2010. I got a 120GB G2 myself a year ago at the equally amazing price of ~$140 after multiple discounts/rebates. Now they're ~$1/GB and perform even better, and the idea of having any computing device better than a phone without an SSD in it seems ridiculous. Once I actually have a job again I'll probably get a pair in RAID 0 just for a >500GB Steam/big clunky apps drive, I'm still using a short-stroked big drive for that. tzirean posted:However, that's made my boot time even longer, and the longest part is the Windows boot animation. I went through and timed the sequence, starting with the splash screen: Dogen posted:If someone in the computer hardware aisle is giving away free advice, they probably have no idea what the gently caress they are talking about. There is a dude at my local Fry's who just hangs out all day and does this and never buys anything.  Of course, on the whole, advice from random customers is about as useful as advice from that guy you work with who builds "awesome gaming PCs" and then you post a parts list in the stickied thread here and are thoroughly embarrassed because it's all garbage.redeyes posted:Its far more likely that the SSD is dieing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
Straker posted:Most of the people in this thread know an order of magnitude more than most Fry's/BB etc. caliber employees - I've helped plenty of random people in stores before We call him Travis. But I've been a store Travis now and then, as well. I always feel a little bad letting people know about Newegg and taking money out of Best Buy's pocket, because that on a large scale tends to make Best Buy squeeze the rest of the folks even harder for "bargain" $25 HDMI cables, janky TVs with overdriven crappy panels costing the same as the nice IPS on the bottom shelf, and a teensy collection of overpriced computer parts.Oh well, gently caress 'em. They wouldn't hire me as a high schooler because I wanted $0.50 an hour over minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:We call him Travis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Thinking about going to an SSD. My current boot drive is 1.5TB, and my steam folder is over 300GB. For those of you that have made the jump, have you has having to change your habits to the smaller capacity been a bother at all? For example, deleting games you're done with, etc. I'm wondering if I can get away with a 128gb M4, or if I need to spring for a 256.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Thinking about going to an SSD. My current boot drive is 1.5TB, and my steam folder is over 300GB. For those of you that have made the jump, have you has having to change your habits to the smaller capacity been a bother at all? For example, deleting games you're done with, etc. I'm wondering if I can get away with a 128gb M4, or if I need to spring for a 256. Put multiple drives in your computer. Leave your 1.5TB in for steam and most things. Yes some games will benefit from being on the SSD many wont. Use steam mover (I believe its linked in the OP) to move games to the SSD (install steam to D:\ or you end up with wasted space taken up by valve titles) If you're using a laptop with only 1 bay, you could probably get away with a 128GB if you had a desktop setup for storing some other stuff, I'd recommend against an external drive for gaming, but for many other things its probably fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
I'm thinking about getting a SSD for my main machine (2500K w/8GB RAM) and I posted in the upgrade thread but they told me to go here for recommendations. I would want something that would be good for loading games/Windows/programs really quick. I also do occasional video work but its usually just encoding which is CPU bound anyway. I would like to keep it $200 or less but if that's not possible then recommend the least expensive one over $200 that would do the job. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:I'm thinking about getting a SSD for my main machine (2500K w/8GB RAM) and I posted in the upgrade thread but they told me to go here for recommendations. I would want something that would be good for loading games/Windows/programs really quick. I also do occasional video work but its usually just encoding which is CPU bound anyway. I would like to keep it $200 or less but if that's not possible then recommend the least expensive one over $200 that would do the job. Thanks in advance. my vote: crucial m4 128gb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
I'm seconding the Crucial M4 line. I have two--128GB in a laptop and a 256 in my desktop. Both have worked exceptionally well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick replies but do I get one with the transfer kit or is it not necessary? Edit: I plan on doing a clean install of Win7 so I probably won't need it right? spasticColon fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Thanks for the quick replies but do I get one with the transfer kit or is it not necessary? I didn't opt for the transfer kit so both SSD's were used on fresh installs of windows. It wasn't necessary for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
spasticColon posted:I'm thinking about getting a SSD for my main machine (2500K w/8GB RAM) and I posted in the upgrade thread but they told me to go here for recommendations. I would want something that would be good for loading games/Windows/programs really quick. I also do occasional video work but its usually just encoding which is CPU bound anyway. I would like to keep it $200 or less but if that's not possible then recommend the least expensive one over $200 that would do the job. Thanks in advance. Tom's hardware recommendations: Force 3 for $170 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/buy-ssd-recommendation-value,3088-3.html OCZ Vertex 3 or Samsung 830 for $200 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/buy-ssd-recommendation-value,3088-4.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:54
|
|