|
teethgrinder posted:I just upgraded to an SSD and I'd like to 1. rant about how loving lovely Win7 is about moving the Users directory to another drive, and 2. request you put instructions for accomplishing this in the OP. I know this is from a few days ago and you've been given a few alternatives, but this is how I handled this issue. My main user profile folder is on my SSD, so I still get the speed benefit for stuff like AppData and the like. But for Documents and Music/Movies/Pictures, I went to Properties -> Location tab and moved them to my non-SSD storage drive.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
My work laptop is a Lenovo T410 with one of the Samsung SSDs (MMCRE28G8MXP-0VBL1 , firmware version VBM1EL1Q) installed that were so popular with OEMs. It was never a particularly speedy drive compared to most other SSDs, but it was still a noticeable performance boost over a regular hard drive. I've had the laptop for almost two years now and lately I've been noticing a decrease in performance and times where the laptop feels sluggish or like I'm waiting for the disk. So I fired up CDM and was very disappointed with the results (attached). I'm running Windows 7 and although the drive itself supports TRIM, the latest firmware Lenovo has released for it doesn't include TRIM. It looks like people have figured out ways to flash the latest Samsung firmware to the drive to enable TRIM, but it involves hotplugging the drive at a certain point once you've started the flash utility and I don't really feel like messing with that. Apparently this drive does internal garbage collection if it's formatted using NTFS, but given my CDM figures I don't think that's working. I'm not running Lenovo's factory install, but I am using the Lenovo provided drivers and such. Anyone know how I can verify if the internal GC is in fact working (and if not, how I can enable it)? Or any suggestions on how I might be able to get back to the performance the drive had when it was new? Worst case scenario, I have a Vertex 3 MAX IOPS sitting in my desk that I could just swap in. (We picked it up for another machine, but forgot that the other machine only fits 1.8" drives, unlike the T410 which can take 2.5" or 1.8" drives.) But I'd kinda like to know how I can make this thing run better, since I'm sure I'm not the only one having this issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Internal GC works regardless of user settings... its part of the NAND interaction with the controller and without it your performance would be pretty bad. That said your scores are horrendous for any SSD, making me wonder if you even have functioning GC. Your random 512K and 4K performance can seriously be matched and far surpassed by a 7200RPM notebook hard drive. Yeah, my jaw dropped when I saw those scores. I'm also running BitLocker on my laptop, but I'm not sure how much of a drop in performance that would account for. When I first turned it on I didn't notice any decrease in performance, but I also didn't run any before/after benchmarks so I don't know how much of an impact BitLocker actually has. I happen to have an identical machine sitting on my desk (the joys of working in IT), so I'm going to do some testing with it to see how my drive compares. In actual usage it still feels more responsive (other than the occasional sluggishness) than a regular HDD, but it's definitely not as snappy as it was when I first got it. And the reason I asked about the internal GC is because everything I've read about this drive mentions that GC only works if the drive is formatted NTFS, so I wasn't sure if there was some special driver it needed or something silly like that. Anyways, here's the output from CrystalDiskInfo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskInfo 4.3.0 (C) 2008-2012 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OS : Windows 7 Enterprise Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64) Date : 2012/03/12 10:23:56 -- Controller Map ---------------------------------------------------------- + ATA Channel 0 (0) [ATA] - SAMSUNG MMCRE28G8MXP-0VBL1 ATA Device + ATA Channel 1 (1) [ATA] - HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GU10N ATA Device - ATA Channel 4 (4) [ATA] - ATA Channel 5 (5) [ATA] + Intel(R) 5 Series/3400 Series Chipset Family 6 Port SATA AHCI Controller - 3B2F [ATA] - ATA Channel 0 (0) - ATA Channel 1 (1) - ATA Channel 4 (4) - ATA Channel 5 (5) - Ricoh PCIe Memory Stick Host Controller [ATA] -- Disk List --------------------------------------------------------------- (1) SAMSUNG MMCRE28G8MXP-0VBL1 : 128.0 GB [0-0-0, pd1] - sg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) SAMSUNG MMCRE28G8MXP-0VBL1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model : SAMSUNG MMCRE28G8MXP-0VBL1 Firmware : VBM1EL1Q Serial Number : Disk Size : 128.0 GB (8.4/128.0/128.0) Buffer Size : Unknown Queue Depth : 1 # of Sectors : 250069680 Rotation Rate : ---- (SSD) Interface : Serial ATA Major Version : ATA/ATAPI-7 Minor Version : ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D version 1 Transfer Mode : SATA/300 Power On Hours : 3496 hours Power On Count : 621 count Temparature : Unknown Health Status : Good (97 %) Features : S.M.A.R.T., 48bit LBA APM Level : ---- AAM Level : ---- -- S.M.A.R.T. -------------------------------------------------------------- ID Cur Wor Thr RawValues(6) Attribute Name 09 _99 _99 __0 000000000DA8 Power-on Hours 0C _99 _99 __0 00000000026D Power-on Count AF 100 100 _10 000000000000 Program Fail Count (Chip) B0 100 100 _10 000000000000 Erase Fail Count (Chip) B1 _97 _97 _17 000000000080 Wear Leveling Count B2 _65 _65 _10 000000000015 Used Reserved Block Count (Chip) B3 _97 _97 _10 000000000056 Used Reserved Block Count (Total) B4 _97 _97 _10 000000000EAA Unused Reserved Block Count (Total) B5 100 100 _10 000000000000 Program Fail Count (Total) B6 100 100 _10 000000000000 Erase Fail Count (Total) B7 100 100 _10 000000000000 Runtime Bad Block (Total) BB 100 100 __0 000000000000 Uncorrectable Error Count C3 200 200 __0 000000000000 ECC Error Rate C6 100 100 __0 000000000000 Off-Line Uncorrectable Error Count C7 253 253 __0 000000000000 CRC Error Count E9 199 199 __0 0000000E2B33 Vendor Specific EA 100 100 __0 000000000000 Vendor Specific EB 100 100 __0 000000000000 POR Recovery Count EC _99 _99 __0 000000000109 Vendor Specific ED _99 _99 __0 0000000001EA Vendor Specific EE 100 100 __0 000000000000 Vendor Specific chizad fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:EDIT: Decided to play around with this. Not sure if I should have picked the fastest SSD in the box or the worst to show some examples of before/after with TrueCrypt and BitLocker... but I settled in on a SSD 520. I did a quick before/after test with BitLocker on a system identical to mine. It looks like the performance hit from BitLocker (especially writes) on this particular drive is absolutely brutal. Clean Windows Install, BitLocker Off Sequential Read/Write: 197.0 / 157.6 512K Read/Write: 162.7 / 56.53 4K Read/Write: 16.15 / 5.77 4K QD=32 Read/Write: 20.97 / 3.073 Clean Windows Install, BitLocker On Sequential Read/Write: 155.8 / 16.78 512K Read/Write: 132.3 / 3.368 4K Read/Write: 12.61 / 2.572 4K QD=32 Read/Write: 18.95 / 0.406 evil_bunnY posted:If you need FDE buy a self-encrypting drive. Since I'm in the IT department a self-encrypting drive wouldn't be a big deal for my usage and wouldn't cause too many headaches for my coworkers if something happens and they need data from my machine. But I cringe at the support nightmare that would ensue if we deployed drives with hardware FDE to all of our users that handle sensitive data instead of BitLocker. We've got it set up so that any system we enable BitLocker on automatically backs up the recovery information to Active Directory so we can get to it at a moment's notice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:EDIT: I wonder if BitLocker works a bit different. I don't think BitLocker encrypts all the free area and allows TRIM stuff to work. TrueCrypt though would really need 20% or so leftover on the SSD unused so GC can still cope. According to this post from the Building Windows 7 blog: Technet posted:Is Bitlocker’s encryption process optimized to work on SSDs? The way I'm understanding this, on a drive that supports TRIM there shouldn't be much difference between performance before and after enabling BitLocker.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
Yeah, I saw that in the SSD deal thread in coupons and had to pick up a couple. Looks like Amazon has them limited to one per customer, but Newegg has it for the same price with the $20 off promo code 24HRSALE606D.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Now that I've got both of my shiny new 256GB M4's installed, I've got a spare 120GB X25-M G2 that I pulled from one of my systems. I don't have any other computers that would benefit from it, so I'm going to stick it in a USB enclosure and use it as a super fast portable HD. I'm assuming TRIM won't work with it connected via USB, so is there any other maintenance I should do to keep it running at peak performance? I'll mostly be using it for transferring data between systems and the like, so I doubt write amplification will be a huge issue since it won't see anywhere near the amount of writes it would being used as a system drive. I'm more just curious if I need to bother with doing a secure erase from the Intel SSD toolbox every X months or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
grumperfish posted:Anything running on the SSD will feel faster, so office applications, photoshop, the web browser, etc, will all open quickly. It won't really change performance all that much, but things like unzipping a large archive while copying something to the SSD won't drag the system down. Yeah, that's the biggest benefit of an SSD. It's obviously not going to help with CPU/GPU performance, but anything running from an SSD is just so much more responsive than a mechanical drive that the computer feels like it's gotten faster. Here's a couple examples of the difference an SSD makes: 1) I know you asked specifically about Windows, but yesterday I put a Crucial M4 in my Early 2009 (2GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM) Mac Mini. It seriously feels like a brand new computer. 2) I work in IT, and about half of the laptops we've got in use have SSDs and are otherwise identical hardware. They aren't anything special either, just the "enterprise" models that Toshiba/Samsung were providing to OEMs a couple years ago. (For reference, an X-25M G2 from the same era dominates these drives in pretty much any benchmark.) But there's still enough of a difference that I start getting impatient when I have to work on a laptop that has a mechanical HD in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
The bit in the OP about the Crucial M4 being a bad drive, is that mostly due to the past firmware issues and it no longer being a good value? In other words, if I've got one and it's on one of the stable firmware versions, is there any reason to replace/upgrade it other than needing more space? Also, if I'm still running the 000F firmware, should I go ahead and upgrade to the latest?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 21:16
|
|