PDA

View Full Version : Slow SSD problems


supra
05-20-10, 09:24 PM
hey peeps

i recently got given a free SSD from work so I decided to test it out and at first i noticed its significantly faster but i was expecting it to be much much faster. I did some benches and was hitting

100-110MB/s Read
70-80MB/s Write

and my normal WD 500GB Black does 60-70MB/s Read/Write.

im assuming i should be hitting 190-200MB/s Read and 100-110MB/s Write

any ideas?

I didnt do a clean install I did a clone from my old sata. But i dont think that would matter would it?

ssd - kingston ssdnow v 64gb
cpu - e8400
mb - asus p5n32-e sli plus
os - win 7 pro 64bit

CaptNKILL
05-21-10, 12:04 AM
Sequential read and write speeds are not the strongest points of sold state drives. Its the random read and write speeds that completely obliterate those of hard drives.

Also, the Kingston drives aren't the fastest. The model number of your drive will determine which controller it uses internally, and some are significantly better than others.

supra
05-21-10, 12:18 AM
but these speeds are only 30MB/s Read 10MB/s Write faster than my normal WD drive. that doesnt seem right does it?

CaptNKILL
05-21-10, 12:20 AM
but these speeds are only 30MB/s Read 10MB/s Write faster than my normal WD drive. that doesnt seem right does it?

Have you looked up any reviews or specifications for the drive you're using?

supra
05-21-10, 12:25 AM
Have you looked up any reviews or specifications for the drive you're using?

Ya, off the kingston site : 200MB/sec. read; 110MB/sec. write

i realize this is only the advertised "up to" speeds but i would expect atleast

180MB/s or so for read and 90/MB/s for write

where as im getting

110MB/s for read and 80MB/s for write?

Nick7
05-21-10, 03:29 AM
It also depends what you use to benchmark.. block sizes, etc... caching, many factors.

However, as people mentioned, SSD's arent meant to obliterate standard mechanical HD's in sequential read/writes, but in random IO.
That's where difference lies.

supra
05-21-10, 03:46 AM
atm ive only benched with AS SSD and ATTO at default settings but both came with the same results.

call me crazy but from the dozen of reviews ive read today with the performance on this exact ssd i still think its under performing.

i did find something about nforce sata ide driver + ssd = slow and need to change to microsoft one.

so gonna do some testing tonight and see how it goes.

nekrosoft13
05-21-10, 07:26 AM
Ya, off the kingston site : 200MB/sec. read; 110MB/sec. write

i realize this is only the advertised "up to" speeds but i would expect atleast

180MB/s or so for read and 90/MB/s for write

where as im getting

110MB/s for read and 80MB/s for write?

you still didn't say what kingston drive you got

specs on the site are for SNV425-S2 series

you probably got the old SNV125-S2

supra
05-21-10, 07:41 AM
you still didn't say what kingston drive you got

specs on the site are for SNV425-S2 series

you probably got the old SNV125-S2

my bad im assuming i got this one SNV425-S2BN/64GB (notebook bundle***)

serial number sticker was ripped off box cos was freebie and box says notebook upgrade kit.

CaptNKILL
05-21-10, 07:46 AM
It should say what it is in device manager, or in HDTune or another system benchmarking program.

nekrosoft13
05-21-10, 07:53 AM
my bad im assuming i got this one SNV425-S2BN/64GB (notebook bundle***)

serial number sticker was ripped off box cos was freebie and box says notebook upgrade kit.

there are wersions of SNV125-S2 that are not listed on the site anymore.

there is also SNV225-S2 adn SNV325-S2 that are also not listed on the site, Kingston has really screwed up naming for thier SSD drives.

SNV425-S2 if i'm not mistaken is the first drive with TRIM

supra
05-21-10, 07:57 AM
It should say what it is in device manager, or in HDTune or another system benchmarking program.

device manager only says Kingston SSDNOW V Series 64GB ATA Device. and as ssd says : B090522a

----------------

ive change my storage drive controller from nvidia serial ata controller to the microsoft
Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller and seq read have improved to 125mb/s and write about the same.

so got some small improvements there.

nekrosoft13
05-21-10, 08:06 AM
I didnt do a clean install I did a clone from my old sata. But i dont think that would matter would it?

did you do a proper clone procedure? cloning only files and not the MBR?

then another issue could be your drive is not aligned properly, on some SSD this can cut performance by a big margin.

supra
05-21-10, 08:16 AM
did you do a proper clone procedure? cloning only files and not the MBR?

then another issue could be your drive is not aligned properly, on some SSD this can cut performance by a big margin.

no i didnt actually. because my 500gb wd was split c: and d: os and games.
and the acronis tru image disc that came with the ssd only does the whole drive not by partition so i just used another program (paragon i thnk) to clone the c: partition onto the ssd. and then bootrec /fixboot /fixbmr the ssd.

so that could be the cause? how would i fix the alignment (without re imaging/reinstalling)

nekrosoft13
05-21-10, 08:22 AM
to check alignment:

windows+r for run box, type MSinfo32

go to components, storage, disks, find your SSD in the list, and look at last entry "Partition Starting Offset"

Devide that number by 4096, if result is even you are aligned, if result is odd you are not aligned.

supra
05-21-10, 08:25 AM
7.8 shizzz. i guess its not aligned. any easy way to fix?

CaptNKILL
05-21-10, 01:26 PM
device manager only says Kingston SSDNOW V Series 64GB ATA Device. and as ssd says : B090522a

----------------

ive change my storage drive controller from nvidia serial ata controller to the microsoft
Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller and seq read have improved to 125mb/s and write about the same.

so got some small improvements there.

A google search for that number turned this up:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/ssd-roundup_2.html

Which means it is one of the older SNV125-S2 drives.

Check through that review for performance results.

nekrosoft13
05-21-10, 01:30 PM
.

nekrosoft13
05-21-10, 01:31 PM
A google search for that number turned this up:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/ssd-roundup_2.html

Which means it is one of the older SNV125-S2 drives.

Check through that review for performance results.

kignston doesn't even have a trace of SNV125-S2 64gb on their site, its their fight generation SSD with no TRIM.

lduguay
05-21-10, 01:47 PM
According to xbitlabs (thanks to captNKILL) This SSD seems to only reach 100MB/sec on seq read, ~70 MB/s on seq write. Pretty much in line with OP.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/storage/ssd-roundup/sr.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/storage/ssd-roundup/sw.png

nekrosoft13
05-21-10, 02:06 PM
plus intel really needs to improve write performance

lduguay
05-21-10, 02:25 PM
Maybe the G3's will have better write performance?

supra
05-21-10, 08:51 PM
According to xbitlabs (thanks to captNKILL) This SSD seems to only reach 100MB/sec on seq read, ~70 MB/s on seq write. Pretty much in line with OP.



hmmm if thats the case then i guess nothings wrong. but my partition is not aligned regardless. so in the process of re aligning it right now and will report back when all up and running.

supra
05-21-10, 11:15 PM
ok so was a pain but ive re aligned the partition correctly so 1024k unallocated. and has made no difference. to this ssd anyway.

bleh im fine with this. i think i was just overhyping myself. ill just blame it on my mb for not supporting ahci lol

CaptNKILL n nekrosoft thnx for the help