Question Terribly slow SSD in laptop

[The_Immortal_Fries]

Hello guys! This is my first question here as I really want to find out the reason for this. Please bear with the amount of stuff I've put up.

I have a Razer Blade 15 (Basic edition - Intel Core i7-9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM & a 512GB M.2 SSD). The 512GB SSD Razer gave was a "SAMSUNG MZVLB512HAJQ SCSI Disk Device" (as from my Task Manager). It has a PCIe Gen3 x4 interface and with max seq.read speeds of 3000 MB/s and max seq.read speeds of 1800 MB/s.

When buying my laptop, I wanted more storage and so I got
1)XPG SX8200 Pro 2TB 3D NAND NVMe Gen3x4 PCIe M.2 2280 Solid State Drive
2)Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SATA 2.5" Internal SSD (MZ-76Q2T0/AM) (Yes, a SATA 2.5" Internal SSD cause this basic version of Razer Blade 15 (2019) gives me one 🤷‍♂️)

To make use of my 512GB M.2 SSD, I bought a USB 3.1 M.2 NVMe SSD Enclosure (this one). Now when setting my laptop up, I cloned this 512GB SSD(which was in my motherboard) to my XPG SX8200 Pro which was then in my SSD Enclosure. I then had a few issues with booting up cause of drive conflicts which I later resolved. Now the 2 SSDs that I have in my laptop work perfectly fine with the XPG NVME as my boot disk ans the Samsung QVO SATA as my secondary disk.

Now, I'm unable to understand the file transfer speeds I'm witnessing.
1. 77GB file transfer from the XPG to my 512GB (the SAMSUNG one given by RAZER - I've named it Mini Blade) - a near constant 600MB/s


2. 77GB file transfer from the 512GB (the SAMSUNG one given by RAZER - I've named it Mini Blade)to my XPG - an approximate 700-750MB/s


3. 77GB file transfer from the 512GB (the SAMSUNG one given by RAZER - I've named it Mini Blade)to my SAMSUNG QVO SATA (2TB) - an average 8 MB/s with occasional 3 second spikes of 100 or 200 or 300 MB/s. (biggest spike being 630ish MB/s)
PIC 1: the speed it was at for almost the entire time


PIC 2: A spike


PIC 3: The entire fluctuation



This is what I don't understand. The "4-Bit MLC technology delivers fast read/write speeds of 550/520 MB/s" is what Samsung states for the Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SATA 2.5" Internal SSD (MZ-76Q2T0/AM) (The Description).
But I get less than 10 MB/s is such transfers.


Now trying to do the same from my SAMSUNG QVO SATA to the SAMSUNG 512GB NVME M.2 (the one I've named Mini Blade)
It gives me an approximate 265(plus or minus 10) MB/s. Oh and when I checked on CrystalDiskInfo, it showed me that my SAMSUNG QVO was at a pretty hot 56C and my 512GB NVME M.2 was sitting at a 51C.


Finally I tried to transfer the same 77GB file from the SAMSUNG 512GB NVME M.2 to my SAMSUNG QVO and voila! tha same thing repeats. Erratic 300+ MB/s spikes and constant 5-8 MB/s.



So clearly the SAMSUNG QVO SATA has an issue that I can't seem to figure out. Is there something bottle necking it? Cause the same slow 8 MB/s write speeds from irrespective of which device to this SATA SSD is clearly not normal. I also don't think this has anything to do with the SATA SSDs read/write speeds; cause by definition the SATA isn't the one writing or reading.

What is the reason behind this ans is there anyway to improve it?
Also, why the very slow speeds in the other cases too? None of them even crossed the 1GB/s mark.

For more information, I ran a benchmark on all my drives with synthetic load and the results are as follows.

SAMSUNG QVO SATA (2TB)
[Read]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 556.182 MB/s [ 530.4 IOPS] < 15052.19 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 272.299 MB/s [ 66479.2 IOPS] < 7686.76 us>

[Write]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 166.915 MB/s [ 159.2 IOPS] < 50056.98 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 163.154 MB/s [ 39832.5 IOPS] < 12831.70 us>

Profile: Peak
Test: 32 GiB (x2) [Interval: 5 sec] <DefaultAffinity=DISABLED>
Date: 2020/04/08 15:13:49
OS: Windows 10 [10.0 Build 18363] (x64)

XPG SX8200 PRO NVME M.2 (2TB)

[Read]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 2993.848 MB/s [ 2855.2 IOPS] < 2799.84 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 1473.822 MB/s [ 359819.8 IOPS] < 1421.46 us>

[Write]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 2794.035 MB/s [ 2664.6 IOPS] < 2995.40 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 881.726 MB/s [ 215265.1 IOPS] < 2375.06 us>

Profile: Peak
Test: 32 GiB (x2) [Interval: 5 sec] <DefaultAffinity=DISABLED>
Date: 2020/04/08 15:16:25
OS: Windows 10 [10.0 Build 18363] (x64)

SAMSUNG MZVLB512HAJQ (512GB)
[Read]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 1035.085 MB/s [ 987.1 IOPS] < 8088.09 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 126.617 MB/s [ 30912.4 IOPS] < 16510.01 us>

[Write]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 923.945 MB/s [ 881.1 IOPS] < 9057.27 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 135.807 MB/s [ 33156.0 IOPS] < 15405.43 us>

Profile: Peak
Test: 32 GiB (x2) [Interval: 5 sec] <DefaultAffinity=DISABLED>
Date: 2020/04/08 15:20:03
OS: Windows 10 [10.0 Build 18363] (x64)

I would really appreciate it if you could help me out. Thanks!

 

[NewMaxx]

4-bit MLC = QLC. Slow with writes outside the limited SLC cache (size varies with capacity used), will have no issues with reads. Shouldn't get that slow though, looks like interference from software or something, but QLC will write well below SATA speeds eventually.

 

[The_Immortal_Fries]

4-bit MLC = QLC. Slow with writes outside the limited SLC cache (size varies with capacity used), will have no issues with reads. Shouldn't get that slow though, looks like interference from software or something, but QLC will write well below SATA speeds eventually.

Thanks for the reply! I understand that QLC is much slower but don't you think 8MB/s is a little too much? Also, I bought this one not more than 5 months back. I don't think it's a hardware issue. But again, I'm not quite sure what's gone wrong here. And interesting that you mention "Interference from software". I understand the bandwidth being used up by other processes but in that case it should reflect in my task manager right? I don't see a lot of read/writes happening there. Also, since this drive is the secondary drive, I don't use it a lot. (1827GB writes to the Samsung QVO vs 5330GB writes to the XPG M.2 NVME SSD)

 

[ArisVer]

When the disk is copying small files it tends to be slow at times. As seen by the curve, most of the time is much more than that.

 

[NewMaxx]

Thanks for the reply! I understand that QLC is much slower but don't you think 8MB/s is a little too much? Also, I bought this one not more than 5 months back. I don't think it's a hardware issue. But again, I'm not quite sure what's gone wrong here. And interesting that you mention "Interference from software". I understand the bandwidth being used up by other processes but in that case it should reflect in my task manager right? I don't see a lot of read/writes happening there. Also, since this drive is the secondary drive, I don't use it a lot. (1827GB writes to the Samsung QVO vs 5330GB writes to the XPG M.2 NVME SSD)

You can see "active time" in Task Manager, if it's 100% when transferring then the drive is being maxxed out whether it be from small file transfers and background management or whatever. Resource Monitor can pinpoint what's doing the I/O.

 

[The_Immortal_Fries]

You can see "active time" in Task Manager, if it's 100% when transferring then the drive is being maxxed out whether it be from small file transfers and background management or whatever. Resource Monitor can pinpoint what's doing the I/O.

Here is a snippet of my Task manager, Resource Monitor when a 90GB file is being copied. It again stayed at 8-9 MB/s and the active time was spiking here and there with only an average of 20%. So there isn't 100% disk utilization.

 

[The_Immortal_Fries]

When the disk is copying small files it tends to be slow at times. As seen by the curve, most of the time is much more than that.

But all the files I used here were all above 50GB. So technically that shouldn't be the case here right? And the high transfer speeds can be visible easily when transferring larger files. That's why I did this with large files.

 

[yarisyotta]

Verify in the bios that you are running uefi and ahci. Run a tool such as hwinfo and post back with the details of drive controller and temperature for the drive. I never like to do clones because of the weird issues that always happen, you might have to do a fresh install.

 

[ArisVer]

But all the files I used here were all above 50GB.

The total of the files? I am talking about individual small files that are inside a folder.

(Usually large files are movies and ISO, and are usually under 5 GB).

 

[The_Immortal_Fries]

The total of the files? I am talking about individual small files that are inside a folder.

(Usually large files are movies and ISO, and are usually under 5 GB).

I tried large files. I got 50-60MB/s at best.

 

[The_Immortal_Fries]

Verify in the bios that you are running uefi and ahci. Run a tool such as hwinfo and post back with the details of drive controller and temperature for the drive. I never like to do clones because of the weird issues that always happen, you might have to do a fresh install.

BIOS
BIOS Manufacturer: Razer
BIOS Date: 06/06/2019
BIOS Version: 1.03
UEFI BIOS: Capable



Drive Controller: Serial ATA 6Gb/s @ 6Gb/s
Host Controller: Intel Cannon Lake-H/S - SATA AHCI Controller (Mobile) [B0]
Drive Model: Samsung SSD 860 QVO 2TB
Current Temperature: 45 °C



Drive Controller: NVMe (PCIe 4x 8.0 GT/s)
Host Controller: ADATA Technology NVMe Controller
Drive Model: ADATA SX8200PNP
Drive Temperature: 43 °C

And regarding cloning, I felt a fresh install would be ideal but then all the Razer software (Razer Synapse, Razer Cortex etc) would all go away and then the OS might not be recognized as genuine etc.

 

[leexgx]

noticed your cpu was between 20-30% your CPU was at 30% , are you using kerpaskey antivirus ? seems more likely a antivirus issue

heat can cause them to slow down to a extremely slow speeds but that would push disk time to 100% when thermal throttling is happening on the SSD

 

[beginner99]

I tried large files. I got 50-60MB/s at best.

It's small file transfer. They simply are slow even on ssds because you are not doing sequential read/write anymore. To top that of you bought a cheapo QLC drive which simply is very slow at writes after the SLC cache is filled.

The drive has a fixed 6 GB slc cache + variable cache size depending on empty space. SLC cache can be up to 77GB if you have lots of empty space. Which indeed implies you are seeing far too slow speeds even giving the constraints.

It's inconclusive at best. See, even the anandtech benchmark of this drive does not contain a MB/s for sustained random write at QD1. They average QD1,2 and 4. While in reality you will always only gave QD1 and NAND flash SSDs only reach their specs at higher QD. 8 MB/s does seem a bit too slow. But forget the numbers from benchmarks with >100 mb/s. You will simply not reach that in real world windows copying of small files.

 

[The_Immortal_Fries]

It's small file transfer. They simply are slow even on ssds because you are not doing sequential read/write anymore. To top that of you bought a cheapo QLC drive which simply is very slow at writes after the SLC cache is filled.

The drive has a fixed 6 GB slc cache + variable cache size depending on empty space. SLC cache can be up to 77GB if you have lots of empty space. Which indeed implies you are seeing far too slow speeds even giving the constraints.

It's inconclusive at best. See, even the anandtech benchmark of this drive does not contain a MB/s for sustained random write at QD1. They average QD1,2 and 4. While in reality you will always only gave QD1 and NAND flash SSDs only reach their specs at higher QD. 8 MB/s does seem a bit too slow. But forget the numbers from benchmarks with >100 mb/s. You will simply not reach that in real world windows copying of small files.

Yeah alright, That explains the 50-60MB/s. But then why would it sit at less than 9MB/s. I don't know but I find that quite unbelievable. I mean this is less than 10MB/s. Do you have an explanation for that? 😅 I am not quite convinced small files can decrease the performance of the SSD to such an extent. Could there be anything else?

 

[beginner99]

Yeah alright, That explains the 50-60MB/s. But then why would it sit at less than 9MB/s. I don't know but I find that quite unbelievable. I mean this is less than 10MB/s. Do you have an explanation for that? 😅 I am not quite convinced small files can decrease the performance of the SSD to such an extent. Could there be anything else?

I just did a simple test on my PC. "old" c: drive from old build which is a crucial MX100 512gb SATA to Samsung 970 pro (nvme) which is new c: drive. I copied an old netbeans installation folder. Rate went as far down as 500kb/s and max never went above 40Mb/s. It means both our PCs are misconfigured or that is just how real-life windows copy&paste of small files works. Given my experience I tend towards the later also due to benchmark tools showing normal numbers according to which the 30mb/s 4k read from the crucial drive should be the liming factor. But again it drops as low as 500kb/s.

(ryzen 3900x on x570 mobo)

 

[The_Immortal_Fries]

I just did a simple test on my PC. "old" c: drive from old build which is a crucial MX100 512gb SATA to Samsung 970 pro (nvme) which is new c: drive. I copied an old netbeans installation folder. Rate went as far down as 500kb/s and max never went above 40Mb/s. It means both our PCs are misconfigured or that is just how real-life windows copy&paste of small files works. Given my experience I tend towards the later also due to benchmark tools showing normal numbers according to which the 30mb/s 4k read from the crucial drive should be the liming factor. But again it drops as low as 500kb/s.

(ryzen 3900x on x570 mobo)

well if that's the case, then the speeds are definitely not what these companies claim. xD
And also, that is just sad. I mean, paying that much and not getting the benefits they claim to have is just a plain disappointment.

 

[NewMaxx]

Files that are smaller than 4K are problematic for SSDs for a number of reasons. First, you're usually using 512e (advanced format) which has 512-byte logical sectors but 4096-byte physical sectors; this adds file system overhead as the former has extra metadata. Second, modern flash has relatively large page sizes, TLC will be 16KiB for example. The page is the smallest unit of operation for a SSD so with QLC and small files you have sixteen 4K subpages per die (i.e. with four-plane) to deal with in addition to the 512-byte issue. <4K files also cause additional internal fragmentation. The 860 QVO's controller and DRAM are capable of buffering these to some extent but you lose all advantages of parallelization, which with QLC means especially slow speeds (about 3.5 times slower than TLC, source: Micron). Within SLC the program time is much faster but you still have large pages. Read time is way faster than program time - an order of magnitude or more, especially TLC-to-QLC.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Also, why the very slow speeds in the other cases too? None of them even crossed the 1GB/s mark.

[Read]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 1035.085 MB/s [ 987.1 IOPS] < 8088.09 us>

Change your synthetic load benchmark to a lower Queue depth level. 1 or 2 is realistic. For file transfers you can pretty much expect 1 to be the maximum.

If you do that, you'll see your benchmark figures drop. Higher queue depths basically allow more parallelism. I'd say those speeds are pretty damn good for your fast drives and its unrealistic to expect better.

Sequence of slow downs.
-High Queue depth(8 in your case) to Queue Depth of 1
-Prevalence of small file sizes
-Prevalence of random files
-Your drive's empty space. More empty, better performance
-Whether your drive is "dirty". This is basically like SSD's version of fragmentation. You need to TRIM your drive either using the Windows tool or the tool from the manufacturer. Either will work. It takes like 5 seconds to finish. What it does is it essentially sets your cells in the empty portion of your drive to clear. Don't do it everyday. Recommendation is every 1-2 weeks.
-General overhead of transferring files

QLC drives like the QVO are even worse. Though even I'm surprised it can get that slow.

I have a cheap TLC drive that noticeably slowed down the system after about a week. You are talking browsers and Windows UI being slow. TRIM would improve that responsiveness until next week.