X-25M 160GB noticeably slower

[erdemali]

Again, can you find me articles relating to the process? I can stand by my views and advise and respond to any logical argument whereas you seemingly just popped up out of nowhere (post 2) to take a crack at things.

Welcome to the site and good luck.

Thanks for the warm wellcoming.

Let me explain it visually (that may help you grasp better, I still think you haven't understood the whole
process at all).

Legend:
Dark green: Full valid block
Light green: not 100% full block
White: empty block
White blocks on far right: Blocks from Spare area

PS: This is coming from a two weeks' SSD user

 

[IntelUser2000]

About a month ago I bought a new X-25M G2. When I first benched it the speeds were fine, Windows 7 would take about 10 seconds to boot, apps loaded instantly.

Hey, did you check to see if the write cache is on? Dunno, maybe its turned off. That seems the only logical explanation. If performance was impacted by not having proper TRIM/Garbage Collection/Secure Erase, both the random AND sequential speeds will go down.

Your speed suggests it could be something else.

 

[sub.mesa]

Deleting the file would TRIM that space; but if using Windows 7 you should have TRIM either way.

I suggest to run AS SSD to check:
- performance
- alignment (1024K - OK)
- TRIM capability (msahci / intel driver)

If the partition is not aligned (31.5K - BAD) then complete secure erase + reinstall would be recommended.

Looking at the topicstart i can see the 4K scores being lowered drastically below factory levels.

 

[erdemali]

Deleting the file would TRIM that space; but if using Windows 7 you should have TRIM either way.

I suggest to run AS SSD to check:
- performance
- alignment (1024K - OK)
- TRIM capability (msahci / intel driver)

If the partition is not aligned (31.5K - BAD) then complete secure erase + reinstall would be recommended.

Looking at the topicstart i can see the 4K scores being lowered drastically below factory levels.

Flamenko, This is the MAN I have learnt the above. Maybe you should consult him. He may have a few suggestions for you so you can post on your site for people to follow.

 

[Hacp]

Well actually, with respect to that, TRIM takes care of all deleted information and if it hasn't been deleted than it wont be removed by filling and removing data . The hiccup with this is if someone allows System Restore to allocate restore points and TRIM functions poorly or not at all which can be identified. In this case, that may also work although I havent heard of such prior to this post. I didnt comment as, on many non-intel drives there is no way to optimize and that may be a viable option although I am not sure how many people want to continuously fill their ssd for the heck of it as it is a killer on lifespan.

Now if we are looking at garbage collection with respect to data that isnt filling a 512 kb block, this process is doing much the same as defragmenting ones drive in that it is taking many partially filled 512k blocks, consolidating the data, deleting data from old blocks and then clearing the blocks. This was much more valid in non-TRIM ssds and was spoken of by Anand in detail, however, with the overprovisioning and quality of present firmware, this can all be done by the ssd behind the scenes with little or no problem.

Perhaps you could point me to other articles relating to that which make it a common practice.

1 post/new member...nice bait though eheh

Garbage collection is needed in ALL ssds. Trim doesn't magically erase the data on the SSD. It merely tells the ssd what information is deleted in the OS so the SSD can put its GC into use to wipe the data.

 

[sub.mesa]

Not sure what i have to add to this thread. The OP runs Windows 7 so TRIM should be working, but still his performance levels match that of an SSD without TRIM.

The System Restore feature works more or less like snapshots: old versions of files are not deleted (and then TRIM-ed) but they keep being stored for a period of time. So the System Restore feature would still store files that have been deleted, modified, overwritten, updated, etc. Those files then can't be TRIMed.

To prevent your SSD from degrading in performance, either do the following:
- With TRIM: create aligned partition and reserve 5% space as extra spare area.
- Without TRIM: create aligned partition and reserve 25% space as extra spare area.

What SSDs actually want is free erase blocks; just free space is not enough; it is about erase blocks. The Erase blocks are 128KiB in size on Intel SSDs and 512K or 640K on other controller designs such as Indilinx Barefoot (OCZ Vertex/Agility/Solid). Only free erase blocks can accelerate random writes because it would not need a read-erase-program cycle. In other words, the SSD uses free erase blocks to accelerate small writes.

If you do not reserve any space, and do fill up your NTFS filesystem, then there won't be any 100% empty free cells; in that case you've got severe erase block fragmentation; you can have 20% space free still but it is all scattered across erase blocks with no or few erase blocks being 100% free. That would be a scenario where you see the kind of degraded performance the OP has shown in the topicstart.

Personally, i would Secure Erase and reinstall, then do it right: reserve more space to the SSD internally (spare area) even while you have TRIM. 5% or 10% extra spare space makes a lot of difference; as you dedicate this area totally to the SSD it will help fight erase block fragmentation.

You might also see updated firmware for Intel SSDs that address erase block fragmentation; that's something advanced garbage collection could help alleviate.

 

[erdemali]

Mesa,

I have done some little calculations according to the given graph
to be able to find out the optimium spare area so to achieve maximum usable
area without sacrificing any performance loss.

I have come to conclusion that it should be 20% unformatted partition+7%spare area
would give me maximum storage with no performance sacrifice.

I need your opinion on these calculations. I know this graph does not apply to every other SSD models. At least it is there for rough estimation for every other SSD.

Based on 160GB SSD

 

[flamenko]

Erd....

Perhaps you are missing what is being said by Mesa... Let me help....


Deleting the file would TRIM that space; but if using Windows 7 you should have TRIM either way. and...

Not sure what i have to add to this thread. The OP runs Windows 7 so TRIM should be working, but still his performance levels match that of an SSD without TRIM.

With respect to your question, Perhaps u should consider just a bit of ettiquette when jumping on to a site. Post your own questions within a new thread and someone can help you out. Your two week education in ssd use (as u have stated) is nothing more than a dangerous precedent for those looking for a solution to their problem. The problem, in this case, may not be alignment related whatsoever and to start jumping around without first trying to determine if it is software related is negligent.

Op, as I suggested, do a quick Crystal test in safe mode. That will help a great deal.

 

[Idontcare]

(snip)

To prevent your SSD from degrading in performance, either do the following:
- With TRIM: create aligned partition and reserve 5% space as extra spare area.
- Without TRIM: create aligned partition and reserve 25% space as extra spare area.

(snip)

Personally, i would Secure Erase and reinstall, then do it right: reserve more space to the SSD internally (spare area) even while you have TRIM. 5% or 10% extra spare space makes a lot of difference; as you dedicate this area totally to the SSD it will help fight erase block fragmentation.

(snip)

I have a 160GB G2...how exactly does one go about reserving XX% space as extra spare area? Is this a toolbox feature?

 

[erdemali]

Flamenko, look I don't have any intentions to take this little discussion any further till it becomes personal. I am sorry if it is already taken personal by you. As I said I am not gonna joust about it any further.

 

[flamenko]

I am also very interested in this as we seem to be allocating extra space to do the same job as over provisioning. Has anyone tested this and how it works with over provisioning. Better yet, can someone post some evaluation results if they are saying that this reduces slowing as u fill the drive?

I am also interested in any verification that it is using the space as it would over provisioned NAND and that we are not simply just wasting the space we have.

 

[flamenko]

Flamenko, look I don't have any intentions to take this little discussion any further till it becomes personal. I am sorry if it is already taken personal by you. As I said I am not gonna joust about it any further.

Thank you.

 

[erdemali]

I have a 160GB G2...how exactly does one go about reserving XX% space as extra spare area? Is this a toolbox feature?

Probably Sub.mesa will explain better. It is just that partitioning SSD and leaving a partition unformatted area serve as additional spare area.

 

[erdemali]

I am also very interested in this as we seem to be allocating extra space to do the same job as over provisioning. Has anyone tested this and how it works with over provisioning. Better yet, can someone post some evaluation results if they are saying that this reduces slowing as u fill the drive?

I am also interested in any verification that it is using the space as it would over provisioned NAND and that we are not simply just wasting the space we have.

Yes I did as per Sub.mesa's suggestions. It is too early for me to justify it works but I know and I am convinced that in the long run I can utilise more space without any sacrifice in performance.

 

[flamenko]

Yes I did as per Sub.mesa's suggestions. It is too early for me to justify it works but I know and I am convinced that in the long run I can utilise more space without any sacrifice in performance.

Cant wait for some scores because this is a very new idea. There are alot of questions with respect to its use and one I can think of right off is whether it already clashes with Intels overprovisioning.

We are essentially allocating additional space to overprovisioning somehow.

 

[sub.mesa]

I have a 160GB G2...how exactly does one go about reserving XX% space as extra spare area? Is this a toolbox feature?

The SSD has both visible and invisible space. The visible space is visible by Windows etc. The invisible space (or "spare area") is invisible and inaccessible to Windows.

Sandforce SSDs have a lot more spare area than Intel. Your Intel 160GB SSD is actually 160GiB/171GB; but will identify itself as being 149GiB/160GB; so the difference between 'real' gibibytes and 'fake' gigabytes is used as spare area on Intel SSDs; that's about 6,8%.

So Intel SSDs have 6,8% reserve as spare area by default. Sandforce SSDs have 28% space reserved (Vertex 2 has 64GiB NAND but only 50GB is visible). As you can see, the amount reserved by Intel is pretty low.

You can increase the spare area by using partitions. By creating a single partition that is 120GiB large on a 160GB/149GiB Intel SSD would leave the rest (40GiB) unused/unallocated. As long as you do not write to those locations, the SSD considers it its own space and will use it accordingly.

So all you need to do is create a smaller partition than the full capacity; leaving the unused space unused. This will only work on new drives or drives that have been Secure Erased. If you got a used SSD then Windows likely written all over the device; in that case the partition trick does not work unless you use a Secure Erase before creating the partition.

So how does the SSD know which space is for internal use and which stuff is 'external'; well simple: the SSD considers 100% of its space as spare area, until you write to it. So if you partition a brand new Intel SSD properly and leave 20GB unused for example, that space will never have been written to and the SSD will use it internally without requiring anything else.

The good thing is: you do not need TRIM to make this work. This is the preferred method of dealing with several SSDs in RAID0 with the absence of TRIM. As long as you reserve enough spare area to the SSDs, you should not need TRIM at all. Rumors exist that the next generation Intel X25-E "Extreme" will use MLC memory instead of SLC but will have 50% of the capacity reserved by default; these SSDs do not need TRIM at all and may opt to disable TRIM or just ignore the command.

TRIM is nice because the free space on your NTFS filesystem will be spare area by the SSD; while without TRIM any free space on your filesystem will be considered 'in use' by the SSD because the OS previously written to all visible sectors, and the SSD doesn't know which sectors are actually in use and which are not; TRIM literally says to the SSD "i do not need sectors 45, 678 and 985 anymore; do whatever with those sectors you like".

So TRIM is pretty cool, but there is a catch: if you have too few free space on your NTFS filesystem, it will hurt the performance on your SSD. Even with 30% free space, this free space may be scattered across the drive with very few 128KiB Erase Blocks being 100% free; in that situation you would get benchmark scores as in the TopicStart of this thread; though i cannot 100% confirm this is the result of erase block fragmentation; it is certainly a possiblity.

Intel is still investigating erase block fragmentation after use of time with TRIM on a reasonably full filesystem. For now, trying to Secure Erase and reinstall is probably the best thing you can do to enhance performance. And reserve more space to avoid this problem in the future.

 

[flamenko]

This sounds logical but have you (or can you) verify this at all with tests which are taken at different capacities of the SSD. The reason I am asking is because the only SSD that seems to have eliminated this completely is the OWC which I have tested and completely full, it actually has better results. They have 28% over provisioning. I am always wondering why the other manufacturers havent tackled this yet.

Heres a Crystal score with 15% and 99% filed just to show what I mean:

 

[erdemali]

This sounds logical but have you (or can you) verify this at all with tests which are taken at different capacities of the SSD. The reason I am asking is because the only SSD that seems to have eliminated this completely is the OWC which I have tested and completely full, it actually has better results. They have 28% over provisioning. I am always wondering why the other manufacturers havent tackled this yet.

Heres a Crystal score with 15% and 99% filed just to show what I mean:

Intel 160GB has only 6.8% spare area. Perhaps 28% is optimum as it is set by OCZ (100/128Gb).

 

[Idontcare]

The SSD has both visible and invisible space. The visible space is visible by Windows etc. The invisible space (or "spare area") is invisible and inaccessible to Windows.

Sandforce SSDs have a lot more spare area than Intel. Your Intel 160GB SSD is actually 160GiB/171GB; but will identify itself as being 149GiB/160GB; so the difference between 'real' gibibytes and 'fake' gigabytes is used as spare area on Intel SSDs; that's about 6,8%.

So Intel SSDs have 6,8% reserve as spare area by default. Sandforce SSDs have 28% space reserved (Vertex 2 has 64GiB NAND but only 50GB is visible). As you can see, the amount reserved by Intel is pretty low.

You can increase the spare area by using partitions. By creating a single partition that is 120GiB large on a 160GB/149GiB Intel SSD would leave the rest (40GiB) unused/unallocated. As long as you do not write to those locations, the SSD considers it its own space and will use it accordingly.

So all you need to do is create a smaller partition than the full capacity; leaving the unused space unused. This will only work on new drives or drives that have been Secure Erased. If you got a used SSD then Windows likely written all over the device; in that case the partition trick does not work unless you use a Secure Erase before creating the partition.

So how does the SSD know which space is for internal use and which stuff is 'external'; well simple: the SSD considers 100% of its space as spare area, until you write to it. So if you partition a brand new Intel SSD properly and leave 20GB unused for example, that space will never have been written to and the SSD will use it internally without requiring anything else.

The good thing is: you do not need TRIM to make this work. This is the preferred method of dealing with several SSDs in RAID0 with the absence of TRIM. As long as you reserve enough spare area to the SSDs, you should not need TRIM at all. Rumors exist that the next generation Intel X25-E "Extreme" will use MLC memory instead of SLC but will have 50% of the capacity reserved by default; these SSDs do not need TRIM at all and may opt to disable TRIM or just ignore the command.

TRIM is nice because the free space on your NTFS filesystem will be spare area by the SSD; while without TRIM any free space on your filesystem will be considered 'in use' by the SSD because the OS previously written to all visible sectors, and the SSD doesn't know which sectors are actually in use and which are not; TRIM literally says to the SSD "i do not need sectors 45, 678 and 985 anymore; do whatever with those sectors you like".

So TRIM is pretty cool, but there is a catch: if you have too few free space on your NTFS filesystem, it will hurt the performance on your SSD. Even with 30% free space, this free space may be scattered across the drive with very few 128KiB Erase Blocks being 100% free; in that situation you would get benchmark scores as in the TopicStart of this thread; though i cannot 100% confirm this is the result of erase block fragmentation; it is certainly a possiblity.

Intel is still investigating erase block fragmentation after use of time with TRIM on a reasonably full filesystem. For now, trying to Secure Erase and reinstall is probably the best thing you can do to enhance performance. And reserve more space to avoid this problem in the future.

sub.mesa thank you for the detailed explanation :thumbsup:

So if I boil this down to a simplified checklist/do-list it would be something like:

1. secure-erase your SSD regardless its origin (new/used) because no matter what you need the drive's controller to believe the drive is available for it to use (gets around the possibility that some testing done at the factory might make a new/sealed boxed SSD have space that is unusable)
2. create a partition that intentionally uses X% less space than the full space presented as being available for creating partitions...e.g. in a 160GB G2 where the user is presented with the opportunity to create a 149GB partition the user would opt to only create a 130GB partition if they wished to leave an extra 19GB of free space available to the controller
3. Install your OS on the created partition, if installing Win7 then partition alignment is a non-issue as it is handled properly automatically.

 

[erdemali]

I cannot believe you guys haven't read about this earlier.
This info has been here for awhile "written by Sub.mesa".
I have been here only for three days and already digged in
found out about his suggestions.

Or you just only read your posts:sneaky:. (just kidding)

 

[Idontcare]

what's with the 'tude dude? being sarcastically offensive versus simply blatantly offensive doesn't make the forum any more enjoyable

 

[erdemali]

what's with the 'tude dude? being sarcastically offensive versus simply blatantly offensive doesn't make the forum any more enjoyable

Look I have had no intentions to offend anyone. I was just kidding.
I am sorry if it was felt that way. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

 

[erdemali]

sub.mesa thank you for the detailed explanation :thumbsup:

So if I boil this down to a simplified checklist/do-list it would be something like:

1. secure-erase your SSD regardless its origin (new/used) because no matter what you need the drive's controller to believe the drive is available for it to use (gets around the possibility that some testing done at the factory might make a new/sealed boxed SSD have space that is unusable)
2. create a partition that intentionally uses X% less space than the full space presented as being available for creating partitions...e.g. in a 160GB G2 where the user is presented with the opportunity to create a 149GB partition the user would opt to only create a 130GB partition if they wished to leave an extra 19GB of free space available to the controller
3. Install your OS on the created partition, if installing Win7 then partition alignment is a non-issue as it is handled properly automatically.

Since Sub.mesa has yet replied
(with his permission)

Exactly that is what i did.

1. Secure erase

2.SSD align (while aligning set size less than maximum available) (I left 20%, but it is up to you to set whatever: trial and error)

3.format only the partitioned part and leave the other alone

4. Do your intall/restoration

 

[capeconsultant]

Rumors exist that the next generation Intel X25-E "Extreme" will use MLC memory instead of SLC but will have 50% of the capacity reserved by default; these SSDs do not need TRIM at all and may opt to disable TRIM or just ignore the command.

WOW, this is a surprise.

Thanks to all in this thread for clarifying a tricky issue.

Secure erase

Win 7

Smaller partition

Nicely done folks!

I have the Corsair NOVA 128 with no issues whatsoever. I use only about 80-95GB of the 128 by default, so maybe that is why.

I must admit I am very curious about all the Sandforce drives. Cannot help but wonder if I would notice a difference in speed???

 

[flamenko]

Hey Erdemali....

How about throwing me an Intel crystal score 15% full (new install) and then completely full. I would like to see the theory at work and proven.