The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 18, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Hey, There’s an Elephant in the Room
When the first X25-M reviews went live a few people discovered something very important, something many of us (myself included) missed and should’ve addressed: the drive got slower the more you filled it up. It’s no great mystery why this happened, but it seemed odd at the time because it went against conventional thinking.
LegitReviews was one of the first to spot the SSD slowdown phenomenon, good work Nate.
It’s worth mentioning that hard drives suffer from the same problem; just for a different reason.
Hard drives store data on platters; the platters rotate while an arm with read/write heads on it hovers over the surface of the platter and reads data while the platter spins. The diameter of the platter is greater the further out on the platter you go, that’s just how circles work. The side effect is that for the same amount of rotation, the heads can cover more area on the outside of the platter than on the inside.
The result is that transfer speeds are greater on the outer sectors of the platter than on the inner ones. OSes thus try to write as much data to the outer sectors as possible, but like beachfront property - there’s only a limited amount of space. Eventually you have to write to the slower parts of the drive and thus the more full your drive is, the slower your transfer rates will be for data stored in the innermost sectors.
Fragmentation also hurts hard drive performance. While modern day hard drives have gotten pretty quick at transferring large amounts of data stored sequentially, spread the data out all around the platter and things get real slow, real fast.
Randomness is the enemy of rotational storage.
Solid state drives aren’t supposed to have these issues. Data is stored in flash, so it doesn’t matter where it’s located, you get to it at the same speed. SSDs have +5 armor immunity to random access latency (that’s got to be the single most geeky-sounding thing I’ve ever written, and I use words like latency a lot).
So why is it that when you fill up a SSD like Intel’s X25-M that its performance goes down? Even more worrisome, why is it that when you delete data from the drive that its performance doesn’t go back up?
While SSDs are truly immune to the same problems that plague HDDs, they do also get slower over time. How can both be true? It’s time for another lesson in flash.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
250 Comments
View All Comments
Jamor - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
The best tech article I've ever read, and I've read a few.haze4peace - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Wow, excellent article and so much useful information in an easy to understand way. I have just recently been paying attention to SSDs and thanks to this article I am armed with the information to make the correct choice for my needs. Thanks AnandTech, its the deep and honest articles like these that keep me coming back for more.Alseki - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
I just registered then simply to say, great article. Really informative and enjoyable to read.alexsch8 - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Anand,Thank you for this article, very informative.
Looking at the example you are giving with your self-manufactured SSD drive: If I save the DOC I use up a page. Based on what you are saying, if I make a change to that DOC, it would then be saved in the next page instead of overwriting the existing page? If that is true, then the File Allocation system (FAT or MFT) itself would contribute quite a bit to the 'filling up of pages' phenomena. Could you elaborate if the proposed file system for SSD addresses this?
Ytterbium - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Fantastic article, shame that the vendors blacklisted you for telling the truth and OCZ rock for working so hard to address issues.I'll be ordering my Intel SSD soon, I'll defintly consider the Summit when it comes out for my encoding rig as there sequental writes matter to me.
mindless1 - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Great even, but I've have to disagree with the significance of the passage that suggested the Indilinx controller makes data loss as bad on those SSD as on a conventional hard drive.The primary cause of data loss is mechanical or component failure, not power loss. If we want to consider power loss, it's not just the drive which is prone to lose data, the entire system memory suffers far more data loss than that.
Further, a sufficiently sized supercapacitor should keep the drive operating for a period of time beyond when the rest of the system would be operational, it could be sufficient for the controller to finish writing to flash all received data (or just use an UPS, that's what they're for?).
Second, I can't believe that OCZ only tests designs with HDTach and Atto, I think it more likely they knew of the problem but didn't expect anyone to find it so quickly, and felt the higher sequential speeds made it more marketable. This makes me feel that manufacturers, then online sellers should differentiate their drives with a standardized random read/write score.
What would be really nice is if the Indilinx based SSDs had an application available, similar to a HDD acoustic management bit changing app, that lets the owner set their own preference for IO versus sequential read performance.
gomakeit - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
This is by far the BEST article on SSD I've ever read! Great job anand and yes I read every single word of it!MagicPants - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Don't they ever try using their own devices? One second of latency should slap any user in the face. It should be very easy for a manufacturer to build a system with their new technology put it in front of people and see what happens, but apparently they're not doing this.They wait for reviewers to do the work for them and then get upset when they find a problem.
What the manufacturers should be taking away from this article is:
1) Try your competitor's products
2) Try your own products
3) Try them in real life as opposed to synthetic tests
4) Compare everything you've tried and market the performance that matters
7Enigma - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
But that would make sense....and we know marketing rarely does.paulinus - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
That art is great. Finally someone done ssd test's right, and said loud what we, customers, can get for that hefty pricetags.I've supposed that only choices are intel and new ocz's. Now I know, and big kudos for that.
Just need a bit more $$ for x25-m, it'll be ideal for heavy workstation use, and biggest vertex'll replace wd black in my aging 6910p :)