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
Simulating a Used Drive
Since SSD performance degrades over time, it’s important to not only look at how well these drives perform new - but also the worst they’d perform over their lifetime. In order to do so we’d need a repeatable way of “seasoning” a drive to reduce its performance to the worst it could possibly get. The most realistic worst-case scenario is one where every single block on the drive is full of data. If a secure erase wipes all LBAs, that’s the best place to start. To simulate a well seasoned drive I first secure erased the drive.
After the secure erase, I used iometer to write one contiguous file across the disk - filling up the entire drive with 128KB blocks. In the case of the 80GB Intel X25-M, that’s 74.5GB of data on the drive before I run a single benchmark. The spare area is left untouched.
Next, I take my test image and I restore it onto the partition with a sector by sector copy. The sequential file write made sure that data is stored in every page of the SSD, the test image restore adds a twist of randomness (and realism) to the data.
There are other ways to produce a drive in its well-used state, but this ends up being the most consistent and repeatable. To confirm that my little simulation does indeed produce a realistically worn drive I ran PCMark on three different drives: 1) a freshly secure-erased Intel X25-M, 2) an Intel X25-M setup using the method I just described and 3) the Intel X25-M used in my CPU testbed that has been through hundreds of SYSMark runs.
The benchmark of choice is PCMark Vantage; it simulates the real world better than most drive benchmarks. The results are below:
| Intel X25-M State | PCMark Vantage Overall Test | PCMark Vantage HDD Test |
| Fresh Secure Erase | 11902 | 29879 |
| Simulated Used Drive | 11536 | 23252 |
| Actual Testbed Used Drive | 11140 | 23438 |
The secure erased system loses about 3% of its overall performance and 22% of its hard drive specific performance compared to my testbed drive. The seasoning method I described above produces a drive with nearly identical drops in performance.
The method appears to be sound.
Now that we have a way of simulating a used drive, let’s see how the contestants fared.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
250 Comments
View All Comments
coil222 - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Yes I run a pair of MTRON 7500s in a raid 0 stripe for my OS and Gaming (wow). I don't recall numbers off the top of my head but tests were better on the raid 0 than a single drive configuration.Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs&fea...">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs&fea...
sawyeriii - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
I just wanted to state how much I loved the combination of technical and real world information in this article.What is the possibility of having different page sizes built into a drive? I.e. you could have a drive with many 1k page packages on one die, 2k on another, and most others 4k. Could that theoretically help? Could the controllers work with that (or would you need to combine multiple 1k's into a 4k transfer size)?
PS One note on page 3, the VelociRaptor and Intel in the first chart (responce time) are switched, however the text is correct.
StormyParis - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
the ugly truth is that an SSD won't let you do anything that you couldn't do without it, and due to its cost and small capacity, it's not a replacement drive, it's an extra drive: not less power consumption but more, not less noise but just the same. You just gain a bit of time when booting up and lauching apps... which I do about 1/week and 1/day, respectively. Assuming your system has enough RAM (and if it doesn't, buy RAM before buying an SSD !), you won't feel much difference once the apps are launched.For the same cost, I'd rather buy a bigger screen.
It's urgent to wait for prices to come down. But I'm all for lots of people buying them now and help get the price down for us wiser buyers.
Rasterman - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
I've already decided my next system in a few months will have one, after you go through 5 hard drive failures (over several years) lets see how much your willing to pay to not have to put up with it anymore. If you use your PC for anything useful (work) then an SSD is a no brainer even at $1000/64GB IMO if the data security is there, speed is secondary for me.When you already have the best screen, video card, memory, why not have the best drive? And your argument is pretty dumb, almost any upgrade won't let you do anything that you couldn't do without it, not just SSDs.
Calin - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
You get lower power due to the lower power use of the SSD and the fact that the other drive is not stressed with difficult access patterns (small random reads/writes). Remember that idle power of a SSD drive is very low7Enigma - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
No, his comment was accurate for most users. Due to the small capacities and high cost these will be used as boot drives primarily with maybe a single heavily used program (say the current game or program you are playing/using), the rest will be on an additional drive. So while the power consumption of the SSD would be less than the old drive, the aggregate power usage of both (even when the larger storage drive is primarily at idle) will be higher than the single HD.And I believe you meant to say traditional HD for idle power?
strikeback03 - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
If all you were going to throw on the drive is the OS and a game, a 32GB drive should be plenty. The reason the 80GB and up range is important is so general consumers can load all their programs on it.But yes, in consumer usage other than a laptop, some people who were previously using one drive for both boot and storage would likely need a mechanical HDD is addition to the SSD. OTOH, those who were using a Velociraptor (or RAID array) for boot and another drive for storage will see their power consumption decrease.
sawyeriii - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Have you used a SSD? (If so which)I would state that it is not a luxary product, it is a premium product. The price difference you pay WILL translate to faster performance (if you choose correctly). More RAM only helps upto a point.
Remember performance is based on a system of parts...
CPU
RAM
NORTHBRIDGE
GPU
SOUTHBRIDGE
I/O INTERFACE
HDD/SDD
Microsoft's Windows Experience Index has specific flaws, but the concept is sound... The system can only go a fast as the slowest component in the system (relative to the amount of time used by that component).
Testtest - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
... there's also Supertalent's Ultradrive ME (MLC) and LE (SLC) and Photofast's G-Monster v3At least the Supertalent drives are quite a bit cheaper with the same drive layout/controller than the Vertex drives and only differ in the firmware (which isn't bad either).
It's however possible at least with the Ultradrive ME currently to provoke a kinda timeout error after they've been fully filled once and then still beeing written on. I don't own a Vertex so I can't test that there but if it was a controller issue, it should pop up there sooner or later as well (if you take a look in their suppport forum some error reports seem very similar).
Intels have their 80% bug, Indilinx drives have their issues too it seems - let's hope that firmware can cure it!
Great article btw!
iwod - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link
Both SuperTalent and OCZ 30 / 32 GB drive cost exactly the same on NewEgg$129