Strange performance of SSD

7

My SSD (on Windows XP) is working well, however, I get the following strange results from Crystal Mark 2004R3:

236 MB/s for  sequential read
 59 MB/s for  sequential write
168 MB/s for  random read 512KB
151 MB/s for  random write 512KB
 90 MB/s for  random read 64KB
 89 MB/s for  random write 64KB

How it comes that sequential write is much slower than non-sequential? It's only about half as fast as sequential write for my standard HDD. I'm quite sure my partition is properly aligned.

Could anybody post their results? Can anybody explain it?

EDIT

On my SSD, there's a FS with 4kB per cluster and I'm quite sure it's properly aligned, so each cluster corresponds exactly with one sector (a real 4kB sector, not 512B as Windows thinks). Now I see that according to the wikipedia the page size (i.e., the smallest erasable unit) is "often 4–8 kilobytes". The manufacturer doesn't bother with providing the page size in the datasheet.

At least 1/4 of the disk has never been used, so there should be a lot of free blocks allowing the writes to be fast.

EDIT 2

I forgot to say that my drive is Kinston SV100S2/128G.

maaartinus

Posted 2011-09-09T23:44:13.010

Reputation: 3 054

1What do you mean by non-sequential? You've only posted sequential benchmarks. – sblair – 2011-09-09T23:56:45.970

I get similar results, but with lower sequential write values (probably due to the relatively poor sequential write performance of my X25-M SSD). – sblair – 2011-09-10T00:06:23.877

@sblair: Fixed now. – maaartinus – 2011-09-10T00:55:56.400

Are you running in AHCI or RAID? – Shinrai – 2011-09-12T22:11:14.437

Why XP? 7 does all the SSD-centric optimizations out of the box. – Billy ONeal – 2011-09-12T22:11:24.123

@Shinrai: In BIOS I set RAID mode (but the SSD is not in any RAID). Is it important? – maaartinus – 2011-09-12T22:17:13.133

@Billy ONeal: W7 may do whatever it wants, but I'm not going to try if everything I need works there. My next install will be Linux with XP running in a VM. – maaartinus – 2011-09-12T22:20:37.123

@maartinus - Running in IDE mode is a huge problem for most SSDs. Depending on your RAID controller, AHCI might work better. – Shinrai – 2011-09-12T22:20:40.590

@Shinrai: OK, I'm gonna switch to AHCI as soon as I reinstall and get rid of my fake RAID (which was a really terrible idea). – maaartinus – 2011-09-12T22:28:09.030

1@maartinus - It's also possible AHCI and RAID may perform identically. As long as you're not using IDE or a compatibility mode of some sort. I think XP is likely to be the biggest problem, though. – Shinrai – 2011-09-12T22:32:48.300

Answers

6

This is only a guess - because XP does not support TRIM, your sequential write is going over blocks that once had data on them and needs to erase them before writing them, this will slow down the write performance of the drive.

When you are performing random writes, the drive might be writing to blocks that are truly blank, resulting in faster performance because the drive does not have to perform an erase operation first.

There are utilities for Operating Systems that do not support TRIM that will go through the drive and erase data on blocks that are not storing information for the filesystem.

Wikipedia - TRIM

Dustin G.

Posted 2011-09-09T23:44:13.010

Reputation: 2 025

I'd guess that TRIM is not necessary (see my edit), but I'm not sure. – maaartinus – 2011-09-12T22:10:36.120

Did you ever say what drive it is? or am I missing something? Your edit is in the ideal world - it depends on the firmware and controller on the drive too. TRIM is necessary because even though the drive is half empty, if files were deleted or moved, the blocks will not be cleared. But you could have a firmware issue or it could just be how fast the drive is. Let us know what drive it is so we can help you figure out what is going on. – Dustin G. – 2011-09-13T01:27:21.407

2

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2808/4

Those are pretty typical write speeds of the Intel X25-M.

According to Anandtech, a SSD controller that is optimized for random reads AND writes is expensive to make and implement. Since reads, especially random reads, are by far the operation the benefits the most from SSDs, Intel chose to favor that operation at the expense of writes.

From reading the glowing reviews about the X25, the write speeds has not hurt it. Keep in min these are still much faster than a mechanical harddrive's write speeds.

surfasb

Posted 2011-09-09T23:44:13.010

Reputation: 21 453

The funny thing is that my SSD sequential writes are slower than sequential writes for my normal HD by nearly 30%. They're also slower than non-sequential writes to my SSD, which I can't explain. I agree that writes are not that important. – maaartinus – 2011-09-12T22:15:51.920

X25-M makes up for it in extremely low failure rate, but I agree that the numbers in the question seem REALLY wrong.. – Shinrai – 2011-09-12T22:20:59.077