SSD's: there yet, and what is what?

[Blazkowicz]

there are obviously other things to care about, too
- don't run an antivirus's background scanner
- disable indexing, etc., maybe "superfetch" on vista/7
- run msconfig and remove all useless realplayer-like stuff
- have your OS + programs on a small partitions at beginning of disk. over 100MB/s on a modern hdd, quick to defragment
- swap, temp etc. can go on a secondary fat32 partition (I have such one, DOS bootable for convenience)
- use light-weight media players, light-weight word processor (abiword) if desirable, evince rather than acrobat reader

now that's a computer I never wait on. sure I don't have photoshop but I am the limiting factor for doing anything creative with it.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Wut?

Just take a look at a I/Os per second chart on any reputable hardware site that's reviewed SSDs.

There's no point in being deliberately obtuse over this issue; electronics > mechanics, it's always been this way. You may as well demand I prove to you that transistors switch faster than relays...


Errh, I've personally experienced practical, vast speedups when using my system with a SSD compared to traditional HDDs. You're not making sense.

If you're working with large files, as is likely to be the case in the scenario the OP proposed, you will not see significant speedup from faster I/O (i.e. decreased latency).

It's just that simple. Again, throughput is what counts here, and SSDs just don't have much of an advantage there.

O.S. and application load times will of course decrease with an SSD, but a few seconds once or twice a day is hardly noteworthy.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If you're working with large files, as is likely to be the case in the scenario the OP proposed, you will not see significant speedup from faster I/O (i.e. decreased latency).

It's just that simple. Again, throughput is what counts here, and SSDs just don't have much of an advantage there.

O.S. and application load times will of course decrease with an SSD, but a few seconds once or twice a day is hardly noteworthy.

Well to be fair, IF you open and close many many programs often AND you turn off superfetch in Windows (Vista and Win7) then you'll notice the speed over a mechanical drive more often. Then again a SSD is still not going to launch and relaunch often used applications as quickly as having superfetch on.

But yes, in the usage pattern the OP was asking about. Other than burning money for the sake of burning money, an SSD isn't going to increase productivity in any noticeable way over a modern magnetic HDD. And any perceived speediness won't materialize into any material gains for the price discrepency.

And before people think I don't like SSD's, I love the technology (Otherwise I wouldn't be using one in a personal machine, nor been experimenting with them for the past 2 years), but don't think it's even remotely worth the cost for Businesses except in very rare circumstances. And especially in this economic climate I'd rather see Businesses be more fiscally responsible than blowing money for something that won't net them an increase in productivity/earnings.

Regards,
SB

 

[Kyyla]

Actually Windows 7 turns off superfetch when installed on a fast SSD. My X-25M certainly starts programs up much faster than my previous HDD with superfetch on.

 

[Sxotty]

I have used 3 SSD and I certainly never ever want to buy another 2.5" drive that isnt a SSD in a laptop. My raptors have been ok as far as HDDs go, but even they are definitely shown up by the SSDs. I don't disagree on price, but I would certainly pay the premium I paid for my raptors over the years for a SSD since the SSD is even better.

I have one jmicron based SSD and even that isn't nearly as bad as most people say, but that is b/c I use it only for readin basically and no writes occur. The two intels I have are superb and the newer versions should be even better.

 

[Grall]

If you're working with large files, as is likely to be the case in the scenario the OP proposed, you will not see significant speedup from faster I/O (i.e. decreased latency).

Of course, except many, or perhaps even most SSDs today offer vastly higher I/O speeds for large file transfers than any consumer HDD - or even any HDD period. Afaik, even Seagate's latest 15kRPM model doesn't break 150MB sequential transfer rate, while many recent SSDs do. So you can have cake AND eat it with SSD, as long as you pay through the nose for the capacity...

Not that 15kRPM SAS or fibrechannel drives are particulary cheap either lal! (Or their controller add-in boards I might add; SSDs are smokin' fast as-is connected to any old SATA/2 connector on your mobo...)

but a few seconds once or twice a day is hardly noteworthy.

Are you using a system with a SSD in it on a daily basis so you have any foundation for such a postulation? I do, and I notice it still, more than six months after purchasing my drive. It's just plain faster than I'm used to, at everything I do. It's not just booting the PC or starting programs, I benefit from my SSD in many different ways such as installing big windows update patches that can sometimes be upwards of five minutes of agonizing harddrive grinding and headthrashing. SSD magic gets it done in a blink of an eye. Installing new video drivers also... Twice as fast as I'm used to, easily. Zoning in to Dalaran when playing WoW; several hundred percent speedup compared to a mechanical drive. And so on and on.

SSD is fuckin' BOSS. Just admit it already. ...If you can afford the expense of course, and if you don't want to spend several times more money for several times less capacity, well, then it doesn't matter how smoking fast these things are. Just as long as you do admit that these drives ARE faster than anything else out there - because they bloody well are.

I'll readily agree SSD currently is too expensive for mainstream. I feel kind of like an eejit for blowing so much money on my SLC drive, 64GB is a pitifully small drive with today's humongous OS installs, but it's just about enough for my needs with some gigs to spare and I feel happy just by having my PC running so fast and smoothly so in a way it's money well spent.

 

[Frank]

Does anyone know if the Samsung and Indilinx controllers run a custom Linux? They seem to consist of a modified ARM core, and "Indilinx" seems to hint as much, but I couldn't find it.

It seems obvious to me to do it like that, as Linux has had a Flash file system from the start and such a solution is already used from MP3 players to the majority of enterprise raid controllers.

While Intel uses dedicated hardware, of course. If you have the research budget and fabs, that's the way to go. R&D is very expensive, but production is cheap.



Anyway, after some more investigations, it seems the new Samsung controller with the newer firmware has the best price/performance for everyday desktop use. But you cannot upgrade the firmware, so you have to hope it's recent.

Which is actually rather strange, as it performs only average to bad in most synthetic disk benchmarks.

It's better than a Raptor in all but one tests (sustained random 4k writes, although most ssd's have a problem with that), but it's only in between a mechanical hdd and most other ssd's (not counting the old JMicron ones) in about a quarter of the tests. And it performs only fair to good in most others.

But for the startup times, file create and copy, and application suite benchmarks it's mostly somewhere at the top, and it has the best minimal scores (as in min-avg-max) overall. It never stalls or freezes.

So, I agree with nutball: we need better tests and benchmarks for ssd's!


For the server market, there is no real competition when you use a fat, caching RAID controller and there are always pending I/O requests: the Intel X25-M G2 is the only one that fits the bill. When they get their firmware sorted out, that is...

It rapes the competition in most synthetic drive tests, but is only about as fast as the Samsung and Indilinx ones for everyday use. And it's more expensive.


For laptop use, I would actually recommend a Kingston SSDnow V-series with the JMicron controller, unless you have money to spare: they're cheap, so you can get almost double the GB's than with any other ssd solution, and while not as fast as the other good ssd's, they're faster than a hdd and don't suffer from falling.


If I'm not sure what the customer is going to do with it, but they simply want an affordable, high-performance, all-round ssd, the ones with an Indilinx controller are always a good choice. They might not be best for their specific use pattern, but they'll be pretty good at it anyway.

 

[V3]

Have they ever try working with Photoshop on SSDs rig ? It's not as fast as one would think. I evaluated one and to be honest the rig wasn't what I consider affordable (when you have to purchase for the whole studio) nor does it offer good value for money.

For fast Photoshop rig you need fast CPU, lots of RAM and lots of physical hdds (4 of 7200 rpm hdd minimum). In that order. If you max out those and still want something faster then go with faster hdds or SSDs in some RAID config, it won't offer you that much more for the amount of money you're spending. This is assuming they're using 64 bit Photoshop.

The best way to get speed from Photoshop is just to work smart, IMO.

 

[trinibwoy]

It's not just booting the PC or starting programs

Yeah, exactly that's the least of it. The biggest benefit is higher responsiveness in any application that interacts with the hard disk. I have an SSD on my laptop and it feels far snappier in general usage than my much faster desktop. Now my desktops at work and at home just feel slow - it's hard to describe though, it's very subtle.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Of course, except many, or perhaps even most SSDs today offer vastly higher I/O speeds for large file transfers than any consumer HDD - or even any HDD period. Afaik, even Seagate's latest 15kRPM model doesn't break 150MB sequential transfer rate, while many recent SSDs do. So you can have cake AND eat it with SSD, as long as you pay through the nose for the capacity...

Not that 15kRPM SAS or fibrechannel drives are particulary cheap either lal! (Or their controller add-in boards I might add; SSDs are smokin' fast as-is connected to any old SATA/2 connector on your mobo...)

You say they're faster and I'm sure you perceive a difference in *latency*, but throughput is virtually unchanged, as every review on the planet shows.

Are you using a system with a SSD in it on a daily basis so you have any foundation for such a postulation?

Funny you should ask such a question. I'll take this guy's real world experience with Photoshop on an SSD over your subjective opinion about non-Photoshop use

Have they ever try working with Photoshop on SSDs rig ? It's not as fast as one would think. I evaluated one and to be honest the rig wasn't what I consider affordable (when you have to purchase for the whole studio) nor does it offer good value for money.

For fast Photoshop rig you need fast CPU, lots of RAM and lots of physical hdds (4 of 7200 rpm hdd minimum). In that order. If you max out those and still want something faster then go with faster hdds or SSDs in some RAID config, it won't offer you that much more for the amount of money you're spending. This is assuming they're using 64 bit Photoshop.

The best way to get speed from Photoshop is just to work smart, IMO.

I do, and I notice it still, more than six months after purchasing my drive. It's just plain faster than I'm used to, at everything I do. It's not just booting the PC or starting programs, I benefit from my SSD in many different ways such as installing big windows update patches that can sometimes be upwards of five minutes of agonizing harddrive grinding and headthrashing. SSD magic gets it done in a blink of an eye. Installing new video drivers also... Twice as fast as I'm used to, easily. Zoning in to Dalaran when playing WoW; several hundred percent speedup compared to a mechanical drive. And so on and on.

SSD is fuckin' BOSS. Just admit it already. ...If you can afford the expense of course, and if you don't want to spend several times more money for several times less capacity, well, then it doesn't matter how smoking fast these things are. Just as long as you do admit that these drives ARE faster than anything else out there - because they bloody well are.

I'll readily agree SSD currently is too expensive for mainstream. I feel kind of like an eejit for blowing so much money on my SLC drive, 64GB is a pitifully small drive with today's humongous OS installs, but it's just about enough for my needs with some gigs to spare and I feel happy just by having my PC running so fast and smoothly so in a way it's money well spent.

You're still confusing latency and throughput. Just because you can access a file faster doesn't mean it gets transferred any faster unless the file is tiny. Most files that see heavy work in photoshop are not tiny.

 

[Frank]

I don't know if you would want to store large files (like .psd's) on an ssd, but if you would want to do so, the ssd's with a Samsung controller are the fastest drives to do so, bar none.

 

[Sxotty]

Shaidar they are way faster than a 10k raptor that is for sure. I work with large files often and it is way faster at opening them up and reading them (intel drives @ 160GB vs. raptor 300gb). And they are only getting better. Regular HDDs have no chance at all
http://hothardware.com/News/Microns-RealSSD-C300-SSD-Is-The-Fastest-Ever/

Now it is possible that the whole SSD craze will pass and a newer technology that works differently, but has the same advantages will replace it, but something needs to replace the slow HDDs we have now.

Frank where in the world do you get the idea that the samsung drives are the bees knees?
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=5
Sequential read test there. Samsung drives are not the good.

 

[assen]

We evaluate periodically the feasibility of buying SSDs for our build server (game asset builds, churns through several hundreds a gigabytes a day, both reading and writing, both sequential and random access); we still buy 15k rpm SAS Cheetahs.

 

[N00b]

We evaluate periodically the feasibility of buying SSDs for our build server (game asset builds, churns through several hundreds a gigabytes a day, both reading and writing, both sequential and random access); we still buy 15k rpm SAS Cheetahs.

Why? Money or performance?

 

[assen]

The expected performance does not warrant the huge price difference, for us. YMMV, of course - but the original poster didn't indicate a desire to make the best machine EVAR, no matter the cost - which is the direction discussions in tech forums usually take.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think the problem is that the cost/performance and cost/capactiy of SSD is still very high compared to hard drives, certainly for home users. When you consider that the current sweet spot for hard drives is a 1 tb drive for about £70, SSDs are currently way too small and expensive unless you really, really need that speed and are willing to pay a premium for it.

We've had talk for the last couple of years about how "this year is the year that SSDs take over from hard drives", and it's just not going to happen until prices go down and capacity goes up. Ultimately, the market decides when a new technology takes over from an old one, and I can't see most people giving up high capacity, cheap hard drives for small, expensive SSDs that still have operational issues. SSDs are just not ready for general usage in their current state.

 

[assen]

Yeah, and while hard disks may have hit a wall in terms of performance, they seem to still be able to grow in capacity.

 

[Grall]

You say they're faster and I'm sure you perceive a difference in *latency*, but throughput is virtually unchanged, as every review on the planet shows.

Like... What, exactly?

You know, just for fun I copied the 3,910,853 kb patch.mpq file from my WoW/data folder to the root of my C: drive. It ran at ~120MB/s at the end (initially much higher, but I imagine windows buffered generous amounts in RAM), and I point out again this is copying to and from the same fragmented drive.

I also point out that under more ideal conditions performance would be even higher; this is by no means approaching the maximum abilities of my SSD. If I had set up a RAM-drive to copy to I could have reached closer to the max for linear transfers, but I don't know of any good free Win7-compatible ramdrives to try out.

...But if you can show a mechanical desktop drive, fragmented after months of use, that does better than 120MB/s........... Well, more power to you, I say.

Copying from the SSD to my now rather aged 160GB Hitachi Deskstar drive resulted in ~53MB/s copy speed. Copying on the same HDD gave a paltry 28MB/s.

Now, I'm the first to admit that consumer HDDs have indeed gotten faster in the interim years since I bought this drive, but over 100-400% faster? Hardly.

I believe I have now firmly disproven your postulation that I'm confusing bandwidth and latency (which I never did, but whatever), but if you want to continue maintaining your somewhat misguided belief that mechanical drives hold a candle to a good SSD, well, who am I to stop you? I'm simply too busy cruuuuuizin' along at warp speed on my intel drive to care!

Funny you should ask such a question. I'll take this guy's real world experience with Photoshop on an SSD over your subjective opinion about non-Photoshop use

Thanks, but the discussion has broadened somewhat beyond just photoshop. Besides, as demonstrated in my post above, good SSDs offer superior read and write speeds compared to mechanical drives. Many drives are even faster for sequential reads and writes than my intel drive, even to the point of hitting the real-world physical limits of the SATA2 interface as you may know. And that is something NO mechanical drive has ever managed to approach.

So I just don't see where you're coming from here.

 

[Sxotty]

BZB the SSDs that are most recently released don't really have "useage" issues anymore. There are some glitches to be found relating the the new trim command, but the real problems have been relegated to the past. There is a reason seagate is making a SSD now. If a HDD maker wants to survive they will need to enter the market eventually. Seagate is arguing now (since they are entering the market) that SSDs are suddenly competitive in a wider array of areas, but of course nothing has really changed much. Note I do agree with you on the cost issue and do still have mechanical HDD as well, just bought another 1TB drive to backup everything, but for me mechanical drives are going to be backing up data/storing things I won't be using soon, not being the drive to use in day to day tasks.

 

[N00b]

I think the problem is that the cost/performance and cost/capactiy of SSD is still very high compared to hard drives, certainly for home users. When you consider that the current sweet spot for hard drives is a 1 tb drive for about £70, SSDs are currently way too small and expensive unless you really, really need that speed and are willing to pay a premium for it.

I think it really depenends on the use case. For home users and most office users SSDs are really a nice to have. If your a pro who uses the computer intensively all day, e.g. a developer, the increase in productivity and morale (less waiting == less frustration) will warrant the higher price for ssds most of the time.