The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Why You Absolutely Need an SSD
Compared to mechanical hard drives, SSDs continue to be a disruptive technology. These days it’s difficult to convince folks to spend more money, but I can’t stress the difference in user experience between a mechanical HDD and a good SSD. In every major article I’ve written about SSDs I’ve provided at least one benchmark that sums up exactly why you’d want an SSD over even a RAID array of HDDs. Today’s article is no different.
The Fresh Test, as I like to call it, involves booting up your PC and timing how long it takes to run a handful of applications. I always mix up the applications and this time I’m actually going with a lighter lineup: World of Warcraft, Adobe Photoshop CS4 and Firefox 3.5.1.
Other than those three applications, the system was a clean install - I didn’t even have any anti-virus running. This is easily the best case scenario for a hard drive and on the world’s fastest desktop hard drive, a Western Digital VelociRaptor, the whole process took 31 seconds.
And on Intel’s X25-M SSD? Just 6.6 seconds.
A difference of 24 seconds hardly seems like much, until you actually think about it in terms of PC response time. We expect our computers to react immediately to input; even waiting 6.6 seconds is an eternity. Waiting 31 seconds is agony in the PC world. Worst of all? This is on a Core i7 system. To have the world’s fastest CPU and to have to wait half a minute for a couple of apps to launch is just wrong.
A Personal Anecdote on SSDs
I’m writing this page of the article on the 15-inch MacBook Pro I reviewed a couple of months ago. I’ve kept the machine stock but I’ve used it quite a bit since that review thanks to its awesome battery life. Of course, by “stock” I mean that I have yet to install an SSD.
Using the notebook is honestly disappointing. I always think something is wrong with the machine when I go to fire up Adium, Safari, Mail and Pages all at the same time to get to work. The applications take what feels like an eternity to start. While they are all launching the individual apps are generally unresponsive, even if they’ve loaded completely and I’m waiting on others. It’s just an overall miserable experience by comparison.
It’s shocking to think that until last year, this is how all of my computer usage transpired. Everything took ages to launch and become useful, particularly the first time you boot up your PC. It was that more than anything else that drove me to put my PCs to sleep rather than shut them down. It was also the pain of starting applications from scratch and OS X’s ability to get in/out of sleep quickly that made me happier using OS X than XP and later Vista.
It’s particularly interesting when you think of the ramifications of this. It’s the poor random read/write performance of the hard disk that makes some aspects of PC usage so painful. It’s the multi-minute boot times that make users more frustrated with their PCs. While the hard disk helped the PC succeed, it’s the very device that’s killing the PC in today’s instant-on, consumer electronics driven world. I challenge OEMs to stop viewing SSDs as a luxury item and to bite the bullet. Absorb the cost, work with Intel and Indilinx vendors to lower prices, offer bundles, do whatever it takes but get these drives into your systems.
I don’t know how else to say this: it’s an order of magnitude faster than a hard drive. It’s the difference between a hang glider and the space shuttle; both will fly, it’s just that one takes you to space. And I don’t care that you can buy a super fast or high flying hang glider either.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
295 Comments
View All Comments
kisjoink - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
"Intel doesn't need to touch the G1, the only thing faster than it is the G2."I've been an avid anandtech-reader since 1998, but this is the first time I'm commenting on an article. I just have to say how much I disagree with this quote!
I've used the x25m since its launch (December 08) and at first I was very happy with the drive. Although really expensive, I got convinced to buy one after reading your first previews and review. And the performance was great, at least for the first 4-5 months. At that time I started noticing some 'hiccups' (system freeze). At first they were few and short. But over time they become more noticeable and now they're a real pain. Sometimes my system can freeze for more than 15 seconds. It usually happens when I edit a picture in photoshop, but it can also happen while writing something in Word, programming java in Eclipse or just surfing the web.
The problem? I'm pretty sure its the Intel drive. After reading too many SSD-articles I immediately suspected the x25m when the I started noticing the hiccups. So I got used to running the "Windows Resource Monitor" in the background - studying the disk activity after every hiccup. Just take a look at this example (just started photoshop and did some light editing on a picture):
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3073/hickup.jpg">http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3073/hickup.jpg
I'm sure there are many ways I could tune my system better. I've done a couple of things, like moved the internet temp folder to a mechanical drive etc. And the performance of the drive will probably recover if I do this special SSD-format - but it's a real pain to have to do complete OS installation 2-3 times a year when you claim it's possible for Intel to create a new firmware with TRIM-support. I mean - I really did pay premium price for this product (close to 800$ included VAT here in Norway for the 80GB version in December 08).
So, to summarise - I got convinced to buy the drive after reading your articles (you write great reviews!) - and I understand that the problem that I (and others from what I've been reading on forums) is really difficult to recreate in a testing environment - but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. I just wish you could point this out. The expensive G1 has some really big performance issues that might force you to do a complete reinstall of your system a couple times a year - and although Intel could fix it they wont, because they have a new, better and cheaper product out - and people like me (altough we feel really screwed over by Intel) will buy their next device (as long as its the best device out there).
IntelUser2000 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Is that after you installed the firmware version 8820 or before?? That reduces the problem a lot unless you filled the drive to more than 70%.kisjoink - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Yes, I forgot to mention that - it's after I upgraded to the 8820 firmware. I don't think I've ever filled it up with more than 80%, usually I have about 30GB of free spaceAnand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
This is actually an interesting scenario that I've been investigating a bit myself. The 8820 firmware actually significantly changes the way the drive likes to store data compared to the original firmware. That's fine for a cleanly secure-erased drive, but what happens if you have data/fragmentation on the drive already?Every time you write to the drive the controller will look at the preferred state specified by the new firmware. It will see that your data is organized the way the old firmware liked it, but not the new firmware. Thus upon every...single...write it will try and reorganize the data until it gets to its happy state.
I honestly have no idea how long this process will take, I can see it taking quite a bit of time but perhaps you could speed it up by writing a bunch of sequential files to fill up the drive? The safer bet would be to backup, secure erase and restore onto the drive. You shouldn't see it happen again.
Think of it like this. I live in my house and I have everything organized a certain way. It takes me minimal time to find everything I need. Let's say tomorrow I leave my house and you move in. You look at how things are organized and it's quite different from how you like things setup. Whenever you go to grab a plate or book you try cleaning up a bit. Naturally it'll take a while before things get cleaned up and until then you won't be as quick as you're used to.
Take care,
Anand
jimhsu - Friday, September 11, 2009 - link
The G2's I've discovered REALLY don't like to be filled up more than 80% or so. When I had 8GB free on the 80GB drive, seq write performance basically plummeted at random intervals (to levels like 30MB/s.) Random writes sometimes dropped down to 4MB/s. Now that I've freed 20GB and tried writing and deleting large ISO files to the drive, the performance is coming back slowly.Dunk - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Hi Anand,I'm blown away by your article series on SSD - absolutely fantastic.
When new Intel firmware is launched with TRIM support for the G2, can I flash it without losing the drive and needing to reinstall everything?
I'm happy using the out of the box MS driver for now in Win7, but would prefer to use Intel's TRIM version once available.
Many thanks
Duncan
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
If Intel follows the same pattern as what we saw with the G1's firmware update, you should be able to flash without destroying your data (although it's always a good idea to back up).Thank you for your comment :)
Take care,
Anand
mgrmgr - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Okay, single X25-M G2s can be updated without losing data. But I am considering two 80GB drives in RAID-0 to overcome the sequential write slowdown with Photoshop. How will updating work for the RAID-0 pair?Do you have an opinion about using a RAID pair for Photoshop?
Noteleet - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Fantastic article, I'm definitely planning on getting a SSD next time I upgrade.I'm fairly interested in seeing some reviews for the Solid 2. If OCZ can get the kinks worked out I think the Intel flash and the Indilinx controller would make a winning combination for price to performance.
Visual - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Where does the drive store the mapping between logical and physical pages and other system data it needs to operate? Does it use the same memory where user data is stored? If so, doesn't it need to write-balance that map data as well? And if that's true, doesn't it need to have a map for the map written somewhere? How is that circular logic broken?Or does the drive have some small amount of higher-quality, more reliable, maybe single-level-cell based flash memory for its system data?