SSD drive OCZ 64GB gives no speed-up?

Mohan · Post by **Mohan** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:21 pm

Hello,

to quote what my friend said about this:

I thought it would be a great idea to get a SSD Drive as a System Drive. So I went to a local store and got me a 64GB OCZ Core Series MLC type SSD Drive (OCZSSD2-1C64G).

I mirrored my system drive on the new SSD Drive which took veeeeery long: 10 hours for 54GB what Never cloned a Drive before so I don't know how long it takes usually - I expected half an hour...

Finally I booted my PC with WIN XP 32-bit ..... AND....there is no significant speed-boost in loading times or whatsoever. Power-On to a responsive Desktop takes 1.45min. Maybe it's a little faster, but I really can't tell. My programs take ages to load as before...

Is there anything I could tell him to do to at least get the expected speed up for loading XP and reduce program start times?

Is it a problem that he simply ghosted the old 7200rpm drive? (Well the reason for the long write times is probably from it being MLC, and many small files like browser cache to copy.)

Thanks for any advice!

thepwner · Post by **thepwner** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:31 pm

The only thing I can say is that defragmenting is no longer needed. SSD drives DO fragment files just like all drives (more of an OS problem, not the drive, or so I was told) but the issue is with a mechanical drive there is time for the drive when reading a file to seek to the next part of the file (whereever it might be because it is fragmented) but with an SSD it doesn't have that seek time because there aren't any moving parts.

So defragmenting won't do him any good is what I am trying to say.

Mohan · Post by **Mohan** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:46 pm

Well thanks, though I already knew that

josephclemente · Post by **josephclemente** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:08 pm

First thing that comes to mind is partition alignment. This makes a HUGE difference.

Check the OCZ forums for information on aligning the partition. This would require a reinstall of Windows XP afterward. Avoid using ghosting software afterwards unless you can be sure the restored partitions retain their alignment.

There are other tweaks as well you'll find in those forums, definitely worth checking out.

thepwner · Post by **thepwner** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:14 pm

Mohan wrote:Well thanks, though I already knew that

Ya I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:43 pm

the ocz core drives are notoriously slow. its the way they are built. you need to get an SSD with built in cache, like the intel x25-m or the new ocz vertex drives.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:58 am

I see no mention of what kind of computer your friend has. It could be a single-core celeron 1.6ghz with 512mb of DDR266 RAM for all we know. Not to be overly harsh, but when somebody measures how fast their computer is based on the boot-up time, it's often a sign of a novice computer user.

Mohan · Post by **Mohan** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:02 pm

He probably got a single core something like 2.6GHz Pentium with at least 2GB of RAM. I'm not sure on this tho, I might ask him again, if that makes any differences, tho I doubt it... it's definitely not a low spec system. More like mid-range.

And well, boot up time, programs starts... that's what counts to him most, everything else is as it was before too, but now he layed down some more cash and doesn't see any effect...

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:36 pm

Yeah but 3rd hand we can't diagnose this. Boot time to application load includes:

Bios
CPU
RAM
drive(s)
Video Card
Sound Card
all other drivers
Antivirus
all other services
all other applications in startup group / registry

Then you get to settings like

system restore
virtual memory (swap file/page file)
appearance (background image, fonts, color depth, resolution)
fast user switching
screen saver

Then you have to wonder about domain/group policy being in the mix.

When you consider "all other applictions" for a second you realize how much spyware/viruses/rootkits/etc are an issue and even if his system is clean from malware you realize how many "good" programs gum up the startup process? Adobe, Apple, Google, Nero, Real Media, Sun, Yahoo, The Weather Channel, you name it he could be starting up a hundred different things for all we know.

You'd have to time every step in the boot process and compare it to a known fast system to see where the dissimilarity is. It can be done but right now we are shooting blind.

wojtek · Post by **wojtek** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:51 pm

I can say only one thing: go to OCZ forum or buy Vertex and in both situations INSTALL FRESH WINDOWS (As dhanson865 set before - there is a lot of things to start with Windows)!. 10 hours for cloning?! I'm installing Win XP with drivers and some software in 9 minutes! Something is REALLY wrong. Post his config - chipset is most important.

PS. I don't see P4 as a mid-range system - it's more like a low-end for Â£50 from gumtree - correct me if I'm wrong.
PS2. Defrag can be useful with SSD - check OCZ forum.

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:11 am

wojtek wrote: PS2. Defrag can be useful with SSD - check OCZ forum.

Only if you want your drive to die an early death. dont defrag your ssd, ever.

wojtek · Post by **wojtek** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:13 am

Aris wrote:
wojtek wrote: PS2. Defrag can be useful with SSD - check OCZ forum.
Only if you want your drive to die an early death. dont defrag your ssd, ever.

Sorry, I wasn't precise enough - SOME kinds of defrag are OK - there is whole threat about this.

flyingsherpa · Post by **flyingsherpa** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:12 am

point your friend to this recent article on anandtech. It is extremely well written and shows you why most SSDs out there right now pretty much suck (poor random small read/write performance, despite high sequential read/write). Well worth a read to anyone considering laying out the cash for one of these drives. I'd love an intel x25-m, but will wait a few more months until the new sandisk models force prices down a bit.

josephclemente · Post by **josephclemente** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:57 am

I still say follow the OCZ forums for information on installing XP fresh with alignment set.

They also have registry tweaks listed there, some are good but there are a lot of pointless ones too so check those with care...

Mohan · Post by **Mohan** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:59 pm

I'll ask for some system specs... he's currently doing a project and won'T change anything at the moment though as he needs a running setup.

Mohan · Post by **Mohan** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:02 pm

Ok, some more system specs:

Asus P5B Bios V.1.06.22
Intel Core 2 Duo 2,4GHz @3,0GHz
4 GB RAM (3.5GB usable with WINXP 32bit)
6 SATA HDD 7200rpm
+ several PCI extenstion cards for audio related stuff

No AV running. Swap file on 7200rpm drive.

So what's your take on this?

Thanks for any hints!

Post by **MikeC** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:39 am

Mohan wrote:6 SATA HDD 7200rpm

Swap file on 7200rpm drive.

These are obvious bottlenecks. Those 6 HDDs, if they have anything on them that Windows wants to access during boot, well you probably might as well not have an SSD. Ditto the swap file on the HHD -- it should definitely run on the SSD.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:23 am

MikeC wrote:
Mohan wrote:6 SATA HDD 7200rpm

Swap file on 7200rpm drive.
These are obvious bottlenecks. Those 6 HDDs, if they have anything on them that Windows wants to access during boot, well you probably might as well not have an SSD. Ditto the swap file on the HHD -- it should definitely run on the SSD.

Huh? What you just said is the opposite of traditional computing. If I have a server with 6 HDs and 2 of those drives are the boot array and the other drives are in a separate array then the traditional way to speed up swapfile access is to move it off the boot array.

Given that he has 4GB ram and an SSD boot drive I'd disable the swapfile before I'd consider putting it on the SSD. If he has some finicky program that demands a swapfile I'd turn it on at some very small size like 512MB on one of the traditional hard drives not the SSD. Of course you have to know what you are doing when doing this as the default behaviour in windows is to create additional swap files not move the file from one drive to another. So to be darn sure you have to

1. disable virtual memory on all drives
2. reboot
3. Test all your programs. If they all work leave VM off.
4. If you have to turn on virtual memory Do so on the drive you want it on and don't let windows manage that filesize or pay attention to its suggestions. Leave it off or set it at a fixed size that is less than 1GB. (given the caveat that it is for use were you don't intend to debug stop errors)

I don't have a SSD here to benchmark with I'm going of of prior experience but it shouldn't be too hard to test boot times in all 3 configs

1. No VM
2. VM on SSD only
3. VM on traditional HD only

It'd be interesting to see the numbers for all three. Once you had the numbers you could use whichever is fastest. Assuming you decide to use VM you could then do tests of

2a 512MB VM on SSD only
2b 1GB VM on SSD only

3a 512MB VM on traditional HD only
3b 1GB VM on traditional HD only

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:31 am

Mohan wrote:Hello,

to quote what my friend said about this:
I thought it would be a great idea to get a SSD Drive as a System Drive. So I went to a local store and got me a 64GB OCZ Core Series MLC type SSD Drive (OCZSSD2-1C64G).

I mirrored my system drive on the new SSD Drive which took veeeeery long: 10 hours for 54GB what Never cloned a Drive before so I don't know how long it takes usually - I expected half an hour...

Finally I booted my PC with WIN XP 32-bit ..... AND....there is no significant speed-boost in loading times or whatsoever. Power-On to a responsive Desktop takes 1.45min. Maybe it's a little faster, but I really can't tell. My programs take ages to load as before...
Is there anything I could tell him to do to at least get the expected speed up for loading XP and reduce program start times?

Is it a problem that he simply ghosted the old 7200rpm drive? (Well the reason for the long write times is probably from it being MLC, and many small files like browser cache to copy.)

Thanks for any advice!

OK, going back to this post knowing that the system is a Core2Duo with 4GB ram and 6 traditional hard drives my next thoughts are:

* Boot time will be slightly slower with 7 drives being enumerated by the BIOS. Or is he counting the time after the POST completes?

* How did he clone the drive? Did he use Ghost, did he make it part of a software RAID 1 array and let windows synch the drives? Did he use some other program?

*Some programs would copy the blank space which would would mean writing to the entire SSD making its firmware think the drive was full. That would change the behaviour of the SSD.

*Could it be that the drive is still part of a RAID 1 array with the traditional hard drive?

*Could it be he cloned the drive and even though it has data on the SSD he is still booting from the traditional hard drive instead of the SSD? How long does it take to boot if he disconnects all the hard drives?

Mohan · Post by **Mohan** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:56 pm

Thanks for all your suggestions. We'll try these out if time permits!

m^2 · Post by **m^2** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:55 am

dhanson865 wrote:
MikeC wrote:
Mohan wrote:6 SATA HDD 7200rpm

Swap file on 7200rpm drive.
These are obvious bottlenecks. Those 6 HDDs, if they have anything on them that Windows wants to access during boot, well you probably might as well not have an SSD. Ditto the swap file on the HHD -- it should definitely run on the SSD.
Huh? What you just said is the opposite of traditional computing. If I have a server with 6 HDs and 2 of those drives are the boot array and the other drives are in a separate array then the traditional way to speed up swapfile access is to move it off the boot array.

Additionally, consumer SSDs usually do bad when it comes to small, random writes (like all writes to a page file). Performance is from average to terrible and it makes them wear out sooner.
Vertex, X-25M and many enterprise drives are exceptions here. They wear out faster too (which is not necessarily a problem), but perform as good or better than HDDs. Still splitting load helps.

This advise is most like to deprecate at some point (controllers improve), but now one should move as many random writes off a consumer SSD.

SSD drive OCZ 64GB gives no speed-up?

SSD drive OCZ 64GB gives no speed-up?

Re: SSD drive OCZ 64GB gives no speed-up?