computer1975

As SSD adds a level of abstraction between the OS's file system and SSD's physical media, the OS has NO WAY to trace the exact location (address) of empty (or recycled) block and data location.
Niel 發表於 2011-3-29 19:35

I think you not known well design of filesystem and how filesystem interactive with SSD.
NTFS is designed for Magnetic HDD. Don't expect it is work very well for SSD.

Not enough free space (less than 20%) is more and more likely for OS to be not successful to write data to continuous free space (file fragment occur). In this situation, SSD will more likely to write more than one location.
It is very high change for SSD to do more erase block and then read performance will be suffered. At the conclusion, not enough free space contributes more wear tearing and deteriorates write and read performance.

Niel

I think you not known well design of filesystem and how filesystem interactive with SSD.
NTFS is d ...
computer1975 發表於 2011-3-30 09:36 AM

Are you blind?

As SSD adds a level of abstraction between the OS's file system and SSD's physical media, the OS has NO WAY to trace the exact location (address) of empty (or recycled) block and data location.

The block handling behavior is entirely done by the SSD controller (not the OS or the file system).

However, keeping a certain amount of free space does help to maintain the performance of the SSD.

Everyone knows NTFS is not that suitable with SSD as other FS like exFAT.

If you read my reply CAREFULLY, I agree with you that keeping a certain amount of free space does help to maintain the performance of the SSD. And you have mention the reason behind it CORRECTLY.

However, you were wrong when you said

how filesystem interactive with SSD

and

otherwise window will spend more time to search empty space

As aforementioned, SSD adds a level of abstraction between the OS's file system and SSD's physical media, the OS has NO WAY to trace the exact location (address) of empty (or recycled) block and data location (Unless you have access to engineering tools).

As a result, the file system will not be and does not need to be understood by the SSD controller. So it is not the Windows (OS) who spent more time to search for empty space, but the SSD controller itself.

Niel

咁我個表是否=15年?
big_nature 發表於 2011-3-29 11:08 PM

你隻SSD都好新wor haha，得10個鐘。

你用耐d再計啦，你一開始裝software + 行benchmark (如有) 先令到個host write咁高。

big_nature

回復 55# Niel

晚上只上下網!
睇下各師兄的評論，
做下公司成本計算!
真係用得好少時間!

個 host writes高嗎?
以為佢有15年壽命，
要換野都冇藉口!

Niel

回復  Niel

晚上只上下網!
睇下各師兄的評論，
做下公司成本計算!
真係用得好少時間!

個writes高嗎? ...
big_nature 發表於 2011-3-30 02:38 PM

你一開始裝software + 行benchmark (如有) 先令到個host write咁高。

之後正常用average write會drop

big_nature

回復 57# Niel
裝過2次機!
只行過一次AS SSD benchmark!
就會咁高?
(15X G都係高?)

Niel

回復  Niel
裝過2次機!
只行過一次AS SSD benchmark!
就會咁高?
(15X G都係高?)
...
big_nature 發表於 2011-3-30 09:02 PM

power on hours: 10
host writes: 155GB
Write per hour: 15.5GB...

不過，你一開始裝software + 行benchmark 先令到個host write咁高。

之後正常用average write會drop

big_nature

回復 59# Niel
原來條數係咁計!
以為=15年!

講真我每晚都用2-3個鐘度!
9號買到依家都20日應該有40-50個鐘!
點解會話我用得10個鐘?
我都可奇怪!
是否重裝機開始計!
或是!?
toolbox行過一次complete read scan!
唔知有冇關?

dieago

talk to their CS today, he ask me provide them the serial nbr for checking.

just check my ssd and post my benchmark for ching's review... can someone tell me that "bootup-> slower than vertex 1 30g... what's wrong now?"... "the running bar is now 7.5 before the windows' logo appear"... omg

hw+driver:
amd 770 chips, amd 3850 (10.2 driver), 620 u, 4g ram, hdx4, emu 0404, broadcom 5708,
sw:
just instal : vista 32-all patch update to date, (1) purecodec (2) itunes (3) foobar, (4) eset smart security 4