Installing an SSD? tips/tricks/benchmarks

So i finally found some free time and I am going to put it in over the weekend.
Thought that people will be interested in some numbers of before and after.
I am going to report WEI and crystaldisk numbers. Any more tests I can run?

 

i have a X-25M 80 gb and wondering if the 160 gb is faster or not?
pls run an atto test for me will ya
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1749/ATTO_Disk_Benchmark_v2.46.html

i get 85 mb write and 270 mb read max.

 

consider it done

 

Content not available here anymore.

 

I have been running my system without Pagefile for 4 years with 4Gb and have never had a problem or even come close to being low on RAM. It will NOT gain noticeable performance but it will get you 3Gb RAM back. Shutting down hibernate will get you an additional 2.5Gb and I dont remember if you did but shutting down SYSTEM RESTORE is a must. If you don't, you will watch your performance drop significantly within a matter of weeks (take a Crystal Test now for a starting point).

Even Intel now recommends to turn restore off.

The system restore points do not work well with TRIM at all and as they increase, TRIM cannot do its job whatsoever. This was discovered through use of Intel Toolbox and the manual Optimization (TRIM) selection. With TRIM left on and RESTORE on over just a few weeks, performance dropped extensively and the Optimizer took well over 10 minutes to TRIM a drive it should normally do almost instantly. This is universally agreed upon in several sites including Intel since this was discovered and, as stated, Intel now concedes SYSTEM RESTORE is not wise with a TRIM enabled drive. This may also be why your random 4k writes are rather low. They should be 35-50. I have all of my benchmark tests posted if you care to compare.

Getting back to hibernate, it takes less time to start than resume from hibernate so thats why so many choose to have that 2.5Gb back.

Last but not least, you can probably knock that start time down to around 15 seconds by choosing the right virus program and shutting down 'Start Up programs' that arent required. Many times when we install things such as Office or Messenger, the have programs that are in your start up file that are running even when the program is not... Shut them down...not needed.

I have extensively tested all Virus programs for boot time and the hold they have on system resources and I have discovered that MSE works best and is very minimal in affecting your start time whereas some will steal 10-15 seconds from you

http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/support.aspx?mkt=en-us

Oh...last but not least....shut down all automatic updating and do it manually if you want the best start time. Automatic updating is one of them things that continuously runs in the background and slows down your boot significantly.

IMHO...the quicker your boot, the better performance over all.

Hope I have assisted some!

 

Thanks Les, added
BTW, how are the benchmarks, do then numbers look good to you ?

 

Here are the CrystalDiskMarks,WEI and Atto Benchmarks for the X25 160 in my M17x r1

 

you need to trim bigtime
i recommend intel ssd toolbox for all intel ssd user. handy tool and can be used to manualy invoke trim.

 

If you prefer to keep system restore on, is it wiser to just go with a fast conventional drive instead of SSD?

And if you have a hybrid, one SSD one Physical disk, what would you disable then?

 

Nice thread, good job on the info. +Rep given.

 

Intel SSD Toolbox isn't showing anything wrong, I personally think it's due to the nVidia mobo and not running real Intel Chipset those mobo's using Intel Chipsets do far better on the writes but 22 second boot time is wonderful and nothing lags.

 

Nice job. +rep from me also

On my setup, I use the following tweaks also and I see a small boost in performance.

LargeSystemCache
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management, I change LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1
Memory Usage of the NTFS file system
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \System \CurrentControlSet \Control \FileSystem NtfsMemoryUsage = 2 (Normal = 1, Increased = 2; Default = 1)
Disable the 8.3 Name Creation on NTFS Partitions
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation On the Edit menu, click DWORD. By default, the value for this entry is set to 0. Type a value of 1 in the Data field.
Disable the NTFS Last Access Time Stamp
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate = 1 (0 = disable, 1 = enable)

 

Thanks for the rep guys.
I've installed Intel Rapid Storage driver and i saw a performance boost especially with the 4k random r/w benchmark.

Before (generic Windows driver) :


After (Rapid Storage driver):


@ stamatisx
Thanks, adding to the guide.

 

Not allowed to link but see "Benchmarks" of below

EDIT: A suggestion because I do not check the last box to "Turn Off Write-Cache Buffer Flushing" as I have always found the system speedier with this unchecked. There is alot of support on other tweaking threads to leave that unchecked as well...

Also for the BEST benchmark, restart your system in safe mode and then run Crystal in safe mode...You will like the end result.

 

you can also open a console as administrator and run:
winsat disk

you will have something like that

http://img405.imageshack.us/i/winsat.png/

 

Thanks, going to do a benchmark with and without to see the difference both in safe mode.

Thanks mate! Will use that one too!

 

Hi, I understand 0 = disable, 1 = enable 2 = increase but couldn't understand why, can you explain further?

Why Enable LargeSystemCache?
Why Increasing Memory Usage of the NTFS file system?
Why Disable the 8.3 Name Creation on NTFS Partitions

PS: Are the above tweaks for RAID set up only and not for ACHI/ATA set up?

Thanks!

 

The more cache you have the better, unless you are low on RAM

It will allow you to use more cache for the NTFS “pool”, which should increase performance if the system opens and closes a lot of files all the time

The creation of 8.3 filenames and directories for all long filenames and directories on NTFS partitions may decrease directory enumeration performance.

Good thing you saw it. It's my mistake, I copied it from the wrong registry file (I have one to tweak the registry and one to restore it to defaults)
I also corrected it on my post, it has to be 1

I don't have a RAID setup, I have an single Intel X25-E 64Gb on ACHI mode, but I am pretty sure that they apply for a RAID setup also.

 

So do I understand it right, Enabling LargeSystemCache will result in more L2 cache on the processor?

And will use some space on RAM to increase system cache? How much space will it take on the RAM? (my RAM is 4GB)

Will this work while Superfetch is on "manual" setting?

 

This does not affect the L2 cache, it will only occupy more RAM. The size that will be allocated will depend on the available RAM you will have. I don't know the maximum size it can occupy (possibly all of it) but with 4GB I don't think you will have any problem. I do also have 4GB and never had a problem myself. This will work best with pagefile disabled.

Edit
If you see that you run low on memory when you copy large files (ie 4GB) then restore the initial value.

I have both Superfetch and Prefetch disabled. In SSDs random access times are very fast, no need to have those files twice in your disk and your RAM. Those were ment for HDDs not for SSDs.

 

Awesome guide and tweaks. I will be sure to do these and give some numbers for a corsair x128 (indilinx controller)

 

Awesome man, that'd be great!
In the meantime I will test some more of those tweaks and post benchmarks before and after

 

just a small update, i was going to do more benchmarks to see if the tweaks are actually doing something but i noticed that my cpu never rests.. even when in idle i see the cpu temps were climining until around 60, and i saw that the multipliers are jumping up and down.
So i decided that i will skip finding the problem phase and just reinstalled windows. Now, i will try to find the setting that causes the problem by changing one thing each time, restarting and monitoring my cpu.
So the benchmarks will have to wait, but i will keep updating this thread in the next couple of days.

meanwhile, i found an excellent guide to ssds here : http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738 i highly recommend it to everyone that want to understand the ins and outs of SSD world.

 

thnx for the atto screens. 160gb is i little faster then the 80gb is see but it's neglectable. have enough space.

 

Is this a gen2? Do you have latest firmware? It should be much faster on write times if so. Also dont use the Nvidia storage driver. it will slow it down quite a bit. The nvidia storage driver will keep the toolbox from talking to the drive as well.

 

Thanks mfractal +rep

 

the nvidia driver also blocks trim, but that is only a problem for R1 owners

 

yep u are correct

 

Well here are my results, it actually looks like these dropped my write speeds But read speeds are about as good or better

Before tweaks:


After tweaks:


And judging by your before and after with the intel ssd, the old ssd was a samsung one right? I had heard they have atrocious 4k performance

 

no, my before was a raid 0 of 2 seagate 7200.4 hdds
i think that the most important param of the test is the 4k read/write speeds.yours seems to excel in it btw

 

Given the data on the box it states SSDSA2MH160G1C1 Version E62673-094 package date is Oct 2009 so it is probably a G1 but I have not searched to verify that. Also when I open Intel SSD Toolbox it does everything but the Intel SSD Management Tool that comes up in red with a statement that it is not supported by this version and to update firmware.

I have downloaded the firmware .iso file and burned it on to a CD-R per the instructions but there was a caveat on systems with nVidia mobo's or chipsets not allowing it to run and the workaround was to remove the drive and place it in a non-nVidia chip system and flash the drive then reinstall.

I have not exhausted my options, which include removing the drive and popping it in my 435T 9000 and doing the burn there. I realize I'm not getting the full ability of the drive but it's not slow or crippling by any means so I will hold off doing it until I have to open the back again to do something then I'll yank the drive etc.

 

title change per OP request. Moving to side topics as not specifically AW related.

 

thanks man!

 

Great Job, Bro! +1 rep!

 

So, as per your suggestion, i've benched both with the Windows caching on and off in safe mode
The results, well, looks like it almost does not have any effect.

Windows write caching off


Windows write caching on


As you can see, the difference in negligible. I will leave it on for now (default) and i will try to test when the drive will fill up a little bit more.

Also, i am in a search of a benchmark that is closest to real life usage scenarios (lots of 4k read/writes in parallel).. Crystal Disk Mark seems too synthetic imho.

 

woa, guys, thanks a lot.. Just bought a SSD, cant wait to install it and tweak my computer with all the tips given here!
You guys are real pro, +rep for everyone! 8D

 

Scook I see that on your first attempt the size was 100 and on the second run is 1000. Maybe that's why you see a difference, plus the SSD was newer, plus it is not the same version....
I don't have similar results from run to run either... sometimes they differ like 10MB/s or more
That was when it was new..
http://img37.imageshack.us/i/benchy.png/

That's today
http://img62.imageshack.us/i/run1.png/

 

Ya I know there is some variation but the drop in write speeds seemed like more than I would want or expect. The drive is advertised at 170 MB/s write - needless to say that was never realized at any point in this drives life haha

Didn't think about the test size, will re run with it at 100 and see it if makes a difference

Thanks!

update: reran the test with 100 test size and the write speeds are back up where they should be (you have been +rep'd)

 

Thanks scook, my guess here is that for the random 4K reads and writes the algorithm will favor the smaller size runs, while for sequential reads and writes the bigger file size will give better results.

 

but the writes were up across the board, not just the 4k

but whatever the reason, I have determined that i did not lose performance, which is what matters most lol

 

ever since i've made the change described on the first page, my chrome browser started acting up - i could not install extensions at all, and when trying chrome would crash. I've tried everything possible until i discovered it's a known issue with chrome and NTFS junctions : http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=13044...
Thought i'd point it out here for whoever plans on moving Users directory to the HDD..
btw the solution is to write a small batch that sets a couple of system variables (see in link)

 

I've got a few questions:
Why disable/empty the checkbox for NTFS indexing when you view the drive properties?

in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management the 2 keys " ExistingPageFiles" and " PagingFiles" can they be modified to place the pagefile and hibernate file inside a folder on a different partition?

what do these do?
LargeSystemCache
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management, I change LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1
Memory Usage of the NTFS file system
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \System \CurrentControlSet \Control \FileSystem NtfsMemoryUsage = 2 (Normal = 1, Increased = 2; Default = 1)

With the 8.3 disabled on this file system if I carried a file to another OS that cannot read long file names like some older MS-DOS or some type of FreeDOS, DOS based program/flash utility; will this older OS still make/show the file name with 8.3 format or will the file simply be undiscoverable?
Disable the 8.3 Name Creation on NTFS Partitions
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation On the Edit menu, click DWORD. By default, the value for this entry is set to 0. Type a value of 1 in the Data field.

 

which option are you referring to ?

You can move your page file to the HDD drive if you wish, i cancelled paging at all and Les claims he runs his system with 4gb with no paging file and hadn't had any problems. Hibernate - don't see the need for it but if you want it you could actually keep it in it's default location since it's not a file that is being written to a lot. The argument against hibernate is that windows can actually boot from scratch faster than when it hibernates, but if you feel the need for it by all means, keep it. those are just suggestions.

LargeSystemCache is a tweak recommended over at http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com and it's discussed there over and over again. Some say it helps performance, some say it doesn't improve it, guess you are going to have to try and find out.
About NtfsMemoryUsage=2: I looked a little more into that parameter, and it looks like it might be obsolete.

Regarding 8.3 Filenames : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/210638

hope i helped.

 

sorry you havn't actually answered my specific questions so I'll try rephrase them lol.
NTFS Indexing; when you right click the drive letter and chose properties. The first tab has a check box " Index this drive for faster searching". I'm curious why do this if the SearchIndexer.exe/Windows Search service is already disabled? Does clearing the checkbox reclaim space? Reduce extra writes? I'm trying to understand what changes by unchecking the box if I already previously disabled the SearchIndexer.exe/Windows Search service?

What I'm actually asking here is if those 2 keys allow you to put the pagefile inside a folder instead of sitting on the root of a drive? My interest is to have 2-3 OSes multibooted (one partition per OS all on the same SSD) and dedicate a 4th partition just for pagefiles, hibernate files, temp folders, temp internet files but one folder per OS inside this 4th partition? If I can get that done then I'd format the 4th partition as an exFAT partition with a 1MB-32MB allocation unit size. Can you see the performance boost I'm looking forward to from this experiment?

Thanks for informing me that 16-bit apps will have a problem if 8.3 names are disabled. What about if the file is copied to portable storage or to a FAT32 drive on the same system. Then attempted to be read on a different OS like a 16-bit OS? Would an MS-DOS or FreeDOS bootdisk still be able to view the file or will it be undiscoverable to this older OS?

 

There is no speed increase and no observable space reclaimed through shutting indexing off. It is really a matter of allowing services to run which really serve no purpose. Indexing was originally used on hard drives to enable the hard drive to find a file faster. This is more or less moot on a ssd with disk access averaging somewhere in the area of .1ms.

To add to this, when dealing with a large file on a hard drive, one can normally expect the access time (average .9ms) to be compounded for each pass where that doesn't occur with the ssd.

Although it doesn't really address indexing to a great degree, here is an MSDN article relating to alot of the commonly asked questions that some might enjoy reading:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

 

From what I understand, since the user decides not to use the Windows search, there is no reason for this service to be running and no reason for the file system to keep duplicate records of the attributes [ for more info, page 960, Windows Internals, Fifth Edition, ISBN: 978-0-7356-2530-3]
I still cannot answer you what exactly will happen if you clear that checkbox. I assume it clears the index buffers. But as I said I am not sure, I have to study more about it and I will come back to it with more info.

If your file doesn't comply with the MS-DOS style file name (AAAAAAAA.BBB - 8.3), or contains illegal characters, the application or the OS won't be able to see it.
For more info about it, pages 945,946,947 Windows Internals, Fifth Edition, ISBN: 978-0-7356-2530-3 .

 

Lol nice Stamatisx with quotes/references from books.. ahaha