If you didn`t like Samsung SSDs before, you will now...

Introducing the new RAPID technology, exclusive for 840 PRO and the new EVO line. It is a feature that you can enable through Samsung Magician, it is not available yet from current magician version, but will be available soon.

Samsung EVO



Samsung EVO with RAPID enabled.





Gotta love Samsung :thumbsup:

Source:
A Look At Samsung Magician's RAPID Feature - Samsung 840 EVO SSD: Tested At 120, 250, 500, And 1000 GB

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/samsung_840_evo_750gb_review,11.html

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/storage/58229-samsung-ssd-840-evo-120gb/

 

Amazing! I've been waiting for Samsung to release something like this. I'm definitely a prospective buyer.

 

Soo... it's a RAM-Disk with an SSD backup?

Not very impressed by the EVO thanks to the TLC NAND, though.

 

While the scores look nice... and bigger... actual real world use is still below the currently 'real' top SSD's (namely SanDisk Extreme II's...).


Caching is great but as my testing have shown me time and again; it is a band aid solution - vs. using a storage subsystem with real horsepower under the hood.


Would still be curious how these EVO's 'feel' in actual use (in my lighter workloads, of course) - but I'm sure even with giving up a GB of RAM and at least an order of magnitude of reliability with RAPID enabled, it will still have that trademark Samsung laggy-ness built in.

 

It is basically a feature that put only the most used programs, like Firefox or whatever, in RAM while keep using the SSD with the other programs. If you start using a different program frequently, it will learn that and will start putting that on the RAM after a while.

Unlike most RAM cache programs, it rewrite the programs on the RAM automatically when you restart the machine. So it is always on if you have enabled it with Magician

 

So it sounds more like a SSHD with a solid-state back-end then, by the way you word it Cloudfire.

For once, I agree with tiller, about caching being a band-aid solution. Why not just go with a RAID-based solution then if we're aiming for massively-fast seq. read/write performance?

 

Seriously with all due respect, please dont spam this thread down with your own isolated SSD usage that only apply to 2% of SSD users tiller. We had this discussion before.

4K speed is through the roof, RAM disk is insane at tasks like loading up maps in a game, why should this drive be different? Go look up youtube videos, RAM disks is on a total different level compared to even SSDs.

Most laptops today are 4GB+, with many many users in this forum have 8GB+, giving up 1GB means they dont have to sacrifice anything.

I`d like to see a RAID setup that is anywhere near 4GB/s...
Yeah it is kinda like SSHD, except the memory that learns this time is DDR3, not the SSD memory run by a slow controller on a SATA3 bus

 

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. 'Scores' do not translate to meaningful, real world advantages with caching.

Not even SSD based ones.

As I stated, would like to see how this works in less demanding workloads - but I don't have any hopes of getting anywhere close to what the pretty graphs you show indicate.


See:
Results: Robocopy File Copy Performance - Samsung 840 EVO SSD: Tested At 120, 250, 500, And 1000 GB

You can consider my input 'spam' till you turn blue in the face.

The facts though side with me.

 

Maybe you should read the reviews first ey? They didn`t test with RAPID enabled there.
If you took the time to read it, you could have looked at this page: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-840-evo-review-1tb-ssd,3567-14.html

To quote ssdreview:

To add further evidence why RAPID blows any SSD out of the water:

Samsung 512GB PRO


Samsung EVO RAPID Enabled


RAPID is way faster.

 

Okay, first of all - I wasn't showing how bad (3rd, 4th, 5th level) caching is (that doesn't have to be proven; everyone KNOWS it. ).

I was showing how the 'base' EVO SSD is still bad in real world workloads - even if the 'scores' show otherwise.


Secondly, the 'proof' you supply is from a benchmark that is not even run on a user accessible file system (such as NTFS...). Or, it is from ssdreview.com. (where every single SSD they test is 'awesome').


See:
Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench v1.0 - Samsung 840 EVO SSD: Tested At 120, 250, 500, And 1000 GB

(Bold mine).


As for RAPID is way faster... sure the 'scores' are higher - but shouldn't we compare two identical drives at least...

 

AnandTech | Samsung SSD 840 EVO Review: 120GB, 250GB, 500GB, 750GB & 1TB Models Tested

 

Fancy cache fancy cache, did i just said fancy cache?

It all come down to the software algorithms, which haven't been that great. If their software is really that much better , they should be selling it seperately imo.

 

Thanks. Anandtech is also pretty excited about RAPID

.

Yes it all brew down to the software and how good and quick it is at adapting. I have full belief in Samsung since they know flash memory inside out.

This is the first time we get a software, that is able to learn and cache what the user use the most, in to the DDR3, while the user doesnt have to do anything. Everything happens automatically.

Cant wait to test this with my 840 PRO. No SSD can touch Samsung now unless they offer something similar.

----------------------------------------------------------
@tiller: Pretty much all benchmarks run on a SSD nowadays is on a SSD used secondary without OS. Doesnt really matter anyway since both of the benchmarks i posted was on a secondary drive.

The whole "cache is a bad thing", go read up on it. There are many youtube videos that show how fast it is. Its not "it is just numbers, real world it doesnt matter"

If Samsung have nailed down the logarithm where the Magician is good at caching whats really being used, this might be a really good contribution.

 

Fancy cache is similar, and there no real explanation on how the rapid works.

 

It is similar, but it doesnt have a feature that only cache what is most used in the system. It tries to cache all apps and OS from I understand.

Kinda crucial when you are dealing with a 1GB limit.

Anyhow, hope to see some real world results to see how much impact RAPID got on everyday scenarios.

I wonder, if you are playing a game, is 1GB available enough?

Imagine this, automatically enabled by Magician








Yes please.

 

Do they have any graphics for very small files as well? That's what I usually deal with on a daily basis, and I suspect others as well.

 

It have option to keep w.e most read in cache at block level, at least, according to their website. Benchmark wise fancy cache will blow it away, so benchmark is pretty much pointless comparison.

Application wise, can it beat windows superfetch(?), their goal is pretty much the same.

 

Im not sure what you mean by that but if you read Anandtech review they found 75% improvement in their light workload (with RAPID enabled) which is the typical workload the average joe does everyday.

They also say this in the review which may apply to your question

.

 

Hmm, I guess I'll try it out on the 840 (non-Pro) whenever it goes out of beta then. See how it goes, you know?

 

That will probably not work. According to storagereview RAPID is now only available for the new EVO line and a new Magician build with support only for 840 Pro is just around the corner.

Maybe they'll include support for other models as well later. But right now it seems that 840 PRO and EVO line is the only ones who get it

 

They use TLC chips, right? If so nothing to see here...

 

Actually, they said they found 10%-75% improvement with RAPID - but the 'workload' doesn't mean anything there either: it is simply another trace played back as fast as the drive/benchmark allows.

This is not what happens in the 'real world' (the storage sub-system's demands are not placed to run all at once), nor will this % improvement mirror real world usage.


What I do know (assuming RAPID is just as unreliable as fancy cache...) is that saving 2 to 7 seconds is definitely in the not worth it department when the whole system could be corrupted without warning (I would say the chance for that happening is 100x greater than with RAID0 ime w/fancycache).

 

So whats wrong with TLC? It will last you for way longer than the other components in your computer.

Actually it was 75% on light workload. And no, it is not benchmarks. Once again, go READ the reviews before posting inaccurate statements. Their light workload is a script launching applications which a normal user would use.

"Just as unreliable as fancycache"
First of all its not fancycache. Second of all, Samsung use a different algorithm. Third, a recent search around about fancycache did not reveal much difficulty using it, rather "its awesome"

If you are going to continue your same negativity and your arguments that only fit your little strange way of using an SSD, I suggest you leave this thread alone.

Your whole presence is a huge downer in this thread.

I already posted synthetic benchmarks showing how fast RAPID is. I have posted real world benchmarks showing how fast a RAMdisk is. I have asked you to go look up videos about the impact of RAMdisk. 2+2

And all you do is whine and complain and post ridiculous arguments that its not so great although evidence show otherwise.
It is given to us free, enabled through Magician which all Samsung owners have. Yeah poor us...

You had a long discussion with me a while back that Intel 525 or 530 whatever it was, was better than Samsung 840 PRO but was proven dead wrong by many real world benchmarks.

And now you are back, with your negativity again. Well im not falling for it this time. This is my last reply to you.

You are really getting on my nerves

 

Seems nice, but going from the Anandtech review CPU usage seems to be increased significantly. I wonder how RAPID will affect battery life. On one hand, reads and writes are getting completed faster so the SSD goes to idle faster... But the extra CPU and RAM usage uses more power...

 

Do you have links to these "Real World" benchmarks or the thread to that discussion? This "Real World" benchmark has them neck and neck. 840 Pro - Intel 520.

Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD Review - Benchmarks - PCMark Vantage - Drives with Data Testing :: TweakTown

Without seeing [H]ardOCP's "Steady State" testing, (hopefully, it's coming) the EVO looks like the king of the hill, price - performance.

I haven't seen [H]ardOCP "Steady State" testing results for the 520, if they exist. The 840 Pro get's pummeled in this "Real World" test.

HARDOCP - Iometer & Steady State Testing - Corsair Neutron GTX 19nm 240GB SSD Review

It seems Samsung have emphasized low Que Depth performance with the EVO



Samsung 840 EVO Overview - New SSDs with Interesting Rapid Mode Cache Tech - 840 EVO Specifications :: TweakTown

 

Here is a good chart showing the Magician learning and adapting

Notice the huge boost with gaming and application loading.

 

Looks like this justifies the Nvelo buyout. The title seems to be aimed at someone eh?

Would like to see more data on this as it gets closer to public availability. But hey, I run Samsung 30nm RAMs too. Let me try out this new feature?..

AMD's giving their AMD memory customers more access to Dataram RAMDisk at least.

 

Yeah that Nvelo purchase was a pretty good move strategy wise.

I think EVO is meant to replace the normal 840, so maybe they are trying to get more people to buy the EVO, thats why they only have support for it. As for 840 PRO also get support, its in a different tier both performance and price wise than EVO so adding support for it won`t get in the way of them selling EVO drives.

Kinda sneaky if true, but you can you really blame them looking at it business wise?

Absolutely true. Will be interesting to see how it will impact battery life.
I could be wrong but I don`t think there is a lot of disk activity when you are running on battery since you are restricted from gaming and using heavy software. So it may not use that much battery.

 

Not if you are an impulsive user like me .

 

Typing on a machine running Samsung SSDs but with the entire OS/App partition cached in RAM: I'm not interested.

 

lol that will be better yes.

I hope Samsung will allow us to allocate a little more than 1GB in the future.

 

What happens to this type of solution in case of sudden power loss? What if the RAM portion it is using as cache is damaged? We'll see how things work out

 

Another reason not to reply on a fully automatic RAM caching solution. Unfortunately, all major desktop OS cache disk writes now, so sometimes you have to manually force sync anyway.

 

Nah! I use eBoostr for a long time (2-3 years?) And it does exactly this. Caching frequently used data to the RAM, flash memory, another drive even if it is faster AND saves whole cache when shutting down so on the next boot it would be loaded again. So it is Big Lie about "Unlike other RAM-based caching solutions,RAPID keeps cached data persistent between reboots by writing information to the SSD itself".

However I am very happy with this technology. Why? Because it seems that it is the same as Momentus XT technology (despite there it caches to the nand, not to the RAM) BUT it also uses write caching! Seriously, those benches show that write speed increased significantly so it has to use write caching.
Advantages:
- all cached data should be on the SSD one way or another so it doesn't provide additional or excessive wearing of the SSD's cells;
- while booting caching software downloads everything from the SSD so it shouldn't make booting much longer (2 seconds maybe or less?);
- fully automatic (however this belongs to almost every caching software) which is better than RamDisks;
Disadvantages:
- not so big cache after all. 1GB, while it also is used for write caching is not much at all;
- no way to increase the cached size on RAM overkilled systems;
- it works only for SSD (as long as I understand) and doesn't cache slower HDDs which need it much more than SSDs;
- possible decreased battery life due to higher CPU and RAM usage;
- still not fully figured out in my head but it is possible that adapting to the frequently used data will not be as good as it looks like because of small 1GB size will force cached data to move each other in and out the cache very frequently.

Even though it works on the block level and not on the file level still 1GB seems not enough. Perhaps it will be like with Android devices with small RAM amount where your launched apps will be closed as soon as you minimized it.
What if you launch photoshop once and it was slow, then you launched it again and it is cached and fast. And then you launch bunch of other apps, doing your usual work, then reboot and then... again photoshop is slow. And who knows, what if in this situation it will become slow even before reboot?
We need to know more about the algorithms of creating a list of frequently asked blocks of data.

ATM this software looks like a mix from fancy cache and Intel Smart Response.

 

Not really a problem since notebooks have UPS, battery you know, that kicks in if you experience power loss.

As for having RAM problems when using it, Anandtech says the logarithm Samsung use regularly flush the content on the RAM to SSD. So if you encounter problems on the RAM, you have a backup on the SSD.

@James D: About the 1GB limit: Anandtech explains this:
"File types that are meaningless to cache are automatically excluded (think very large media files), but things like Outlook PST files are prime targets for caching. Since RAPID works at the block level you can cache frequently used parts of a file, rather than having to worry about a file being too big for the cache."

I too think its a bit too low, but then again, maybe they have made a logarithm that only cache whats needed to be cached to have the speed boost? I hope they will increase that 1GB limit though, make it a certain % of the users RAM capacity instead so that power users can use more of their RAM.

What do you think write cache will do to our experience? What gains will it give? I understand since its both write and read, it will function exactly like a SSD/HDD?

 

Lets say you install a program, right? Usually it should unpack itself into the Temp directory and then install to the Program fies. If it has write caching it will start installing itself to Program files right after unpacking it in the RAM and before it actually writes to the Temp folder; and it will be installed to the Program files folder and ready to be launched before delayed writes will actually be done on the SSD.
Although it will give not very significant boost on SSD it is still smth. However I am not aware about RAPID that good as all I say right now is grounded on that benches I saw. If it gives higher write speed than it is possible (aka 550MB/s for SATA rev.3) then it must be taken from RAM... so write caching

 

If it is caching on the block level - it doesn't know if it is a media file or a pst file.

And as for the Outlook pst files are prime targets for the cache... I'd like to see it choke on my 18GB pst files...

I agree eBooster was the only caching software that I could use (reliably) on production systems - and get real and tangible performance improvements from it. As a matter of fact; it was just as fast - if not faster - than the SSD's at the time I was testing/using it. (search these forums).


When did even eBooster become non-essential?

When I was able to give my mobile platforms 16GB RAM or more, have 240/250/256GB SSD storage on board (or more) and especially when Windows 8 x64 Pro became available (even as a beta...).

At that point, the caching software was detrimental to the real/actual performance/productivity in my workflows - no matter how pretty the scores looked.

The O/S and Programs need a powerful cpu and abundant RAM to work optimally and efficiently - even at 64/128GB RAM capacity giving up any RAM will bring your productivity down - given your programs can use the full capacity, of course.


The analogy for more 'normal' workflows using caching software like 'RAPID' is similar to putting racing stripes on a Pinto or a Chevette - or if you're too young for a car... putting playing cards in your spokes to make the 'cool noises' when you're cruising down the sidewalk at about 1 mph.


And sure; a mobile system does have a 'sort of' built-in UPS (the battery) - until (when, not if) the battery runs out of juice and the system simply turns off and corrupts your O/S, programs (or worse; your data too).


While the raw performance of the RAPID enabled storage subsystem does go up - it is mostly in the writes. In fact the read metric is slower with RAPID enabled.

See:
A Look At Samsung Magician's RAPID Feature - Samsung 840 EVO SSD: Tested At 120, 250, 500, And 1000 GB


Look at the table with RAPID enabled/disabled in the above link to see the detrimental effect on reads.


With the standard 'lagginess' I now come to expect in Samsung SSD's - with RAPID being enabled also; it will make a relatively slow responding system feel even slower.

And with reliability/dependability issues on top of it.


Hope to see some real world (not benchmarks) testing that alleviates some of these concerns of mine.

 

Ofcourse notebooks have batteries else they would be just smaller desktops. You have to consider that it's going to be used on desktops too. And those are the majority of SSD users for the moment.

They could have gone better about increasing that SLC emulated portion of the NANDs by adding one more 64GB chip. TurboWrite it's called. Proprietary (copied from Sandisk)
Can one really tell between 2-3GB/s and 450-550MB/s in real world scenarios? What's the point if photoshop starts 1sec less? If one really needs that speed, there are better solutions to it (PCIe SSD reaching both 3GB/s read-write).
I'm not blaming Samsung for coming up with RAPID. It's just that it could focus on better things in my opinion (like an mSATA 840 Pro not the TLC based and pretty expensive PM841).

 

SSD itself do write cache, so essentially if you are running ssd you already have it.

 

Are you talking about RAM in the SSD? I believe it is only for caching before writing to different NAND chips by controller. Not for reading from it before writing.

 

Here is a little chart showing the difference between Intel SRT, Momentus XT and NVELO Dataplex (which the new magician is built upon).

Since SRT and Momentus put it on way slower NAND memory while Samsung managed to use this technology on RAM, its clearly the superior out of the three.




Release it already so I can have a go with it with my 840 PRO

 

@Cloudfire, yeap, I was totally right. Both about write caching and mix of fancy cache and ISRT However now I am not totally sure about SSD wear. If it is block level caching then it is much harder to create a needs-to-be-cached list and therefore it really can write all that Gigabyte to SSD every reboot... If it was file caching it could just upload all files which are in the need-to-be-cached list each boot... And perhaps this is exactly why it is only 1 GB of cache size determined in the SMagician. If they let people set 2 or 3GB which will be written every reboot... too many people will use warranty service I guess.

 

In theory this write will be sequential and not as bad as the dreaded random write, as I understand it.

 

Just a tip. For notebooks with SATA 2 port it is unique opportunity to increase SSDs performance.

 

Don't know if Samsung has done anything about the limitations of it's Nvelo Dataplex software acquisition (doesn't look like it has), but these seem to be serious limitations:

See:
Corsair Accelerator 30GB SSD Cache Drive Review - Installing The Magical NVELO Dataplex Software - Legit Reviews

The biggest ones for me: restricted to MBR partitions, only a single (identical) drive installed is supported and multiple O/S's not supported.


Definitely in the 'consumer/toy-like' section of the tech industry.


I guess Nvelo needed Samsung to buy them - this is not a product they could market for $$$.

 

lol I didnt find anything wrong with those points.
RAID support would be nice but I can imagine it makes the whole RAM flush command a lot more complicated. Maybe in the future they will add support for it?

It is absolutely targeting consumers. Pardon my ignorance, but isnt the "industry" mostly running PCI-E SSDs or servers with RAMDisk anyway?

 

NVELO was doing caching BY the SSD not the caching SSD by RAM.

So the restriction about RAID means that you can't use 2 SSDs in RAID as a caching device while SM will use RAM for this purpose.

 

No, not talking about RAID - talking about using the software with simply two (identical) drives installed.

Good point about the caching by the SSD and not RAM though...

 

Yeah I have checked on various sites. Rapid supports Raid as well.

Here is a video where Samsung explains RAPID in depth. As for the 1GB limit, magician can compress the data which it puts on the RAM

Start watching at 35:00
Samsung SSD 840 Evo - @2013 Samsung SSD Global Summit in Seoul - YouTube

 

Can't we just run a script or something to output frequently used files to null (or whatever Windows equivalent there is) so they get cached, and then let the OS's own RAM management handle the rest? This method supports whatever the OS supports.