Photofast G-Monster V4 ZIF SSD User Review

Introduction

Notebook owners using ZIF HDD or older SSD storage have a new performance storage upgrade option available. The Photofast G-Monster V4 ZIF SSD combines a EastWho EWS720 native PATA SSD controller, hardware garbage collection, best-in-class low power consumption and fast 15MB/s 4kb random reads. Performance testing below shows an average of 3-times-faster performance than a ZIF HDD. It is available for purchase from the Photofast US, UK, EU or AUS distributor.

Note: Reviewed is a pre-release 128GB product with 16MB of cache and the SSD controller blanked. The final product will have 64MB of cache with slightly faster write performance than indicated below.


1: Unboxing slideshow
2: G-Monster V4 internals: 34nm MLC NAND flash, blanked SSD controller in pre-release product
3: G-Monster V4 installed in a HP 2510P
4: PDF showing hardware garbage collection implementation technical details

PhotoFast 1.8" G-Monster V4 ZIF PATA SSD Specifications summary

Interface: 1.8” ZIF ATA7 Standard Retail Price: 32GB-US$219 64GB-US$399 128GB-US$599 256GB-US$999 Random 4kb reads: 16MB/s (measured 15MB/s @UDMA5)

Sequential read/write: 128/90 MB/s for 128/256GB size 128/60 MB/s for 32/64GB size (measured 91/73 Mb/s @UDMA5 for 128GB model) Average access time: 0.1ms Power consumption idle/active: 0.02W/1.5W (measured 0.2/1.4W)

Installation

The first thing I noticed was the fit and finish of the plastic top and aluminium bottom cover of the G-Monster V4. It oozes understated quality much like a German car, but in this case the product is engineered in Japan and manufactured in Taiwan.

Connecting the G-Monster V4 to the system itself is very easy. The ZIF cable is disconnected from the HDD and the Gmonster V4 attached in it's place. The black strip on the ZIF socket is a stiffener as shown here. Flicking the stiffener into an upright position allows very easy insertion of the ZIF cable, secured by flicking the stiffener in the down position.

No additional tools are provided for standalone cloning of the existing ZIF HDD. So suggest using a USB HDD to move your data. If don't have one consider purchasing a US$10-delivered ZIF USB enclosure to use with the GMonster V4 and downloading the free Acronis Easy Migrate 15-day Trial to do the cloning. Alternatively could copy to then from network attached storage.

Performance Comparison: G-Monster V4 ZIF SSD versus Toshiba ZIF HDD

[/TR]

Drive​	Idle/Active Power^1	Benchmark​
		IOMeter^2​	Bootup	2GB file copy^3	CrystalDisk| PerformanceTest| atto| AS SSD^4​
Toshiba MK8009GAH 80GB 1.8" ZIF HDD 4200rpm	0.4W/1.1W​	low​	82.1s​	350s​
Photofast G-Monster V4 128GB 1.8" ZIF PATA SSD	0.1W/1.4W	boot: 919/37.3 4k-r: 3915/15.0 4k-w: 671/2.6 seq: 87/69	21.8s (3.8x faster)​	142s (2.5x faster)​

Tested platform: XP SP3, HP 2510P U7600-1.2 2GB ICH8M UDMA5/ATA100 I/O.
^1 - measured using powertop in Linux/Recovery console. Toshiba ZIF HDD's 1.1W rated Active was used as a reference point.
^2 - industry standard used to measure performance.
^3 - link shows drive hparm output and partition alignment details
^4 - 4kb-64thrd a good reflection of overall os/app responsiveness

The above benchmarks compare the HP supplied 4200rpm 1.8" ZIF HDD against the Gmonster V4 ZIF SSD. An identical XP partition image was used to give back-to-back comparison of bootup time. The image and partitioning was optimized for best performance on both the SSD and the HDD by setting it to be (i) defragmented using Perfect Disk (ii) it was aligned to a 512MB boundary for best SSD performance. WinBootInfo gives the precise bootup time data. The actual 26GB of total data occupied the top third portion of the 1.8" ZIF HDD so the benchmarks are better than average and will worsen as the drive fills and seek times increase.

The G-Monster V4 SSD is a very noticable improvement in performance over the 1.8" ZIF HDD. Going from a coffee break inducing 80.2 seconds to 21.8 seconds XP boot time, or taking 142 seconds versus 350 seconds to read and write a 2GB file. That's an average of 3 times faster performance, the sort of disk I/O activity that can be said to extend to all disk activity. There's no ticking noise, Firefox doesn't have momentary seek delays when scrolling windows or reading/writing cache. Applications just popup instantly. Once experiencing this sort of speed it's hard to go back to using the ZIF HDD.

Power Consumption

Low power consumption is one area where this SSD shines. For the first time I see my idle power consumption as low as 5.6W. When using the ZIF HDD I'd only ever seen it go as low as 5.9W. This means battery life improvements.

Garbage Collection (GC)

One of the innovations of the G-Monster V4 is automatic dynamic garbage collection done simultaneously when a 'write' is issued to maintain fast write performance. Some Intel/Indilinx based products SSDs send TRIM commands following deletion of files. Works well with Windows 7, but XP without a GC firmware requires further user intervention by manually running commands such as Indilinx's wiper.exe. The G-Monster V4 requires no user management.

GC is great as it meant the SSD consistently delivered > 50MB/s sequential write performance. Though at one point it did drop down to 30MB/s after excessive amounts of performance testing and drive reimaging, so was quite dirty. A manual Tony Trim was performed quickly improving write performance back up to as new levels.

Pros

• an average of 3 times faster bootup and sequential read/write performance improvement over a 1.8" ZIF HDD
• novel automatic hardware garbage collection
• firmware is software upgradable by the user
• advertising blurb says it is a native PATA device meaning great compatibility
• up to 256GB in capacity - the first in the 1.8" ZIF SSD format

Cons

• <strike>new product, no product history. Requires early adopters to confirm operation</strike>

---

Related links/articles

• Photofast support forum - direct interface to Photofast engineers
• 1.8" ZIF SSDs Comparison - competing products currently available.
• 1.8" ZIF to 2.5" SATA enclosure - allows future use of the G-Monster V4 ZIF SSD in a 2.5" sata system.

 

Nando4,

Although I'm not in the market for this type of product, I have to say this is a great review.

What I'm curious about is if the new Intel Rapid Storage Technology drivers would install on this machine and if it would improve the benchmarks for this drive (as well).

I also want to guess that this is an Indilinx controller - is there a prize for who guesses right?

Again, Good job!

 

hm a friend of mine could use that..

 

Good review but i got a question.. What is ZIF?

 

an ata connector for 1.8" mini-harddisks.

 

Hi Nando4,

First of all thanks for the review and all the effort you're putting in. Can you tell me when the photofast will hit the stores and maybe something about the expected street prices for the 128 and 256gb version ? Also..... I know you have tried (or are running) the runcore pro IV. How do these compare (speed, compatibility, expected stability etc etc.)

regards,

René

 

From what I can tell... the 128 Gb ZIF will be around $600 and the 128 Gb 50 pin IDE will be around $700. That could change when it gets released.
No information on the 256 Gb.

 

I posted some benchmarks for the V2 drive here.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5311184&postcount=8278
It is clear that real improvements have been made as you would expect.

These newer drives are very expensive though but do provide increased performance for those that need it.

Thanks for taking the time to write this review and the others that you've written recently.

 

Glad to help ZIF-equipped storage owners being one myself. Together with the Mtron Mobi (limited to 32GB), the Runcore ProIV and Photofast V4 are the top three performance ZIF SSDs on the market at the moment. If could find where an Intel X18-M G2 and a ready made sata-to-pata adapter are hiding then that would make the fantastic four

I figured someone will want a direct comparison of both. Best way to do that is to evaluate the Runcore ProIV ZIF SSD User Review and this Photofast G-Monster V4 ZIF SSD User Review side-by-side. Both tested using the same disk image on the same HP 2510P machine evaluating the same criteria of performance, power consumption, garbage collection plus others. Neither has shown any compatibility or stability issues, both bringing an average of 3-times-faster performance. Both companies commended for bringing performance ZIF SSD storage choices to our ZIF systems.

The only component missing to complete this comparison, as you point out, is pricing and availability of the Photofast G-Monster V4. Runcore's ProIV has set a new low price and high performance standard so I too am curious to see how Photofast will meet this challenge. An ETA of by the end-of-this week has been given for Photofast V4 pricing/availability details and will update the first post of this thread accordingly.

@tilleroftheearth, netbooknews' Photofast GMonster V4 ZIF/IDE video tells us this new PATA controller originates from Korea. The same place where the Mobi Mtron came from. This means the controller can't be the sata-based Indilinx Barefoot.

 

guess the intel is then susan..




(.. mrs. invisible)

 

Nando4, what? I don't win anything then?

davepermen, lol (You can't see her, but she's hot!)

 

I see a big difference in write performance in the 512 and 4k compared to the runcore... IS this something that is down to the fact of the 16mb instead of the 64mb or maybe even beta firmware ?

 

How does a free pat on the back for a good guess based on the specs sound?

rmjanzen, I too noted the lower random write performance querying Photofast to see whether a newer firmware or bigger cache would see improvements. The following was their response:

As a comparison point, netbook news GMonster V4 IDE video saw slower random 4kb/512kb CrystalDiskMark writes on UDMA6 than I achieved on the slower UDMA5 interface, presumably with the full 64MB cache.

That aside, there is plenty to like about the Photofast V4 ZIF SSD. Low power consumption, 4kb random reads and sequential read/write putting it in the top 3, the hardware garbage collection making maintenance easier, a native PATA controller ensuring high levels of compatability.

I figure it's pricing will be the critical factor on which way users/buyers swing here.

 

I just preordered the 64gb for 290€ including shipping. The 50 pin IDE version, since I have that connector.

We will see...I was told, that I should be receiving it before Christmas.

 

@laser21: Did you get the SSD? How is it?

 

Hello Nando4:

Thanks for the great review! This assisted with my purchase of the drive.

I purchased the Photofast 50-IDE V4 128 GB and installed it on my Dell Latitude X1 with Intel Pentium M ULV processor 1.1GHz running at 1.1GHz, 2mb L2 cache, Intel 915GMS chipset, 2.0GB DDR2-400 RAM, UDMA Mode 5 IDE, Windows XP SP3 with write caching on the drive enabled. Overall, the SSD is a great product with noticeable improvement in performance over the original drive.

However, my CrystalDisk2.2 sequential write scores are less than half of the results posted above - for a computer of similar technology. Here are the results:

--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------
Sequential Read : 86.118 MB/s
Sequential Write : 34.786 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 79.451 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 21.350 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 11.815 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 1.964 MB/s
Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2010/01/23 1:21:57

Do you have any thoughts how I can increase my sequential write speed? I performed a PerfectDisk defragmentation on a clean OS installation.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

All the best, Mass

 

The Photofast V4 does GC during other writes so should clean up a dirty drive to improve performance. If not I can suggest two things:

- perform a Tony Trim, ie: consolidate free space followed by AS-Cleaner to write "0xFF" (nulls) to free space, effectively doing a manual GC.
- Check that you are not running 33Mhz timing mode, as shown here. Appears to be set when the bios detects a 40pin cabling mode.

 

Hello Nando4:

Thanks for the lead.

I checked the above bit settings by using Bar-edit and they are all set to ATA100 timings with 80pin cable (according to the Intel 82801FBM ICH-6M controller datasheet for my Dell Latitude X1). I then tried: enabling modes ATA33 and 66, disabling bits 12 and 13 (for ATA100), setting 40 pin cable, in a whole lot of different combinations and I was not able to get above the 34MB/s sequential write speed.

I can assume the drive is operating at ATA100 since I'm getting read speeds of 85MB/s. There must be something in the bios, IDE controller or SSD that is preventing write speeds greater than 34MB/s.

Any thoughts where to check from here? Thanks.

All the best, Mass

 

One thing I did notice last time I had the GMonster V4 in the system was that linux reported write caching disabled by default. Worth manually checking in WIndows (with hdparm) and switching write caching on:

Code:

hdparm -i /dev/sda
hdparm -W1 /dev/sda

Did you also do the Tony Trim as suggested in my previous post? If done those three things with no write performance improvement, then I'm at a loss as to what is the cause of the slower than expected writes.

 

Hello Nando4:

I confirmed write cache is enabled. I download As-cleaner, but, it won't run - I get the error "The application failed to initialize properly. Click ok to terminate..." I Also tried running it in Admin mode, and with Microsoft KB934205 ( http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934205) installed. As-cleaner will not run.

Any thoughts on how to get it running? Thanks.

All the best, Mass

 

Hello Nando4:

I would like to compare some of the drive details between my production unit and your pre-production unit. I executed an 'hdparm -I /dev/hda' on my drive and posted the results below. Could you do the same on your preproduction unit? In particular, I wanted to compare firmware revision and DMA cycle time between the two units. 120ns is UDMA-2 mode timing and the write results I get are bang on with UDMA-2 speed - I'm pulling at straws here. Thanks.

ATA device, with non-removable media
Model Number: GMonster-50IDE V4 SSD 128GB
Serial Number: ************
Firmware Revision: VATP1281
Transport: Parallel, ATA8-APT
Standards:
Used: unknown (minor revision code 0x0039)
Supported: 8 7 6 5
Likely used: 8
Configuration:
Logical max current
cylinders 16383 16383
heads 16 16
sectors/track 63 63
--
CHS current addressable sectors: 16514064
LBA user addressable sectors: 234881024
LBA48 user addressable sectors: 234881024
device size with M = 1024*1024: 114688 MBytes
device size with M = 1000*1000: 120259 MBytes (120 GB)
Capabilities:
LBA, IORDY(cannot be disabled)
Standby timer values: spec'd by Standard, no device specific minimum
R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 16 Current = 16
DMA: sdma0 sdma1 sdma2 mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 udma6
Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns
PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
Cycle time: no flow control=120ns IORDY flow control=120ns
Commands/features:
Enabled Supported:
* SMART feature set
Security Mode feature set
* Power Management feature set
* Write cache
Look-ahead
* Host Protected Area feature set
* WRITE_BUFFER command
* READ_BUFFER command
* NOP cmd
* DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
SET_MAX security extension
* 48-bit Address feature set
* Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE
* FLUSH_CACHE_EXT
Security:
Master password revision code = ******
supported
not enabled
not locked
frozen
not expired: security count
supported: enhanced erase
2min for SECURITY ERASE UNIT. 2min for ENHANCED SECURITY ERASE UNIT.
HW reset results:
CBLID- above Vih
Device num = 0 determined by the jumper
Checksum: correct

All the best, Mass

 

I have firmware VATE1273. Note too mine has 32nm Micron flash as shown in the internals photo. I too got writes at one point down to 30MB/s after heaps of reimaging and benchmarking and needed to do the AS-Cleaner to correct. All that Tony Trim does is consolidates free space, then AS-Cleaner writes a file with 0xFF (nulls) that fill the empty space to effectively do a manual GC/Trim. I'd also advise ensuring you don't have any other devices on the same PATA channel to ensure your seeing full PATA performance during testing.

My hdparm output below:

 

Thanks. There's only one IDE device installed.

My last straw is As-cleaner; although, write speeds greater than 34MB/s were never achieved from the first time I installed the drive. If As-cleaner doesn't improve the speeds, then I'll simply accept that there is a limitation in my computer chipset that is preventing full speed. It's still a great product and glad I purchased it.

I tried As-clearner and it will not start up - "The application failed to initialize..." error pops up. Do you know what is preventing it from starting?

Thanks. All the best, Mass

 

Not worth figuring out what the problem is. Can do the same with the workaround below.

Workaround manual GC

1. Run PerfectDisk, do "Consolidate Disk Space"
2. Download nulls.bin and copy to c:\test. nulls.bin is a 1k file of 0xFF (nulls)
3. Save code below as c:\test\cleaner.bat and run c:\test\cleaner.bat

cleaner.bat

Code:

@echo off
: Backup nulls.bin
set a=0
copy nulls.bin junk%a%.bin

:loop
:: Repeat,  doubling the size of the NULLs file on each loop until run out of
:: space. Effectively appends NULLS to the remaining free space on the SSD.

set /a b=%a% + 1
copy junk%a%.bin + junk%a%.bin junk%b%.bin /b
set /a a=%b%
goto loop

4. It will eventually fail with "not enough disk space" type error, upon which repeat steps 2-3 in directory "c:\test2" to fill remaining space.
5. Once complete delete c:\test and c:\test2 directories.

 

Nando4:

Thanks for the GC. I haven't executed the clean yet, because it takes a long time; I'll post my results once I complete it.

I had one more question: I like to set up my drive exactly as you set up yours - for testing the speed. Could you let us know how many partitions are set up, their size for each, the offset starting point for each, and the allocation unit size for each partition. Thanks.

All the best, Mass

 

You are certainly on the right track for why you may be seeing lower write performance. If your partitions are not NAND page aligned, the SSD controller's writes will occur across two NAND pages for each logical 4KB block used on your partition, quite likely halving your write performance as you are seeing. See my G-Monster V4 ZIF drive/partition info for my setup. Notable points:

- NAND page size is 4KB
- erase block size is 512KB (for Runcore ProIV)
- ntfs partition using default 4kb allocation

Since I used the same image to test both SSDs, I ensured the partitions were aligned to a 512KB boundary (divides into 4KB). If you do a fresh Win7 install, it will automatically align to a SSD-aware 1MB boundary so need to mess around with partition offsets.

 

Hello Nando4:

OK, here are my new results (small changes in speed):

--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 85.043 MB/s
Sequential Write : 38.246 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 77.890 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 26.593 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 11.180 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 2.814 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2010/01/26 23:29:08


Below are the partitions that are set up. I was unable to exactly match the starting offset of the second partition, DISKPART would simply not implement the offset (6,923,776k) that I tried to enter - the OS added the additional 524,288 bytes to the value shown; nevertheless, the partitions are all aligned:

Partition Disk #0, Partition #0 (4kb allocation)
Partition Size 6.60 GB (7,089,422,336 bytes)
Partition Starting Offset 524,288 bytes

Partition Disk #0, Partition #1 (4kb allocation)
Partition Size 39.06 GB (41,943,040,000 bytes)
Partition Starting Offset 7,090,470,912 bytes


Here are the specs of my drive:

/dev/hda:

Model=GMonster-50IDE V4 SSD 128GB, FwRev=VATP1281, SerialNo=2009
Config={ Fixed }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=0
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=234881024
IORDY=yes, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: sdma0 sdma1 sdma2 mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 udma6
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: unknown: ATA/ATAPI-1 ATA/ATAPI-2 ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 AT
A/ATAPI-5 ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7

* signifies the current active mode


It seems this is the best that can be had. I will confirm with the manufacturer the significance of 'BuffSize=0kB' and 'MultSect=off' as shown in my drive specs above - these values show differently on your drive specs.


Nando4: thanks for all your hard work!

All the best, Mass

 

Alignment + manual GC has improved your writes a little. Still nowhere near 60-90MB/s as advertised nor matching my result of 73MB/s at UDMA5 speeds. Your read speed is quite good.

Good point noting the BuffSize=0kb. That would indicate to me that your 64MB onboard cache, used for write caching, is not recognised and perhaps not working. The likely reason for the slower write performance. You could see from my hdparm output that I had 16MB cache active on the pre-release product. The multisect value likely nothing to be concerned about.. my Runcore too has it set to 1 as shown here, but it has 32MB cache active.

FYI: netbooknews got 80MB/s sequential writes with their G-Monster V4 IDE on a UDMA6 interface here.

 

The manufacturer confirms that the BuffSize displays as 0kb because the production unit was configured to not display this information to the ATA interface - hence appearing as if it doesn't exist. Hmmmm, if the ATA interface believes a cache doesn't exist, will it still attempt to burst write?

Next steps:
1. Test the drive on my workstation - it will take a few days to get an interface converter; I'll post my results when completed.
2. Do you know of any bit, registry or driver setting that impacts IDE write caching/bursting?

Thanks.
All the best, Mass

 

Oh.. there is one thing that could be the culprint. Ensure you disable power savings mode. A 2510P users reported 31MB/s writes here with a OCZ Vertex with powersavings on, 65MB/s writes with powersaving off. I did the original performance tests running Rmclock locked to the highest multiplier and XP Power setting on "Minimal Power Management".

Final random guess: could disable then enable the IDE port as shown here, but do not do the Scan New Hardware.

 

I adjusted power saving modes and setting XP mode to 'Always On' gave me about a 1MB/s increase in speeds. I'll try the IDE bit setting later.

How long would it take to execute the manual garbage collection on about 110G of free space? I've been watching the clean run (it's been about 5 hours now and still going); and, I've noticed that the sum of junk.bin and junk2.bin would be at a certain value, and when I check the value again later, the sum of the two are less than what it was the last time. It seems like the procedure repeats itself. Is the manual GC causing excessive writes to the disk?

All the best, Mass

 

Yes - you are quite right. DOS would delete the previous file during the binary copy. Not good for write wear.

I've updated the cleaner.bat to instead incrementally create a new file, each occurrence double the size of the previous. In effect it keeps "appending" nulls to the remainder of the free space on you SSD. Please try it instead. Thank you for beta testing the previous version I've confirmed this one does what it sets out to do.

 

So how many write operations would have occurred to a given cell over the past 5.5 hours by using the previous version - any idea?

All the best, Mass

 

Not sure, but please don't delete the existing directory/files already created with the older cleaner.bat. Just create a new directory for the new cleaner.bat to continue from. Your 30MB/s writes imply 1.8GB/min, so 110GB should be cleaned in under 1hr, assuming the read doesn't add overhead and DOS does writes at seq speed.

 

So how many write operations would have occurred ...

Previously, I was concerned about the number of erase/write cycles that would occur over a disk cell as the cleaner created a new file that replaced the old file in order to fill the disk partition (110G in my case).

So, I calculated through use of a spreadsheet the number of times the program would cycle in order to fill the disk. I executed the cleaner program on my workstation which completed the whole process in 60 seconds. The process was completed in 13 cycles for just under 104G; my laptop disk would have become full at the start of the 14th cycle. That means there would have been only 14 erase/re-write cycles maximum; assuming there are no other write tasks occurring - I'm not a disk expert. The observation I made previously about file sizes getting smaller was simply due to the computer generating a new file that began small as it generated its way to it's new larger size.

Here are the passes and the file sizes generated in the previous cleaner program:

Pass#---junk2.bin (bytes)---junk.bin (bytes)
1-------------------------------1,024
1-------2,048-------------------4,096
2-------8,192-------------------16,384
3-------32,768------------------65,536
4-------131,072-----------------262,144
5-------524,288-----------------1,048,576
6-------2,097,152---------------4,194,304
7-------8,388,608---------------16,777,216
8-------33,554,432--------------67,108,864
9-------134,217,728-------------268,435,456
10------536,870,912-------------1,073,741,824
11------2,147,483,648-----------4,294,967,296
12------8,589,934,592-----------17,179,869,184
13------34,359,738,368----------68,719,476,736

So, I have confidence in saying that running the previous cleaner would not have been significant in generating wear on the disk.

All the best, Mass

 

Hello Nando4:

Could you do an hdparm -I /dev/sda on your Photofast; I'm interested in the settings of the features at the bottom of the report.

Here are mine:

Commands/features:
Enabled Supported:
* SMART feature set
Security Mode feature set
* Power Management feature set
* Write cache
* Look-ahead
* Host Protected Area feature set
* WRITE_BUFFER command
* READ_BUFFER command
* NOP cmd
* DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
SET_MAX security extension
* 48-bit Address feature set
* Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE
* FLUSH_CACHE_EXT

Thanks. All the best, Mass

 

i wrote with him today as i had a question on the photofast as well and he does not have the photofast at the moment as a friend wanted to test whether his machine is compatible with the photofast.

 

Hi, I have a 64gb version, which has lower stated transfer speeds 120/60 and Im getting the following:
--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 87.919 MB/s
Sequential Write : 51.565 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 82.234 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 11.558 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 14.636 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 1.778 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2010/01/29 22:02:20

Just posting if someone wants it as reference.

 

Hi Laser21: your sequential write score is pretty close to the rated speed of the drive - I would be pleased with that; and, this drive is performing quicker in your system than compared to the 128G model installed in my X1.

Is your drive running at UDMA5 or 6?

I'm beginning to think my problem is related to cache; or my X1.

I'll be testing my 128G model on my workstation in a few days and I'll find out what speeds I can get from the drive at UDMA5 and 6.

Thanks for the post. All the best, Mass

 

Hi Laser21: I would like to compare drive settings; could you post the following information for your drive?

hdparm -I /dev/hda

Commands/features:
Enabled Supported:
* SMART feature set
Security Mode feature set
* Power Management feature set
* Write cache
Look-ahead
* Host Protected Area feature set
* WRITE_BUFFER command
* READ_BUFFER command
* NOP cmd
* DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
SET_MAX security extension
* 48-bit Address feature set
* Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE
* FLUSH_CACHE_EXT

hdparm -i /dev/hda

BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 udma6
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled

Thanks. All the best, Mass

 

Sure I would post it, but how do I run that command?

 

For Linux, download hdparm from here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/hdparm/files/
For Windows, download hdparm from here: http://hdparm-win32.dyndns.org/hdparm/

After installation, in the installation folder enter these two commands one at a time at the command prompt: 'hdparm -I /dev/hda', then, 'hdparm -i /dev/hda'; this is for Windows; 'a' assumes first drive (c), use b,c,d...for subsequent drives - read the help file for more and for Linux.

Thanks. All the best, Mass

 

thanks

ATA device, with non-removable media
Model Number: GMonster-50IDE V4 64GB
Serial Number: 20100113-001
Firmware Revision: VATP1292
Transport: Parallel, ATA8-APT
Standards:
Used: unknown (minor revision code 0x0039)
Supported: 8 7 6 5
Likely used: 8
Configuration:
Logical max current
cylinders 16383 16383
heads 16 16
sectors/track 63 63
--
CHS current addressable sectors: 16514064
LBA user addressable sectors: 117440512
LBA48 user addressable sectors: 117440512
device size with M = 1024*1024: 57344 MBytes
device size with M = 1000*1000: 60129 MBytes (60 GB)
Capabilities:
LBA, IORDY(cannot be disabled)
Standby timer values: spec'd by Standard, no device specific minimum
R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 16 Current = 16
DMA: sdma0 sdma1 sdma2 mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4
udma5 udma6
Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns
PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
Cycle time: no flow control=120ns IORDY flow control=120ns
Commands/features:
Enabled Supported:
* SMART feature set
Security Mode feature set
* Power Management feature set
* Write cache
Look-ahead
* Host Protected Area feature set
* WRITE_BUFFER command
* READ_BUFFER command
* NOP cmd
* DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
* SET_MAX security extension
* 48-bit Address feature set
* Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE
* FLUSH_CACHE_EXT
Security:
Master password revision code = 65534
supported
not enabled
not locked
frozen
not expired: security count
supported: enhanced erase
2min for SECURITY ERASE UNIT. 2min for ENHANCED SECURITY ERASE UNIT.
HW reset results:
CBLID- above Vih
Device num = 0 determined by the jumper
Checksum: correct



Model=GMonster-50IDE V4 64GB, FwRev=VATP1292, SerialNo=20100113-001
Config={ Fixed }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=0
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=117440512
IORDY=yes, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: sdma0 sdma1 sdma2 mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 udma6
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: unknown: ATA/ATAPI-1 ATA/ATAPI-2 ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 AT
A/ATAPI-5 ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7

* signifies the current active mode

 

Hello Laser21:

Thanks for posting your drive info. Your drive is running at UDMA-5. At the surface, it appears both our drives are configured with same settings, except for disk size and firmware.

This poster claims 65MB/s write speeds on a Dell X1 with a Mtron Mobi 3000: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4475039

I forgot to ask what your operating system is?

Thanks. All the best, Mass

 

Compatibility and configuration questions...

The manual for HDTach software 3.0 states: "If a ATA100 hard drive is attached to an ATA100 IDE controller and the burst result is low (under 66MB/s) it is an indicator that the configuration or compatibility of the devices is incorrect. This cannot yield the true burst speed of the interface as there is software and command overhead that slows down the results".

Could anyone speculate on the following with reference to the above paragraph:

1. Which 'configuration' settings are referred to;
2. The 'compatibility' of which hardware and/or software components are referred to;
3. Which 'software and command overhead' are referred to.

Knowing this would allow me to move forward in troubleshooting the performance of this drive on my system.

Thanks. All the best, Mass

 

Ive got winXP pro with SP3.

I got a mail from the seller I bought my disk from, that the specs for the 32 and 64gb versions are 90 write 60 read. So Im pretty much spot on with my performance figures.

Its running in a fujitsu-siemens Q2010.

 

Hi Mass,

I have the same SSD (v4 IDE 50pin 128 GB)

I use my SSD in a fujitsu p7120 with xp sp3 installed.

My SSD has the same firmware version as yours and the same performance problems (30 to 40 MB read) ...

Have you found any explanation to the problem yet?

Regards,
Martin

 

Has anyone had any experience using a Photofast 1.8" ZIF on a Fujitsu U820/U2010? Thanks in advance

 

Has somebody of the guys who already received the V4 found out which controller is used?

 

Hello Martin: is that read or WRITE speed? Please clarify. Our machines are similar. Could you also indicate your processor and chipset.

Please run CrystalDiskmark and post your results here.

Thanks. All the best, Mass