Low SSD performance?

Lockheed · 2014-01-03 22:46:11

I have Samsung 830 128GB I run some tests and I discovered my results are between 33% and 50% of what is being reported by others: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SS … _830_128GB

True, I have only Sata 2.0 in my laptop:

ata1: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)

but even taking that into account, do those values look right?

/dev/sda1:
 Timing cached reads:   11794 MB in  1.99 seconds = 5919.69 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 800 MB in  3.01 seconds = 266.03 MB/sec

dd if=/dev/zero of=tempfile bs=1M count=1024 conv=fdatasync,notrunc
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.17169 s, 208 MB/s

dd if=tempfile of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.84411 s, 279 MB/s

# dd if=tempfile of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 0.377328 s, 2.8 GB/s

Last edited by Lockheed (2014-01-03 22:46:31)

karol · 2014-01-03 23:03:33

What filesystem are you using, what mount options?

Last edited by karol (2014-01-03 23:04:26)

Lockheed · 2014-01-03 23:05:31

It's ext4, mount options are:

ext4 defaults,noatime,discard,commit=60 0 1

Last edited by Lockheed (2014-01-03 23:05:53)

WonderWoofy · 2014-01-03 23:46:20

Lockheed wrote:

True, I have only Sata 2.0 in my laptop...

Have you actually looked into the max speeds of the SATA 2 interface? This seems normal to me.

graysky · 2014-01-03 23:55:04

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SS … Controller

Seems ballpark for SATA 3.0. If you are really interested in faster results, upgrading to a MB with SATA 6.0 could help 20-30 %... an addon SATA 6.0 controller card might be a cheaper option if it really bothers you as well.

Last edited by graysky (2014-01-04 00:06:55)

karol · 2014-01-04 00:01:02

WonderWoofy wrote:

Lockheed wrote:
True, I have only Sata 2.0 in my laptop...
Have you actually looked into the max speeds of the SATA 2 interface? This seems normal to me.

Umm, he did post

ata1: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d … hs#Storage

Scimmia · 2014-01-04 00:06:53

Remember, the 3.0 number is bits per second, not bytes. Your tests sound about right as 300 MB/s is the theoretical max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA … 300_MB.2Fs

graysky · 2014-01-04 00:08:03

Scimmia wrote:

Remember, the 3.0 number is bits per second, not bytes. Your tests sound about right as 300 MB/s is the theoretical max.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA … 300_MB.2Fs

There an echo in here

graysky wrote:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SS … Controller
Seems ballpark for SATA 3.0. If you are really interested in faster results, upgrading to a MB with SATA 6.0 could help 20-30 %... an addon SATA 6.0 controller card might be a cheaper option if it really bothers you as well.

WonderWoofy · 2014-01-04 00:08:55

Yeah, I saw that he had posted that. So if that is the case, then it would seem that 50% of what people are reporting with SATA 3 is completely normal... since the interface is half as fast. I was asking if Lockheed had done the conversion to MB from Mb to see if the test results were within reason for the speed of said interface.

Scimmia · 2014-01-04 00:10:11

graysky wrote:

Scimmia wrote:
Remember, the 3.0 number is bits per second, not bytes. Your tests sound about right as 300 MB/s is the theoretical max.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA … 300_MB.2Fs
There an echo in here
graysky wrote:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SS … Controller
Seems ballpark for SATA 3.0. If you are really interested in faster results, upgrading to a MB with SATA 6.0 could help 20-30 %... an addon SATA 6.0 controller card might be a cheaper option if it really bothers you as well.

Um, pretty different since I linked to an actual explanation of the maxiumum where you just linked to someone else's tests.

graysky · 2014-01-04 00:49:51

Scimmia wrote:

Um, pretty different since I linked to an actual explanation of the maxiumum where you just linked to someone else's tests.

No offense was intended... that's why I put a smiley at the end of the line

Also, those aren't just anyone's test results, they are mine

karol · 2014-01-04 00:51:22

Sorry for the OT, but graysky, what do you mean by SATA 6.0 - SATA 3 @ 6 Gbps?

graysky · 2014-01-04 01:46:32

Perhaps I am using incorrect terminology.... SATA 3.0 = SATA2 and SATA 6.0 = SATA3... SATA 1.5 would be SATA.
EDIT: http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8142

Last edited by graysky (2014-01-04 01:50:38)

Arch Linux

#1 2014-01-03 22:46:11

Low SSD performance?

#2 2014-01-03 23:03:33

Re: Low SSD performance?

#3 2014-01-03 23:05:31

Re: Low SSD performance?

#4 2014-01-03 23:46:20

Re: Low SSD performance?

#5 2014-01-03 23:55:04

Re: Low SSD performance?

#6 2014-01-04 00:01:02

Re: Low SSD performance?

#7 2014-01-04 00:06:53

Re: Low SSD performance?

#8 2014-01-04 00:08:03

Re: Low SSD performance?

#9 2014-01-04 00:08:55

Re: Low SSD performance?

#10 2014-01-04 00:10:11

Re: Low SSD performance?

#11 2014-01-04 00:49:51

Re: Low SSD performance?

#12 2014-01-04 00:51:22

Re: Low SSD performance?

#13 2014-01-04 01:46:32

Re: Low SSD performance?

Board footer