Storage Ok, So TRIM with windows 7, and yet?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by GregTheRotter, 25 May 2011.

  1. GregTheRotter

    GregTheRotter Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    88
    I know windows 7 has TRIM built in, so I hadn't really bothered to run Intels refresh tool at all. Today I ran a bench with AS SSD before running the optimizer and got;

    [​IMG]

    and after and got;

    [​IMG]

    Might have to run this benchmark every few weeks just for the sake of it. I can't say my system ever felt noticeably slower, but hey, if I can have it running that much faster then why not. It's really just write speeds that seem to be affected, so don't think I'll worry too much.
     
  2. Blogins

    Blogins Panda have Guns

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    267
    AH SSD the dark art of it all!

    Few stumbling blocks with my first Windows 7 installation on the Vertex 3 but now it is really peachy. Can tell the difference straight away by how responsive everything is. Haven't tried a bench yet, figure I'll wait until I have all my games installed and properly set up the way I like it.
     
  3. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    Well, that's because having Trim enabled, by itself, isn't a magic cure all...

    Unless you had just had a very high r-e-w usage prior to the first run (which would give an artificial low), what the b/ms are suggesting is that you've not been giving the SSD sufficient idle time for both trim & GC to kick in sufficiently to maintain speeds.


    Now (off the top of my head so may not be inclusive, but these are the most likely reasons) this 'could' be because you've either set the HDDs to turn off in the power settings, got the sleep state set to S3 in the bios instead of S1, there's limited free space on the drive &/or there's actually almost no idle time...

    & i assume you've got the latest f/w installed for your SSD...

    Oh, & you would also have seen a dramatic improvement in maintainance of speeds by increasing the OP by under-partitioning the SSD when installing Windows... ...but then (almost) no one ever listens/ed to that bit of advice, do/did they...


    Now, using a manual tool (what i assume it's done is a version of the FF method of AS-Cleaner), will work with all drives other than the SandForces (okay technically it will work short term with the SFs, but it completely screws with their controller algorithms leading to longer term problems)...

    ...but they should never be needed for modern SSDs if things have been set up properly & there's sufficient idle time.

    Well, the Vertex & Agility drives didn't need it from the Oct 2009 f/w revisions so unless it's a shonky SSD (which the intel shouldn't be)...


    Also be wary of overly running b/ms as, esp CDM & AS-SSD write foolish amounts of data by default.
     
    Last edited: 2 Sep 2011
  4. GregTheRotter

    GregTheRotter Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    88
    Bah, I'm not that anal to go and make a smaller partition, so no I won't be doing that. Besides, write speed seems to be the only thing affected which means not much of a real world difference for me.
     
  5. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    Your call... ...increasing the OP obviouslyly wasn't the only thing noted - that makes it far more resilient for maintaining speeds is one thing, whereas you've clearly got a more fundamental issue in your settings if the combination of trim & GC can't keep the drive's (already slow) write speeds something like okay...

    ...losing ~40% of your QD64 4Ks, ~30% of your 4Ks & ~23% of your sequential write speeds clearly not being great.


    Well, you had said "if I can have it running that much faster then why not", but it doesn't matter either which way to me...


    As with anything though it's just advice - & also may explain to others by your illustration why it's important to do certain basic things if they actually want to retain speeds.
     
  6. Cleggmeister

    Cleggmeister Of reasonable knowledge...

    Joined:
    12 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    22
    Greg, that optimising tool you ran, is it just for Intel drives? If so is anyone aware of a similar tool to optimise any SSD?

    Apologies for threadjack!

    Cleggy.
     
  7. GregTheRotter

    GregTheRotter Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    88
    Mhm, I take it you're one of those hard core, super cool dudes, who run ssd's in raid, have to have the latest and greatest etc. Good for you, really. I realise you're trying to be 'informative', talking about sandforce drives, etc etc etc etc etc, but none of what you're saying really applies to me.

    Another one of these 'zomg running benchmarks will ruin your ssd'. The thing's got a mtbf of something like 5 years, so I'm sure I'll be fine running the odd benchmark.

    It's not as if I ran the optimiser cus I felt the drive was slowing down. I ran it just out of curiousity as I was looking at some other benches from another forum.

    Yeah I think it is. There should be a tool for every brand though i would've thought :/
     
    Last edited: 25 May 2011
  8. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    No i don't have to have the latest & greatest (though clearly i use SSDs in R0 from the 2nd system spec), but that's immaterial.

    Now, if i ran something that showed there was a slowdown & someone said "have you done x, y & z" then i'd look into it...

    ...but maybe it's only me who thinks that i should be aiming to get the best out of what i've bought - though i doubt it.

    So, what is clearly relevant is that i do ideally want things to carry on running as quickly as they can & crippling the potential of whatever tech by not setting things up sensibly isn't really an option for me - & i would be surprised if you found many people on here who deliberately wouldn't consider looking at their settings in such a situation since it's a tech site.


    As to the warranty, a quick google search & it appears to nominally be 3 years, but all SSD manufacturers limit their warranties based on the nand cycle rating - as soon as you exceed that your warranty becomes void no matter what the cause of any subsequent failure might be.

    Yeah, sure, one or two b/ms aren't going make the difference, but running them "every few weeks just for the sake of it" will cumulatively do so - esp when you're running something which, with its default settings, is foolishly high.


    Anyway, as said previously, it doesn't matter either which way to me...

    ...run all the b/ms you want & don't check any settings to see if you can improve the situation, & it's not going to make my SSDs more prone to a shorter lifespan or reduce my speeds...

    ...but there's no point in other people believing that they should ignore things or need to run any manual process based upon your results.

    So, unless anyone asks anything else on this thread, as you're clearly content with your 'unusual' way of doing things then there's nothing i can add.


    Oh, & obviously the SF thing was irrelevant to you, but it's a key difference between those controllers & others - esp important to note since the second poster on the thread had said they were using a SF SSD.


    There's AS-Cleaner that i linked to in an earlier post but, as stated, you do not want to be running anything like that on a SF SSD as it'll be hugely detrimental - which (assuming you mean a 120GB Corsair Force by "F120" in your spec) you have.
     
  9. GregTheRotter

    GregTheRotter Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    88
    *snip*

    In a nutshel, yeah, now you see that my drive is not sandforce.

    What difference does it make if my other hdd's are set to power save and power down when not in use?

    I'm not talking about warranty, I'm talking about the average time before failure, as a point of saying, if it lasts three years, I'll bin it when it's buggered and get a new one, and let that be that.

    Fair enough, others must be wary not to run benchmarks willy nilly if they don't know their controller.

    In any case, you don't get TRIM with your raid drives do you??
     
    Last edited: 25 May 2011
  10. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    FFS.

    That it's not a SF was never my point - it was obvious that it wasn't because it states that it's not in both the b/ms & in your system listing &, as already said, that note was for the second poster in the thread (plus anyone else) who explicitly said that they had a SF.

    That you then counter-advised someone who certainly appears to have a SF to look for an equivalent tool for their SSD is 'slightly odd' - they do not make these tools for SFs as it screws with what their controllers expect to be the case with the nand leading to major issues with wear levelling & data reallocation & whatnot that negatively affects speeds whilst it tries to sort itself out (there could still be a very short term increase in speed for transferring large amounts of data before the controller realised that everything had been arsed about with) & the longevity.


    if your HDDs are set to shut down then the SSD will be - no two ways about it - & you then lose the idle time that allows Trim &/or GC to run to maintain speeds.

    [as with the sleep state, maintaining a sensible %age of free space, having the latest f/w, etc - there are some basic things that should be done by anyone with any SSD]


    Average lifespans are meaningless when looking at the lifespan of a single item so god knows what your point is there.

    if you're happy 'if' you were to end up with a SSD that failed before the 3 year period & there was no warranty because you've overused it with pointless b/ming then who am i to argue with you...

    Well, as it wasn't clear what your knowledge was (& i now have a fair idea), there was no sense in not mentioning it - you choosing to ignore everything is your call.


    As to the specifics of SSDs in R0 re trim.

    The SFs gain nothing from being in a trim environment - relying, as near as has been ascertained, effectively exclusively in both trim & non-trim environments on their GC algorithms (the difference in recovery time being imperceptible; if there is any at all), which makes your 'criticism' of my setup completely moot.

    This is something special to SF SSDs & is *a* reason why they 'can' have significant advantages over the other controllers - obviously dependant upon the individual user's specific requirements; ie i'm not saying that SFs are the best choice for every situation.

    Hence, this is one of the main reasons why i bought my SFs (because going for an alternative would not have given the comparative robustness that i required from a R0 array) & it's about buying the right tool for the job.

    So i did my research & knew what was best, within my budget at the time, for what i wanted to do - & made sure that i knew what settings would be optimal for maintaining it so that i could then make value judgments on them.


    Anyway, yet again, you do what you want with your SSD... ...well, it's clear that you have no interest in actually sorting out the reason why you're seeing the issue you are...

    ...but it'd be wrong of me to let your somewhat 'chicken licken' approach to your SSD (which appears to be entirely self-created by not setting things up properly) to allow others to think that the sky is falling down; or rather that they need to be running manual tools on any SSDs they're likely to own simply because of your unwillingness to look at proper solutions.

    [NB you'd be looking at some really old & shonky (as many manufacturers added it as a f/w update) 1st gen ones that didn't now have trim &/or GC & would actually need some kind of manual tool...]
     
    Last edited: 26 May 2011
  11. Baz

    Baz I work for Corsair

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    92
    I think you both need to take a step back here.

    Pocket Demon - Your posts can come off as condescending; you need to realise that not everyone wishes to invest as much time and effort in performance optimisations as you do.

    Greg - While PocketDemon's replies are complex and a little over-detailed, he's only trying to offer assistance to your problem. Please realise this and don't throw it back into his face.

    Incidentally, making sure the SSD doesn't switch itself off when idle, this giving it the opportunity to run TRIM and GC commands, seems like the best shout to sorting this issue.
     
  12. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    Yeah, i fully appreciate that, in situations when i perceive that advice is being thrown back (not least since it's rarely just for the OP, but may well apply to other people who read the thread - & so it can end up being something of a disagreement) that i have a tendency to choose my words with an element of spite.

    That's my bad & it's just a lack of patience in this type of situation - 'if' it had been the case that the OP had been asking for more info (rather than attempting to fight back for no apparent reason) then i'd have happily spent time re-explaining things.

    But that's certainly not how i started off with things (i don't believe that either of my first two posts were in any way objectionable), the 3rd was simply being a bit more vehement in saying 'do what you want personally, but it wouldn't be great for others to follow' (& tried to stop the discussion), & it's only the last one where i got a bit too cheesed off.


    Now forgetting this bit of things, whilst Baz & i don't always agree on things with SSDs (well, there's been a couple of times at least where we've had disagreements - though they have been very specifically contained - the only major one being about a testing proceedure that Bit Tech use), that we're both saying that you should to make sure that your settings are sensible so that trim &/or GC can run to give a proper solution perhaps does add some weight to that side of things.

    But, for the umpteenth time (& with no ill intent meant), by all means ignore all the advice & do your own thing if that's what you feel works best for you.


    [Edit] As a quick addition, this is what intel has to say about the need for (its) manual tool -

    "How can I use TRIM?
    Microsoft Windows 7* and Windows Server 2008* have the TRIM command enabled by default.

    If you are using Microsoft Windows XP* or Vista*, Intel® SSD Optimizer identifies which files the user deleted and communicates that information to the SSD. The installation of the Intel® SSD toolbox is required."


    - which is the manufacturer of the OPs SSD stating that this tool is not needed with Win7; assuming things are otherwise set up properly naturally.

    Now, as was my original intent in providing info, since clearly there was a significant improvement from your using the tool# then there's obviously something that is set up wrongly as far as intel are concerned...

    ...well, otherwise they'd be stating that it needs running as well as trim.

    [# albeit one that you then will have largely negated by running a hefty b/m - since the SSD clearly isn't getting enough idle time for trim/GC, you instantly made a significant %age worse again when your settings clearly are not giving the SSD ability for it to fully correct itself.]


    This, again, is just info so do with it as you will.

    [End Edit]
     
    Last edited: 26 May 2011
  13. Baz

    Baz I work for Corsair

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    92
    Some shorter posts wouldn't go amiss either Pocket Demon :p
     
  14. GregTheRotter

    GregTheRotter Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    88
    Bah. My power options were not set to turn off hdd's after all. So explain why my ssd had this slow down. AHCI, check, win 7, check, drives not set to shut down, check. Computer left on to idle? Not really. It's either on, and I'm surfing the web, or gaming, or it's off.
     
  15. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    No venom & short posts, along with proper answers - you just want the moon on a stick Baz... ;)

    Yeah, possibly slightly verbose at times, but (generally) it's all info rather than waffle.

    Well, i did originally give 7 different reasons / things that could either give this effect &/or minimise its occurance in my first post... ...setting the drives to not turn off being just one of them &, other than your reluctance to increase the OP, the only one that's been looked at based on your check list.


    idle time is important for any (modern) SSD - obviously dependant on usage - however it's not about it *having* to be a constant chore or a set period every day but a more general principle.

    Now, obviously you've got a non-SF SSD in a trim environment, so trim itself 'should' only take a few minutes to do it's thing (assuming it's enabled - see the final point below) - & this is what the manual run of the program is doing...

    ...however trim is only one part of the equation since it does not do anything to sort out the issue of partially used blocks which can still contain 'dirty' pages even after a trim run.

    The rest is carried out by GC which itself requires idle time - & generally much more of it than trim.

    [NB whilst GC 'can', depending on the implementation, also effectively do the job of trim, trim cannot do the job of GC - this goes back to a main rationale for my choice of SF SSDs for R0 as their GC is much more robust - albeit somewhat lackadaisical after the OP is sorted.]

    Similarly, x amount of wear levelling will have to occur during idle time to work around the issue of static data - without moving this periodically, you would end up with a ltd no of cells all being written to again & again which would give you a very ltd lifespan.


    Now, in your situation, because you're saying that you're not giving it (sufficient) idle time, 'if' you logged off with a S1 sleep state set in the bios once every few weeks for a couple of hours (ie so the SSDs getting power but there's no external drive activity), this should be more than adequate to allow the SSD to do everything it needs to do (unless you've got an incredibly high r-e-w cycle usage).

    [NB the intel tool cannot give everything that idle time provides.]

    But for people who leave their machines on semi-constantly (so there's enough idle time 'just because') this should never be needed.

    [NB increasing OP, ensuring there's sufficient free space, (to some extent) things like DK's Hyperfast & the equivalent in PD 12, etc (not sure what the etc is atm but i'm sure i've forgotten something) are all effectively 'set it & forget it' options that will improve the drive's resilience to slowing down & reduce the necessary idle time.]


    Otherwise, in thinking i do recall some issues with intel SSDs not being detected as SSDs by Win7... you could try typing -

    fsutil behavior query disabledeletenotify

    - into an administrator command prompt (0=enabled & 1=disabled), although i really doubt this will be the cause as your test results weren't low enough.
     
    Last edited: 2 Sep 2011
  16. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
    It's a shame there's no bios setting to always leave sata0 power on and have the rest of the sata ports power down. It's nice to think the hdds aren't spinning all the time and that you're saving the life of a giraffe somewhere.
     
  17. Blogins

    Blogins Panda have Guns

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    267
    Thanks for that kenco_uk, you earn the most random quote of the day!

    It's a good point however, surely Windows 7 could incorporate this sort of energy saving scheme?
     
  18. GregTheRotter

    GregTheRotter Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    4,272
    Likes Received:
    88
    Yeah, I actually felt better having my hdd's spin down when not in use :(
     

Share This Page