Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kingston SSDNow V300 120GB SATA 3.0 SSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kingston SSDNow V300 120GB SATA 3.0 SSD

    Phoronix: Kingston SSDNow V300 120GB SATA 3.0 SSD

    For those in the market for a solid-state drive, the Kingston SSDNow V300 series offers a 120GB Serial ATA 3.0 SSD for less than $90 USD. How well does this SSD work on Linux? We have benchmarks at Phoronix done under Ubuntu and compared to a range of HDD and SSDs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19713

  • #2
    "...and that's all that it matters", i might add to your final line about it

    Thx Michael, i was trying to get some info about performance of that SSD under Linux and now i got

    Comment


    • #3
      It is cheap and a lot faster than a mechanical hard disk drive.

      But if you want performance, its the Samsung 840 series.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        It is cheap and a lot faster than a mechanical hard disk drive.

        But if you want performance, its the Samsung 840 series.
        which is also under $90 USD. I've been runnin 3x120gb samsung 840 evo with 16gb / partition, and 72gb partition for zfs with lz4 compression, and the performance has been damn good. and one of the ssd's can die. i also tried doing raid 10 with zfs by creating two partitions for zfs, (as it doesn't have native support for raid 10 like behaviour on 3 drives), but after further testing, adn the realisation that hardly anything in linux does high queue depth asynchronous random reads i figured that raidz would be "fast enough", and it does seem to be..., and give more storage.

        it's hard to benchmark though as the 120gb evo's only have 3gb of turbowrite then go down to 130mb/sec. in "real world usage" for me, with infiniband it seems to keep up copying files over infiniband network from another system with ssd, but that's probably a combination of turbowrite and buffer caches. there's still a bit of read latency going on i think, but i don't notice it, i notice more that i7-4770 (server) is faster than i7-3770 (client).

        i normally recommend samsung 840 evo 250gb for medium usage, and samsung 840 evo 120gb for light usage. i assume most people don't really care for 1300mb/sec+ read speeds. but curiously when i was playing with different file systems before using it, i noticed that btrfs couldn't keep up with lzo compression capping out at around ~ 1000mb/sec whereas zfs is capping out at around 2600mb/sec.
        Last edited by mercutio; 01-21-2014, 04:41 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          My eyes glaze over now when reading SSD reviews now, they're pretty much all the same at around ~500mb/s read. There's some variance, but nothing that's going to make much difference to real-world performance.

          The difference between a HDD and an SSD is massive. The difference between a bad SSD and a good SSD is slight (when it comes to recent releases).

          Things will only get interesting again once the SATA spec is upgraded, SATA 3 is really crippling progress. That or PCIe SSDs come down in price, or some other interface becomes viable. Whomever does the SATA spec really dropped the ball between versions 2 and 3. At the time, the change from 1 to 2 was fairly redundant. 2 to 3 seemed redundant, but boy did they really misjudge the headroom they needed. A doubling of throughput turned out to be woefully short of requirements.

          Comment


          • #6
            @mercutio: looks like Samsung does not recommend/support running 840EVOs in RAID, yeah, lol

            Regarding Kingston V300 read this post by Maxgadgetguy: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answer....html#11492819
            So like buyers beware, I had a China made 120Gb one given as a gift to a friend ( also forced him to upgrade the whole system as we though SATA2 was the issue ) and the store clerk did not even asked my friend why he was returning it, just nodded and asked for a little bit more money for a Kingston HyperX 3K 120Gb that works as expected. I also got 2 more HyperX 3K 120Gb for a RAID0 on a SATA2 system and they get 500MB/s as expected.

            Comment


            • #7
              I happen to have a Samsung 840 review in the coming days.... Just arrived today for another Phoromatic / PTS test system.
              Michael Larabel
              http://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #8
                That's nice. One thing I would really like to see when it comes to SSD benchmarking, however, is systemd-analyze. And also bcache. Those should see some very interesting results.

                I have a new SSD myself, a Toshiba Q Series Pro 128 GB, but I'm yet to install it to my system (need a mount for laptop-sized drives in a PC first). I'm looking forward to see how it performs.

                Also, hah, "SSDNow" reminds me of "3DNow!", which I find rather silly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Michael View Post
                  I happen to have a Samsung 840 review in the coming days.... Just arrived today for another Phoromatic / PTS test system.
                  That's very nice to hear. That's one of the SSD models I was considering as well, but unfortunately the store was out of stock...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
                    The difference between a bad SSD and a good SSD is slight (when it comes to recent releases).
                    Most SSDs are garbage
                    http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...flash-ssd-data

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                      It is cheap and a lot faster than a mechanical hard disk drive.
                      Not as much faster as you think. Last year we bought V300's to upgrade some old Lenovo laptops. And I don't know how Michael got those test results but pretty much any sequential reads benchmark (AS-SSD for example) will show something utterly disappointing. About 150-170 MB/s on SATA-2 controllers (3 Gbps). I can't recall what exactly we got testing them on SATA-3 (6 Gbps) but it was under 350 MB/s as well. Terrible performance, even for cheap drives. I wrote to Kingston support and they replied it was normal.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                        That's very nice to hear. That's one of the SSD models I was considering as well, but unfortunately the store was out of stock...
                        It seems to be the most popular model these days... was thinking of getting one myself. By their official numbers, it should be one of the better performing drives while still relatively cheap, so I'll be interested in seeing this review.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                          /sigh

                          Did you the paper linked in that post? What they did was essentially testing how the drives would respond to 3000 power failures in a row. Seriously, three-freaking-key. If you really care about data integrity, one is too many (that's why you'll never see a server rack without a UPS standing next to it).

                          SSDs are the best thing that happened to personal computing since cheap RAM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                            I wrote to Kingston support and they replied it was normal.
                            They advertise compressible testing that always yields high throughput, also see my post above.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                              I don't know how Michael got those test results
                              He has another one than you:
                              Originally posted by Licaon View Post
                              Regarding Kingston V300 read this post by Maxgadgetguy: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answer....html#11492819

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X