Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel X25-E Extreme SSD Benchmarks On Linux

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

  • Intel X25-E Extreme SSD Benchmarks On Linux

    Phoronix: Intel X25-E Extreme SSD Benchmarks On Linux

    In early January we had delivered Linux Solid-State Drive Benchmarks of an OCZ Core Series V2 SSD, which was a low-cost low-capacity single-cell drive. The increased performance and decreased power consumption compared to a 5400RPM Serial ATA 2.0 hard drive was nice for a netbook, but how are the higher-end solid-state drives performing? In this article, we have a high-performance Intel X25-E Extreme SSD on a System76 notebook running Ubuntu Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13527

  • #2
    Too expensive for normal people who need big storage capacity. I wonder in how many years SSDs will drop to the price of today's HDs and totally replace them. Probably too many :P

    Comment


    • #3
      It didn't occur to you that the encoding benchmarks might be CPU-limited, as opposed to disk limited?

      More to the point, you made no mention of the common issues surrounding SLC Flash SSDs: re-write speed. The performance of single-level cell flash, when re-writing, is hideous.

      http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/sto...b-ssd-review/7

      Comment


      • #4
        Uhhm... I'm pretty sure there's no way you were able to read from the drive with ~370 MB/s when Intel themselves advertises the read speed with 250 MB/s (that's almost the half! ). (refering to the IOzone 4GB Read Performance).
        You are probably just writing to cache (at least partialy). I think you should look into possibilities to disable the cache if you want to accurately measure the SSD-performance.

        Comment


        • #5
          Bad SSD benchmark

          Too many non-ssd related tests and thereby uninteresting graphs! What about running tests designed to expose some of the problems with today's ssd? I'm talking about OCZ's sucky IOPS and things like that..

          Comment


          • #6
            This Intel SSD's supposedly do not suffer from the random writes problem most other SSD's seem to have; it would have been interesting to see some tests with this SSD vs HDD vs the other SSD that was tested some time ago to confirm/disprove that this SSD doesn't suffer from latency troubles.

            Comment


            • #7
              Any chance of seeing boot times in the next test? Please

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Zhick View Post
                You are probably just writing to cache (at least partialy). I think you should look into possibilities to disable the cache if you want to accurately measure the SSD-performance.
                The cache on SSDs is minimal and irrelevant. A typical cache size is something like 64KB. When it comes to SSDs, data is typically written directly to the drive itself. It's entirely possible to reach the numbers quoted under ideal circumstances.

                My main concern with the article is that the benchmarks are a bunch of compression and encryption tasks, followed by some synthetic tests. Hardly representative of "real world" stuff. Also, there was no mention of the proper things that need to be done to get maximum performance out of the drive, like aligning partitions and setting proper block sizes, among other things. Sure, the Intel drives don't suffer from the same "hesitation" as most of the lower-cost drives on the market, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't improve performance to set the drive up properly.

                Another interesting thing would've been a discussion of filesystems that are geared directly to SSDs, but that was never mentioned either.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Boot time

                  I have a request for another benchmark and that is boot times. Please consider this benchmark in future tests.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DarkCloud View Post
                    I have a request for another benchmark and that is boot times. Please consider this benchmark in future tests.
                    I agree. My SSD more than halved my desktop system's boot times, it was incredible. Since SSDs are most often used on notebooks, boot times are definitely relevant.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I really didn't like the fact that the tests were purely CPU intensive either.

                      Are the reviews really headed towards Toms Hardware grade quality?

                      How about moving files? Downloading files? and reading/writing tasks - which are the whole appeal of these drives?

                      Can you move 3 files around different partitions and send files over the network AND to a USB drive at a good speed?

                      How long does it take to start up to the bootscreen (bootchart?), how about starting/stopping common programs/services?
                      How about starting many different programs at the same time - how does this effect times?
                      What about watching a movie, listening to ogg files, ripping files, and several low CPU-intensive but many operations/file based ops - which is CERTAINLY real world for a LOT of people.

                      ... How about battery life with these tests too?


                      Along the issue of cache - I'm thinking he means FILESYSTEM cache, which is written to RAM before being flushed to the disc using fsync/etc. This can be different depending on workloads/RAM/etc.
                      A time-line graph (I'm just thinking performance against time - don't know the proper name) would probably do a better job at monitoring speeds but I guess the performance stats were average-based and didn't have any hooks into the kernel/whatever.

                      ... Can't some stats be gained from /proc/ at intervals? (for those in the know)


                      Overall, my criticism on this article (and only this, as phoronix seems to have written a few very nice and interesting articles - and this annoys me enough to join and post about it) is that the article takes two drives, and want's to test any performance difference between them (real world or not)... BUT the tests which are performed are totally inadequate for the initial proposal, and actually test the wrong area of the laptop altogether (the CPU).
                      ... You may as well have just left it running in the corner of the room, or given it to Joe from the coffee shop on the corner and asked "do YOU think it's faster?".

                      Please phoronix, please get people who THINK about the tests they perform, and HOW to go about them (perhaps ask in the forums for ideas?) rather then people who just run tests at the time and decide they're relevant.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You can use iostat to get data to graph maybe?

                        but yeah not sure about these test results because that IOZone read at 350MB/sec is impossible. SATA2 is only 300MB/sec :P. Need to drop caches before running these benchmarks.

                        Also whatever you want to regard as a 'good' benchmark... maybe try running it in succession for awhile to see if performance degrades due to SSD.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree with most the comments on here. What a completely worthless article.

                          How about showing boot times, application launch times, and some sort of productivity suite test?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                            Too expensive for normal people who need big storage capacity. I wonder in how many years SSDs will drop to the price of today's HDs and totally replace them. Probably too many :P
                            Not as many as one would think if Micron's actually pulling together their line like the word going around would indicate. We won't know until a couple of months from now whether that's the case or not, but it is worth noting that the drive Michael Larabel reviewed here is an SLC drive and as such is going to be smaller and much, much more expensive. $550 is the rough price for a slightly slower SLC NEBS Level 3 certifiable 64Gb drive from Samsung right at the moment- we priced them out and I almost got product management to sign off on them this go round for our replacement for magnetic disks.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tomm3h View Post
                              More to the point, you made no mention of the common issues surrounding SLC Flash SSDs: re-write speed. The performance of single-level cell flash, when re-writing, is hideous.[/URL]
                              Actually in a shoot out between the current NEBS certifiable (Telecom grade...needs to be about as abusable as the mil-spec stuff...) drives from Samsung, Intel, and the magnetic drives we have in hand- the rewrite performance wasn't anywhere near as hideous as everyone'd been led to believe. I can't share the details (Tektronix confidential info...sigh...) but we'd almost had upper management and product management sold on this generation. Still just a bit too expensive yet because they don't believe in the reliability story- they're still hung on the "disk" being in the name and that means the same thing as the magnetics in their mind.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X