Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: SanDisk 64GB Serial ATA 3.0 SSD On Ubuntu Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,358

    Default SanDisk 64GB Serial ATA 3.0 SSD On Ubuntu Linux

    Phoronix: SanDisk 64GB Serial ATA 3.0 SSD On Ubuntu Linux

    Another day, another new disk drive review at Phoronix. After this week having already shared our Ubuntu Linux test results for the Kingston SSDNow V300, Western Digital WD10EZEX, and Samsung 840 EVO, the solid-state drive for review today is the SanDisk 64GB SDSSDP-064G-G25.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19760

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Nice! Interesting to see SanDisk beat the EVO which gets good values in CrystalDiskMark.
    I know CDM is not very close to a real world scenario, but it would be nice to have something that compares relatively straightly to CDM. Bonnie++ should be rather comparabe right, and from what I understand you support it in PTS, so it would be awesome if you ran those tests as well in these benchmarks.

    Anyway great to see more SSD benches, hopefully you'll have a possibility to try AData SX900 and maybe some crusial SSDs as well in the same test system.
    I'm too pisspoor to give donations, but at least I frequently missclick the ads

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nilssab View Post
    Anyway great to see more SSD benches, hopefully you'll have a possibility to try AData SX900 and maybe some crusial SSDs as well in the same test system.
    Unlikely. I already have all the drives I needed for my new test farm systems so I don't intend to buy any more drives soon.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Unlikely. I already have all the drives I needed for my new test farm systems so I don't intend to buy any more drives soon.
    roger that.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Unlikely. I already have all the drives I needed for my new test farm systems so I don't intend to buy any more drives soon.
    Ah. I was going to ask what these reviews were in aid of. There's nothing very Linux-centric about SSD reviews and others (e.g. Anand) can do much more extensive and informative reviews.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyborg16 View Post
    Ah. I was going to ask what these reviews were in aid of. There's nothing very Linux-centric about SSD reviews and others (e.g. Anand) can do much more extensive and informative reviews.
    Just some Linux benchmarks to share after buying parts for ~six new systems in the automated test farm.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    220

    Default

    My trusty, old, Crucial M4 256GB. Not the fastest, but good enough and reliable.

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...FO-1401244PL57

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Michael, I leave about ~20% unformatted on my SSDs as I heard this helps speed and longevity. Did you do the same?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default big problem with your setup

    Guys, as an owner of 250GB version of Samsung 840 EVO, I did quite thorough research of my drive on the web before I bought it and the result is that is is one of the fastest SSD on the marked. This is clearly visible from numerous benchmarks all over the web, so I am afraid there is some serious problem with your tests. Are your filesystems alligned? Is 6Gb SATA really working? Do you have AHCI enabled and working? Do you have latest FW in all drives? there is no way that Samsung 840 EVO is so much slower than OCZ Vertex 3, actualy it is usually faster, sometimes significantly:

    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/sto...gb-1tb-revie/6
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/260
    http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTe...-840-EVO-120GB

    and most importantly:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/s...dels-tested/10

    please, check what is wrong with your setup, fix it and rerun the test, this is really shame on your side!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    305

    Default

    A 100% full partition that occupies 80% of the SSD space should be about the same for the SSD itself as an 80% full partition that occupies 100% of the SSD capacity (if the file-system has TRIM support). However, the file-system itself would greatly benefit from those extra 20% free space. So better just format it fully then make sure you never go above 80% capacity. This stands true even for partitions on rotating disks, after 80% performance of any file-system starts to rapidly decrease.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •