Originally posted by Jabberwocky
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Samsung 960 EVO NVMe SSD Benchmarks On Linux
Collapse
X
-
-
I have the 950 Pro 256Gb model. It is the slowest performing of the different sizes available in the M.2 NVMe line, though still incredibly fast. I believe testing in other press showed the 1Tb version from Samsung has shown much better performance overall than the smaller sizes. Not sure if that is a controller issue, caching or firmware preferences set by Samsung to push sales. I will look up any reviews on the 1Tb 960 Pro and see if they are seeing the same thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by edwaleni View PostI have the 950 Pro 256Gb model. It is the slowest performing of the different sizes available in the M.2 NVMe line, though still incredibly fast. I believe testing in other press showed the 1Tb version from Samsung has shown much better performance overall than the smaller sizes. Not sure if that is a controller issue, caching or firmware preferences set by Samsung to push sales. I will look up any reviews on the 1Tb 960 Pro and see if they are seeing the same thing.
Also, every single model of the 950 is as fast or faster than any 850 pro in every single benchmark in Windows-land, so like I said a few posts ago, there is definitely a performance bottleneck in the Linux kernel somewhere (or a flaw in the benchmarking methods used). I don't know enough about the 960 series to claim the same, but I'd strongly lean towards the same being true.Last edited by Holograph; 15 December 2016, 06:43 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tomin View PostMichael Did you align the partitions correctly? Since it is (Samsung) TLC I think you should align to 1536 KiB or just to be on the safe side to 6144 KiB (6 MiB). I did this to my 840 EVO and it got much faster (from 310 MB/s to 510 MB/s on sequential buffered reads (I think, whatever hdparm -t does anyway, so a very poor benchmark!), but of course some of that could be explained by the fact that all data were re-written and that SSD is known to slow down when data has been laying on disk. So, it could be that this doesn't change anything, but it might.
http://www.tech-g.com/2015/10/03/ali...-disk-problem/## VGA ##
AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostSource? I knew aligning to 1MB was enough for all SSDs.Because this disk has a 1.5M erase block 1536 KiB and to be sure we want it to also align with 2048 KiB (Just in case the erase block is not the whole story), you can set the sector alignment value to 12288 (6144 KiB), which is a multiple of 1536 KiB and 2048 KiB.So basically, 12288 is 3*4k, the three comes from the fact that it is a three level cell (TLC)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Holograph View PostWhat are the current plans to improve the performance here? Clearly this is a kernel issue, because these Samsung NVMe drives don't lose benchmarks to the 850 series in Windows.... that's surprising to see in Linux to me. In Windows, sometimes Samsung's AHCI drives have beaten their NVMe counterparts*, but the high-end drives never get outperformed by the significantly lower-end drives.
*Edit to note: Not all of Sammy's NVMe drives have had AHCI equivalents but some like the XP941 have.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sonadow View PostI'm questioning whether Michael is really using native NVMe or if it is falling back to AHCI mode.
Because if it is the latter, I'm not interested in reading anything about NVMe drives running in AHCI mode on Linux.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
Source? I knew aligning to 1MB was enough for all SSDs.
Usually the 1 MiB alignment is enough, but it seems that Samsung TLC (newer EVO drives) need something better.
Comment
Comment