I grabbed a new SSD M4-CT064M4SSD2 from Crucial. I am disappointed. I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with CentOS 6 on the disk. It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive that was in it. The SSD is giving me (in the zotac running centos 6): hdparm -t /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 298 MB in 3.00 seconds = 99.30 MB/sec The Samsung 5400 RPM disk (in the zotac running Centos 6): hdparm -t /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 196 MB in 3.01 seconds = 65.02 MB/sec I'm not supper impressed at all. Sure the numbers say its "slightly" better but I don't "feel" it. I was expecting like really noticeable change in application load time or something - but not really. Just wondering... Is there something that has to be done to take advantage of the SSD performance? Thanks, jerry
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Jerry Geis wrote:> I grabbed a new SSD M4-CT064M4SSD2 from Crucial. > > I am disappointed. I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with > CentOS 6 on the disk. > It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive that > was in it. > > The SSD is giving me (in the zotac running centos 6): > hdparm -t /dev/sda > /dev/sda: > Timing buffered disk reads: 298 MB in 3.00 seconds = 99.30 MB/sec > > The Samsung 5400 RPM disk (in the zotac running Centos 6): > hdparm -t /dev/sda > /dev/sda: > Timing buffered disk reads: 196 MB in 3.01 seconds = 65.02 MB/sec > > I'm not supper impressed at all. Sure the numbers say its "slightly" > better but I don't "feel" it. > I was expecting like really noticeable change in application load time or > something - but not really. > > Just wondering... Is there something that has to be done to take > advantage of the SSD performance?You need to verify that "AHCI" is enabled for the sata interface. -Connie Sieh> > Thanks, > > jerry > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
Jerry Geis wrote:> I grabbed a new SSD M4-CT064M4SSD2 from Crucial. > > I am disappointed. I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with > CentOS 6 on the disk. > It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive that > was in it. ><http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/09/06/2317211/Costly-SSDs-Worth-It-Users-Say> says that it depends on how you use it. mark
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jerry Geis <geisj at pagestation.com> wrote:> ?I grabbed a new SSD ?M4-CT064M4SSD2 from Crucial. > > I am disappointed. ?I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with > CentOS 6 on the disk. > It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive that > was in it. > > The SSD is giving me (in the zotac running centos 6): > hdparm -t /dev/sda > /dev/sda: > ?Timing buffered disk reads: ?298 MB in ?3.00 seconds = ?99.30 MB/sec > > The Samsung 5400 RPM disk (in the zotac running Centos 6): > ?hdparm -t /dev/sda > /dev/sda: > ?Timing buffered disk reads: ?196 MB in ?3.01 seconds = ?65.02 MB/sec > > I'm not supper impressed at all. Sure the numbers say its "slightly" > better but I don't "feel" it. > I was expecting like really noticeable change in application load time or > something - but not really. > > Just wondering... ?Is there something that has to be done to take > advantage of the SSD performance?The point of an SSD isn't the transfer time when reading sequentially ordered sectors, it is that you don't have to wait 8msec/track every time the head has to move and wait for the disk to spin around to the sector you want when that doesn't immediately follow the last one. The OS makes a great effort to cache everything and avoid the delays so you may not notice a big difference except the first time you load something new. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Jerry Geis wrote:> Just wondering... Is there something that has to be done to take > advantage of the SSD performance?I'll note that CentOS 6 and my SSDs haven't (yet) worked and played well together. Debian 6, otoh, screams... I'm semi-sure my CentOS/SSD issues are pilot error, but I haven't had time to troubleshoot. -- Paul Heinlein <> heinlein at madboa.com <> http://www.madboa.com/
From: Jerry Geis <geisj at pagestation.com>> ? I grabbed a new SSD? M4-CT064M4SSD2 from Crucial. > I am disappointed.? I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with > CentOS 6 on the disk. > It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive > that was in it. > The SSD is giving me (in the zotac running centos 6): > hdparm -t /dev/sda > /dev/sda: > ? Timing buffered disk reads:? 298 MB in? 3.00 seconds =? 99.30 MB/secIntel 5 Series/3400 Series Chipset 6 port SATA AHCI Controller 64GB Crucial 2.5" RealSSD C300 rev 7 (udma5) # hdparm -t /dev/sda ?Timing buffered disk reads:? 636 MB in? 3.01 seconds = 211.58 MB/sec # hdparm -T /dev/sda ?Timing cached reads:?? 18016 MB in? 2.00 seconds = 9023.48 MB/sec JD
On 09/07/2011 10:55 PM, Jerry Geis wrote:> I grabbed a new SSD M4-CT064M4SSD2 from Crucial. > > I am disappointed. I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with > CentOS 6 on the disk. > It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive that > was in it. > > The SSD is giving me (in the zotac running centos 6): > hdparm -t /dev/sda > /dev/sda: > Timing buffered disk reads: 298 MB in 3.00 seconds = 99.30 MB/secNot sure about Centos 6 but I just got a new System with a Crucial M4 128G disk and and the difference to my previous non-ssd system is *huge*: /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 700 MB in 3.00 seconds = 233.11 MB/sec And that's just the throughput. What really is amazing is the reduced latency which makes the desktop fly. 100mb/s sound really broken though. Even the slowest ssd drives should give you more than that. Try installing Fedora 15 (what I'm using right now) and if you see the same performance then it might be a hardware problem. If the performance is much better under Fedora 15 though then there might be an issue with Centos 6 and ssd's (though I'm not sure what that could be in a simple read-only benchmark). Regards, Dennis
On 09/07/2011 09:55 PM, Jerry Geis wrote:> I am disappointed. I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with > CentOS 6 on the disk. > It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive that > was in it.I'm going to guess, off the top of my head, based on my experience, that your atom cant process the data fast enough and your benchmark isnt really worthwhile. get a copy of iozone setup on the box, and get it to run through a few iterations with the 5400rpm disk and then the SSD. I have an i5 @2.4Ghz per core, and it struggles to keep up with the sata2 interface ( with a Crucial M4 on the other side ). I suspect I can go faster with a sata3 interface.. Some of my initial observations: http://www.karan.org/blog/index.php/2011/08/29/a-few-notes-on-ssds-in-laptops - KB