Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Intel X25-E Extreme SSD Benchmarks On Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,093

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    34

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Trondheim, Norway
    Posts
    13

    Default 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..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    535

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    83

    Default

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

Posting Permissions

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