# What to look for in an SSD?



## b_gossweiler (Oct 24, 2010)

I am in the process of specifying a new Win7 64Bit desktop system for myself. I want it to be a real performer, so I’m thinking about


[li]i7-97' processor (3.2'GHz, 6 cores, 12MB Cache)[/li]
[li]3 SDDs, each one under RAID 1 (a total of 6 drives)
- 1 for System and Apps
- 1 for Data, including LR Catalog/Previews
- 1 for ACR and other (PSE) Caches[/li]
[li]1 big SATA II HDD under RAID 1 for everything else[/li]
 I now wonder what I have to look for when choosing the SSDs, besides the read/write throughputs generally advertised. I know there are MLC and SLC SSD’s, of which the SLC’s are too expensive for me to be used.

 So what should be the evaluation criteria for a SSD?

 Beat


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 24, 2010)

I just picked up 3 of the OWC ones and they're running nicely. Boot time so nice I bought one for my laptop too. Loading programs is stunning. 

I did run some quick tests using the DigiLloyd tools. Comparing against my RAID ', which is 2x Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB drives, read and write times were comparable at empty, which surprised me. That RAID is quick! Difference was that the SSD didn't slow down even when full, whereas the RAID started to drop off significantly past half-full.

Having done that, if I was buying again, I'd definitely go SSD for boot and apps, but probably wouldn't worry for the Catalog/caches, and would go for a 2nd RAID ' with those fast WD drives for a similar price. I'm not sure it's a significant enough difference to warrant the high cost. YMMV.


----------



## ukbrown (Oct 24, 2010)

RAID 1, you may actually decrease your performance. These drives can move a lot of data and you could be pushing the limits of the overall bus speed of the PC, let alone that of *one *SATA interface. IF your data throughput capability is faster than it can get to the processor, there is no point in having it. I would put as many SATA controller as you can in. 

I have written many times on here questioning SSD's ability to drive performance to the levels people think it should. Two people have now purchased SSD's on this forum and both have said that the performance increase is not that great. (if it takes '.2s twice as fast is '.1s, would you notice)

Buy a machine with 16-24GB of RAM, this will make everything faster, just think how many 25MB RAW files will be kept in RAM, RAM that is much faster than an SSD. Windows 7 will do all this work for you without asking, it actively caches, will do lazy writes (write caching as well, if configured)



> Loading programs is stunning


 I load lightroom once it takes twenty seconds. Let's say it takes '.''''1 with an SSD, I have saved 2's, great. Maybe two hours in a year tops.

If you have an application that makes a lot of use of your disk's then an SSD is a great investment, I still don;t think that LR is that much of a disk hog.

My advice, buy one and give it a good evaluation, post the results back and buy some more if you like what you find, I still think that in LR the processor/RAM boosts performance more than disk. If you do like what you find then I might even get one myself


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 24, 2010)

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=11388.msg76556#msg76556 date=128796''51]
RAID 1, you may actually decrease your performance. These drives can move a lot of data and you could be pushing the limits of the overall bus speed of the PC, let alone that of *one *SATA interface. IF your data throughput capability is faster than it can get to the processor, there is no point in having it. I would put as many SATA controller as you can in. 
[/quote]
Good point, as 25'MB/s throughput will occupy 2Gb/s of the 3Gb/s of a SATA II interface. I'll put an eye on that.

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=11388.msg76556#msg76556 date=128796''51]
Buy a machine with 16-24GB of RAM, this will make everything faster, just think how many 25MB RAW files will be kept in RAM, RAM that is much faster than an SSD. Windows 7 will do all this work for you without asking, it actively caches, will do lazy writes (write caching as well, if configured)
[/quote]

I was thinking of putting in 16GB anyway.

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=11388.msg76556#msg76556 date=128796''51]
My advice, buy one and give it a good evaluation, post the results back and buy some more if you like what you find, I still think that in LR the processor/RAM boosts performance more than disk. If you do like what you find then I might even get one myself  
[/quote]

That might be a good advice  

Beat


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 24, 2010)

But my main question has not been answered yet:

Provided I go for an SSD, what do I have to look for in the specs (besides MLC/SLC, Read-/Write-Throughput, 4K IOPS) to get "a good one", or which ones are recommended?

Beat


----------



## ukbrown (Oct 25, 2010)

I know very little about them sorry. If i was starting my research tomshardware would be a good place.


----------



## amazz (Oct 25, 2010)

I recently did the ssd switch, and can say a two year old laptop shows a major speed increase, but as I said in my post it still was not as fast as a quad core macpro with fast drives and 8 gigs ram, so an i7 with lots of ram and fast drives will show a smaller improvement, although boot times should be faster. Twice as fast is relative, as I get older, my time becomes more valulable, and waiting on an app is not something I want to do. SSD's for os and apps will probably become standard in a few years anyway.

Art


----------



## ukbrown (Oct 25, 2010)

@amazz, looking at the spec of your system I would have upgraded it with 

1. Windows 7 64 bit
2. Extra 4GB RAM
3. another one or two 32'GB drives.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Oct 26, 2010)

Hi Beat,

Keep in mind that anything attached to the disk controller is going to be limited by the speed and thru-put of your controller. The primary advantage of SSD over magnetic disk is there is no seek time delay nor any rotational delay. This means that applications that need to do mostly random I/O to the disk will show the most improvement since there are no longer any mechanical delays. As Victoria said YMMV a lot depending how often the application needs to go to the disk to get new data or write updates. 

If you want a real performance bump at a reasonable price I would suggest WD VelociRaptor 6''MB 1'K drives. Last I looked on Toms hardware reviews these were more than twice as fast as any other HD out there. I put 2 on my MacPro, one for boot/system/applications and one for Adobe Scratch/ ACR Cache and got a really nice improvement in general system performance. 

You can use the money you saved to put down one a nice new lens.... 

Just an idea.

-louie


----------



## amazz (Oct 26, 2010)

@ukbrown, both dell and crucial show the chipset at 4gig max ram, stiill may do win7, but don't see any reason for 64 bit.

Beat, sounds like the setup should really fly, but the cost of those few extra ms seems high. I was just trying to explain (poorly I guess), getting more mileage out of and an older setup.

Art


----------



## ukbrown (Oct 26, 2010)

@amazz, they did for mine as well, Dell with 6GB in. Only 4 supported.

If you don't go 64 bit, LR will only ever use 2GB Ram


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 26, 2010)

Thanks to everybody for your answers and hints!

[quote author=amazz link=topic=11388.msg76664#msg76664 date=1288'939'5]
...
Beat, sounds like the setup should really fly, but the cost of those few extra ms seems high. I was just trying to explain (poorly I guess), getting more mileage out of and an older setup.

Art
[/quote]

I guess you're right, Art, but you know, small children like small toys, big children like big toys  

Also, my current desktop is 6 years old and I fell like I deserve something fancy  

Beat


----------



## ukbrown (Oct 26, 2010)

Beat, Enjoy your early xmas present, don't forget, you need good cardboard boxes as well. Real small kids enjoy these more than the contents :icon_biggrin:


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 26, 2010)

Actually, I'm planning to get it in time for it to be set up (and reinstalled and reconfigured) between xmas and new year.

Beat


----------



## MarkNicholas (Oct 27, 2010)

For those of you like me who hadn't a clue what an SSD was. Here from Wikipedia :

"A solid-state drive (SSD) is a data storage device that uses solid-state memory to store persistent data. SSDs are distinguished from traditional hard disk drives (HDDs), which are electromechanical devices containing spinning disks and movable read/write heads. SSDs, in contrast, use microchips and data is retained in non-volatile memory chips and contain no moving parts. Compared to traditional HDDs, SSDs are typically less susceptible to physical shock, quieter, and have lower access time and latency. SSDs use the same interface as hard disk drives, thus easily replacing them in most applications.

As of 2'1', most SSDs use NAND-based flash memory, which retains memory even without power. SSDs using volatile random-access memory (RAM) also exist for situations which require even faster access, but do not necessarily need data persistence after power loss, or use batteries to back up the data after power is removed.

A hybrid drive combines the features of an HDD and an SSD in one unit."


----------



## hoffsta (Dec 7, 2010)

b_gossweiler said:


> But my main question has not been answered yet:
> 
> Provided I go for an SSD, what do I have to look for in the specs (besides MLC/SLC, Read-/Write-Throughput, 4K IOPS) to get "a good one", or which ones are recommended?
> 
> Beat



To answer your question: All my research suggested going for the Sandforce controlled SSDs at this time (Vertex 2, Phoenix Pro, Mercury Extreme, etc.)

Also worth knowing, I just installed two Vertex 2 6Gb SSDs in a Raid 0 array and found lightroom performance disappointing. The OS was snappy as hell and I'll never go back to having it loaded on a HD but Lightroom slowed down a lot. I actually moved the lightroom catalog back to the HD and it was faster. I'm still trying to figure out why...


----------



## b_gossweiler (Dec 7, 2010)

hoffsta said:


> ...
> Also worth knowing, I just installed two Vertex 2 6Gb SSDs in a Raid 0 array and found lightroom performance disappointing. ...



My target was an SSD in a RAID1 array and before ordering it I found out that there are not RAID controllers supporting the TRIM function yet, which renders SSDs pretty much useless (also see this post).

Might this be your problem?

Beat


----------



## hoffsta (Dec 7, 2010)

b_gossweiler said:


> My target was an SSD in a RAID1 array and before ordering it I found out that there are not RAID controllers supporting the TRIM function yet, which renders SSDs pretty much useless (also see this post).
> 
> Might this be your problem?
> 
> Beat


 
No I don't think that's the problem. The sandforce contolled SSDs have a function known as "garbage collection" which should work irregardless, I don't really know though. Mac OS X doesn't support TRIM at all but people still use SSDs in Raid 0.

The reason I know it's not the issue is that these are brand new so there is nothing for TRIM to fix yet. If the performance is going to degrade, it's going to degrade over time. At least that's what I've come to understand.


----------

