13 replies to this topic

[Tourane]

Hello Everybody,

Can Somebody do a Benchmark with "ATTO Disk Benchmark" for the Internal Disk 2 "SSD" with Drive "D:".

Here is the link to Download :

http://rapidshare.co....34-English.rar

And here is a Sample with the Internal Disk 1 "SSD" of "ASUS Eee PC 701" :



Thanks for your Help !!!

Edited by Tourane, 21 May 2008 - 03:47 AM.

[Dave_H]

Here you go.
This is a 20GB 900, full install of XP Pro SP3.
I do have a lot of programs installed and didn't make any effort to turn off any running tasks. Both partitions are FAT32.

C Drive (4GB)


D Drive (16GB)


Dave

Edited by Dave_H, 21 May 2008 - 06:25 AM.

[Dave_H]

I was a little suprised by that, I seen all the posts by people saying the second drive on the 900 is faster than the primary on the 700.

For comparison, here is the test run on my 701, the 8GB model.

This is basically the same setup, only major difference is this is running the Home version instead of Pro.

Full version of XP Home with integrated SP3.
Also on a FAT32 partition, and basically the same programs installed and I didn't shut down any running tasks.



Dave

Edited by Dave_H, 21 May 2008 - 06:45 AM.

[Tourane]

Hello Dave_H,

Drive "D:" of "ASUS EEE PC 900" is not Fast For Writing !!!

Thank for your Help !!!

[F J Walter]

Thanks very much for the test!

Tourane's result seems to contradict most other results I've seen for the 701 which show a lower read speed. Here, it's clear that the SSD in the 701 clearly does perform almost as well as the 4GB SSD in the 900 and the 16GB in the 900 is slower than both!

Things I've noticed about the 16GB SSD from these graphs.

- Write speed is about 50% the speed of the 900 4GB and 66% the speed of the 701 4GB for all transfer sizes.

- Read speed for small files is superior to both the 900 4GB and 701 4GB for files 4KB and smaller, and slower for files 8KB and above, with about 70% speed of the 900 4GB and 90% the speed of the 701 4G in its worst case.

I was also surprised to see it lagging behind the performance of the 701 4GB. My theory is that later 701 revisions might include faster drives.

Edited by F J Walter, 21 May 2008 - 08:00 AM.

[jkkmobile]

Thanks!

I hope it's ok to post these pictures to my site?

[Dave_H]

Help yourself to the ones I made if you would like to use them in any way.

(that goes to anyone, no credit necessary but mentioning this forum would be nice)

Just keep in mind that it was done on a "normal use" installation without any tweaking or anything and I prefered FAT32 for my EEE's.
It may not be giving the "max" speed that the drive is capable of.
Dave

Edited by Dave_H, 21 May 2008 - 09:09 AM.

[shade360]

least we can see why xp seems a little slow on the second drive now.. write speed is a bit sloooooow

[swaaye]

I tried formatting the 16GB to NTFS with a 512 byte cluster size for fun. That was definitely slower than the default of 4KB. I think performance could be improved by going with the biggest cluster size possible and FAT32, but you will end up with lots of wasted space that way.

I'm really quite disappointed with the write speeds of these drives. They don't really hold a candle to any hard disk. Read is great, but the write speed problems can cause all sorts of weird system pauses and general slowness.

Edited by swaaye, 22 May 2008 - 09:08 PM.

[squonk]

Was Virus enabled during this test ? Also were the machines defraged or not ?

Edited by squonk, 22 May 2008 - 09:49 PM.

[Dave_H]

I turned off my AV and firewall, they were not running but had been loaded with windows. And yes, they were defragged. I don't believe the "ssd drives don't need to be defragged" argument.

When I have more time I would be interested in "clean booting" with minimal programs and services running to see if it makes any difference, but I have been really busy.
Maybe someone with a tweaked minimal Nlite install can give it a try?
Dave

[Bob-sama]

Defrag does not matter--there's no seek latency and since there's nothing moving, there's no delay between reading different differences. For all solid-state memory, it's stupid and a waste of time and money to defrag--since solid-state has limited writes for each sector, it can degrade and you have "bad sectors" flagged.

[F J Walter]

Quote

Read is great, but the write speed problems can cause all sorts of weird system pauses and general slowness.

I don't know how slow write speeds could be the cause of wierd system pauses. I mean that write speed is slow for a hard disk, but beats any Sd card and most usb sticks and i don't experience lockups on them.


Do you have plenty of spare memory and a page file?

[ProDigit]

interesting results!

Ican see that the 701 has quicker read/write for small blocks,meaning faster random R/W disk acess as well as faster os load.

For large files the C drive of a 900 is better tho (eg: resuming from hybernation).

Anyone willing to test a COMPRESSED NTFS partition on the C drive?

Edited by ProDigit, 23 May 2008 - 06:07 AM.