Samsung 64GB 2.5" SATA-II MLC Solid State Hard Drive

Velineon · 6 Mar 2009 at 21:11

I worked hard for all that

LeJimster · 6 Mar 2009 at 21:14

adam1v said:
Just installed my two Sammys and its flying, really really brilliant difference!

Ive ran the SSD Tweaker.
However, when I tick both the boxes in the HD section (enable write cache....) the boxes dont stay ticked.

Anyone know why it might be?

Where abouts are you trying to enable the write cache? In vista its in the device manager in the properties of your volume.

I believe you can do it from Intel Matrix Storage Console too. If your using an Intel chipset mobo.

adam1v · 6 Mar 2009 at 22:53

LeJimster said:
Where abouts are you trying to enable the write cache? In vista its in the device manager in the properties of your volume.

I believe you can do it from Intel Matrix Storage Console too. If your using an Intel chipset mobo.

I dont use the intel software, but yes im trying to enable it in the device manager.

I tick both boxes -> Apply -> ok.

Back into DM and the devices are unticked.

woody79 · 7 Mar 2009 at 01:09

how do u use atto nothing happens comes up with, cant open fill bench

Velineon · 7 Mar 2009 at 12:57

Thought id post another benchcy

LeJimster · 7 Mar 2009 at 13:08

adam1v said:
I dont use the intel software, but yes im trying to enable it in the device manager.

I tick both boxes -> Apply -> ok.

Back into DM and the devices are unticked.

if your board uses intel chipset tho, get the latest intel matrix storage drivers.

LeJimster · 7 Mar 2009 at 13:12

Velineon said:
Thought id post another benchcy

I really don't trust hdtune, I did a bench last night and it was showing similar results. 400mb/sec sustained with burst speed of 1200mb/sec. I'll stick with Atto tbh seems more realistic.

matthew2456 · 7 Mar 2009 at 13:23

LeJimster said:
I really don't trust hdtune, I did a bench last night and it was showing similar results. 400mb/sec sustained with burst speed of 1200mb/sec. I'll stick with Atto tbh seems more realistic.

There is a buf / FW issue where read speeds are twice the rated when there is no data in that area

Velineon · 7 Mar 2009 at 13:29

matthew2456 said:
There is a buf / FW issue where read speeds are twice the rated when there is no data in that area

I did think to myself that these results seemed really high

drunkenmaster · 7 Mar 2009 at 16:19

matthew2456 said:
There is a buf / FW issue where read speeds are twice the rated when there is no data in that area

is that hdtune you meant, i'm not completely convinced, I'm actually not sure but isn't Vel running 4 of the 64gb's, if all in raid those numbers look ok, the early numbers look like crap though.

Its dodgey but I can't tell which way, atto gives me 200mb's read, hdtune gives me around 100 for that first small section then 200-220mb/s for the rest which is about what you'd expect.

Its hard to know whats accurate though.

Thing is its hard to know, are the only people getting more than the drives rated speed getting it from bad benchies, like the samsung review showing 160mb's read.

Its still not a bad drive, and perhaps my results are limited by running off normal drives with os not on the faster ssd's while I'm testing them.

Still can't find the perfect setup, theres not a "huge" amount of difference with any of them tbh, though my sequential and random read in crystal mark seem 5-10% higher with a 128kb stripe and a 128 offset, 256 offset isn't much worse but a little, and 512 hasn't made much difference at all from 256.

Looks like i'm gonna use 128/128, or 128/256.

adam1v · 7 Mar 2009 at 17:12

LeJimster said:
if your board uses intel chipset tho, get the latest intel matrix storage drivers.

Do you mean the storage manager as well? Im unable to find just the Drivers.

I have an Abit IP35 Pro

Velineon · 7 Mar 2009 at 17:39

drunkenmaster said:
is that hdtune you meant, i'm not completely convinced, I'm actually not sure but isn't Vel running 4 of the 64gb's, if all in raid those numbers look ok, the early numbers look like crap though.

Its dodgey but I can't tell which way, atto gives me 200mb's read, hdtune gives me around 100 for that first small section then 200-220mb/s for the rest which is about what you'd expect.

Its hard to know whats accurate though.

Thing is its hard to know, are the only people getting more than the drives rated speed getting it from bad benchies, like the samsung review showing 160mb's read.

Its still not a bad drive, and perhaps my results are limited by running off normal drives with os not on the faster ssd's while I'm testing them.

Still can't find the perfect setup, theres not a "huge" amount of difference with any of them tbh, though my sequential and random read in crystal mark seem 5-10% higher with a 128kb stripe and a 128 offset, 256 offset isn't much worse but a little, and 512 hasn't made much difference at all from 256.

Looks like i'm gonna use 128/128, or 128/256.

I have 4 of the 64gb SSD's but that result is on the 2. I'm only using 2 of them for raid.

matthew2456 · 7 Mar 2009 at 21:02

its definitely a bug using HDTUNE, when new/empty mine gave consistently double readings, now half full half the drive gives rated speeds for half and double speeds for half.

woody79 · 7 Mar 2009 at 21:51

how do u use atto nothing happens comes up with, cant open fill bench,can anyone help please

Bones · 7 Mar 2009 at 23:26

I've had XP installed on my samsung i tried to install Vista on it but i'm getting an error on the select a drive screen.

"unable to find a system volume that meets its criteria for installation"

I tried setting the SSD to active in disk management, tried formatting etc but the problem wont go away. Can anyone suggest why this is happening?

hernaldo · 7 Mar 2009 at 23:45

Bones said:
I've had XP installed on my samsung i tried to install Vista on it but i'm getting an error on the select a drive screen.

"unable to find a system volume that meets its criteria for installation"

I tried setting the SSD to active in disk management, tried formatting etc but the problem wont go away. Can anyone suggest why this is happening?

Make a new thread it's not related to the SSD drive, it would be the same with any drive.

edit - just do a fresh install, you're asking for trouble doing an "upgrade" install.

Bones · 8 Mar 2009 at 00:59

Sorry i wasn't very clear in my post, its late and i'm frustrated with my pc.

I am attempting a clean install. It is just refusing to install to my SSD, i suspect something to do with allignment is causing it, but i thought Vista sorted all that out?

I can't image re-image my old OS back on to the drive now either, as its saying the Drive doesn't match the size of the image :S

Velineon · 8 Mar 2009 at 09:09

Bones said:
Sorry i wasn't very clear in my post, its late and i'm frustrated with my pc.

I am attempting a clean install. It is just refusing to install to my SSD, i suspect something to do with allignment is causing it, but i thought Vista sorted all that out?

I can't image re-image my old OS back on to the drive now either, as its saying the Drive doesn't match the size of the image :S

I had a similar problem when i installed my SSD's. My hardware could not detect them. What SATA port are you connecting it to?

DanF · 8 Mar 2009 at 09:57

woody79 said:
how do u use atto nothing happens comes up with, cant open fill bench,can anyone help please

Run Atto as Admin privileges, also put Atto on to a different physical drive or even a pen drive.

DanF · 8 Mar 2009 at 10:19

Here's mine, 2 x Samsung 64gb in raid 0 with 128k stripe, it's a new vista install so no extra drive alignment. I used SSD Tweaker then moved the pagefile to a separate physical HD and turned on write back caching.