Very slow write speeds SSD

[ValkyrieStar]

Hi all, recently installed a couple things on my spare pc, it was hanging up pretty bad and transfer speeds were dog.

 

Wondering about the slow write speeds, I ran CrystalDiskMark, and it gave me VERY poor results!

 

Is my SSD dying? In CrystalDiskInfo it shows all smart data as good, no errors I can see. Any ideas? I'm pretty sure the drive used to get ~170MB/s write.

I've made sure TRIM is active, and ran it in the optimisation thing, but speeds were no different.

 

[zMeul]

do a secure erase

[ValkyrieStar]

it's my OS ssd though.

[Spork829]

Try switching out the SATA cable and SATA port on the motherboard and try it in a different machine if possible before you go deleting things.

1 minute ago, ValkyrieStar said:

it's my OS ssd though.

 

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

do a secure erase

 

[Bittenfleax]

2 minutes ago, ValkyrieStar said:

it's my OS ssd though.

It's probably the only way. Unless you do a system restore for the other programs. Look at the disk usage in Resmon.exe just to make sure it is not a background application. 

[ValkyrieStar]

4 minutes ago, Spork829 said:

Try switching out the SATA cable and SATA port on the motherboard and try it in a different machine if possible before you go deleting things.

 

 

 

I'll try swapping ports, though my HDD on the same board gets 100MB/s+ write speeds. I'll swap the cable for one of those special SATA3 cables from my main pc, dont know how much of a difference it'd make though compared to a standard sata cable.

 

4 minutes ago, Bittenfleax said:

It's probably the only way. Unless you do a system restore for the other programs. Look at the disk usage in Resmon.exe just to make sure it is not a background application. 

 

I watched task managers disk tab, it hits 100% during any kinds of write activity. Other than that its just sat idle 0%

[ValkyrieStar]

I could clone to a 500GB hdd and sanitise the SSD, i'll give that a go when ive got a bit of free time and ill let you know how it goes

[zMeul]

2 hours ago, ValkyrieStar said:

it's my OS ssd though.

this is why I never ever ever recrecommend putting the OS on a SSD

a HDD it either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't .. you throw it in the bin

[vanished]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

this is why I never ever ever recrecommend putting the OS on a SSD

a HDD it either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't .. you throw it in the bin

Really?  then those 4K numbers would be a tenth what they are now!

What do you recommend SSDs for if not for the OS?

[zMeul]

16 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Really?  then those 4K numbers would be a tenth what they are now!

What do you recommend SSDs for if not for the OS?

SSD should be deployed based on actual needs; not because "look how fast my windows boots" - that is a shit argument

SSD should be used in scenarios where it keeps a uniform wear level, like a scratch disk ... for example

 

you want to put a game, like Fallout 4, that benefits quite a lot from a SSD ... no problem

if the drive starts behaving erratically, you can move the folders and files to a  HDD, do a secure erase and put the stuff back - doing this with the OS drive is not that simple

 

 

 

I have a SSD since late last December, and not even one month in I started to see some shit that looks like cell voltage drift

I'll wait a couple of months, to get a more wider sample readings, and I will make a thread about it

[Bittenfleax]

12 hours ago, zMeul said:

I have a SSD since late last December, and not even one month in I started to see some shit that looks like cell voltage drift

I'll wait a couple of months, to get a more wider sample readings, and I will make a thread about it

Mine is fine, it could just be a bad pick (or paranoia) 

[zMeul]

Just now, Bittenfleax said:

or paranoia

riight ...

^ from left to right: late January / late February / early March

[Bittenfleax]

8 minutes ago, zMeul said:

riight ...

^ from left to right: late January / late February / early March

Hence the "OR". After the Bad Pick

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, Bittenfleax said:

Hence the "OR". After the Bad Pick

nope! I'm absolutely sure a secure erase will restore the read speeds to those I saw in the 1st days of use

[Bittenfleax]

Just now, zMeul said:

nope! I'm absolutely sure a secure erase will restore the read speeds to those I saw in the 1st days of use

k

[ValkyrieStar]

Hi again, got round to doing a sanitize on the drive (the even deeper version of secure erase), write speeds increased slightly, now 45MB/s.

 

I know its a dumb thing to do, but im gonna do a full format on the drive.

It was a cheap one, but still it shouldnt perform that bad. I noticed its done this since i accidentally installed an SDK which took the drive down to 100MB of free space.

 

Im wondering if this drive actually supports trim, as running that makes no difference to speeds at all, so it may just be the hit of writing over used blocks thats causing the slowdown, hence why im doing a full format on it now.

[Cwazywazy]

I have an old OCZ 50GB that does ~30MB/s writes and 200MB/s reads even after multiple formats so, yeah.. 

[ValkyrieStar]

Well this one did do 140mb/s not long ago. Just ever since installing that sdk and having 100mb free space (even though it was then deleted, leaving 45gb free space post delete) its had really crumby speeds. Just hoping i can get it back to something where i can use it as a scratch disk or so. Though i may just hang on till ive got a bit more money and pick up a 500/1000gb samsung 850.

 

On that note, which is better? 850 EVO or 850 PRO? I used to have an M.2 EVO 500gb in my old pc, which i sold to get my 950 pro for my new one. That ran great and i never had any trouble with it.

[scottyseng]

3 hours ago, ValkyrieStar said:

Well this one did do 140mb/s not long ago. Just ever since installing that sdk and having 100mb free space (even though it was then deleted, leaving 45gb free space post delete) its had really crumby speeds. Just hoping i can get it back to something where i can use it as a scratch disk or so. Though i may just hang on till ive got a bit more money and pick up a 500/1000gb samsung 850.

 

On that note, which is better? 850 EVO or 850 PRO? I used to have an M.2 EVO 500gb in my old pc, which i sold to get my 950 pro for my new one. That ran great and i never had any trouble with it.

Hmm, it might be the benchmark. What are the speeds if you actually write a large file to it (like a movie or something). My Sandisk Extreme Pro (with no OS) would report as 550MB/s write....but then after installing Windows Server 2012 R2, it would only report 40MB/s no matter what bench I used. However, when I copied a file to it, it actually does run at the full speed (copies at 550MB/s). I also tested this by taking the SSD out of my server and putting it on my PC as a storage drive. It does indeed bench at the full speed on my PC.

 

But my guess is that the TRIM is stuck...since you had filled the SSD to that extent. It should've went away though. But this is Sandisk's like dirt cheap lineup...you kind of get what you paid for. Their really nice lineup is the Extreme Pro lineup.

 

The 850 Pro is better, but honestly, I've installed three 850 Evos so far and for the average user, the speed difference isn't noticeable. I personally prefer the Sandisk Extreme Pro SSDs, but that was mostly because my cousin got hit by the 840 series SSD speed bug (yes, even with the firmware update). However, after installing several of the 850 Evos, my opinion has gotten better of them.

[ValkyrieStar]

On 3/4/2016 at 6:35 PM, scottyseng said:

Hmm, it might be the benchmark. What are the speeds if you actually write a large file to it (like a movie or something). My Sandisk Extreme Pro (with no OS) would report as 550MB/s write....but then after installing Windows Server 2012 R2, it would only report 40MB/s no matter what bench I used. However, when I copied a file to it, it actually does run at the full speed (copies at 550MB/s). I also tested this by taking the SSD out of my server and putting it on my PC as a storage drive. It does indeed bench at the full speed on my PC.

 

But my guess is that the TRIM is stuck...since you had filled the SSD to that extent. It should've went away though. But this is Sandisk's like dirt cheap lineup...you kind of get what you paid for. Their really nice lineup is the Extreme Pro lineup.

 

The 850 Pro is better, but honestly, I've installed three 850 Evos so far and for the average user, the speed difference isn't noticeable. I personally prefer the Sandisk Extreme Pro SSDs, but that was mostly because my cousin got hit by the 840 series SSD speed bug (yes, even with the firmware update). However, after installing several of the 850 Evos, my opinion has gotten better of them.

Once i'd installed it in another pc, I ran a full format on it and benched, confusingly at first, read ~265 write ~225, spent ages trying to work out what was up, failing to think that i was benching it on a 775 board with only SATA2 support! Moved it to my main PC, and once again saw full read and write speeds. 485 read / 310 write, actually somewhat impressed, i just recon TRIM got stuck, as you said, i think i'll limit the partition size to 100GB, leaving 16GB or so for overprovisioning, should help the drive keep up if it gets full.

 

Compared to my 950 Pro, it's slow, but i'll be using this as a scratch disk for apps and a cache for recording, in an attempt to save my 950 Pro some write wear.

 

Left: SanDisk 128GB on the SATA2 port of my very old machine,

Middle: SanDisk 128GB on the SATA3 port of my new machine,

Right: Samsung 950 Pro 512GB via PCIe 3.0 x4 on my new machine.

 

[Sentryy]

This is my CDM for my sandisk SSD, mine is a 480gb ultra 2.

[vanished]

4 hours ago, Sentryy said:

This is my CDM for my sandisk SSD, mine is a 480gb ultra 2.

Hm, weird... some of my numbers are way worse and some way better

240 GB Corsair Force GS

[Sentryy]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Hm, weird... some of my numbers are way worse and some way better

240 GB Corsair Force GS

Your SSD seems to be more read oriented where mine is more write oriented which makes sense, As mine is a SSD that is used by camera people which needs fast write speeds and yours is made for gaming which the only advantage you will get is faster load times and fast write speeds are not as necessary. 

[Godlygamer23]

On 3/1/2016 at 2:04 PM, zMeul said:

this is why I never ever ever recrecommend putting the OS on a SSD

a HDD it either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't .. you throw it in the bin

This is some poor logic. Hard drives can have problems that disallow it to function properly. SMART doesn't tell you everything for any drive, and I've been using Windows on my Intel SSD just fine.

 

Your logic doesn't hold, and it seems like you have something against SSDs and automatically blame the drive for the issue, which is not proper testing at all. Stop spreading the concept that hard drives are the end-all-be-all with regards to function. Hard drives can have problems, and sometimes be inconsistent at the same time.

 

Also, as a side note, we use SSDs in the military electronics I inspect because they're objectively better.

[Vengeance_K1ng]

9 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

This is some poor logic. Hard drives can have problems that disallow it to function properly. SMART doesn't tell you everything for any drive, and I've been using Windows on my Intel SSD just fine.

 

Your logic doesn't hold, and it seems like you have something against SSDs and automatically blame the drive for the issue, which is not proper testing at all. Stop spreading the concept that hard drives are the end-all-be-all with regards to function. Hard drives can have problems, and sometimes be inconsistent at the same time.

 

Also, as a side note, we use SSDs in the military electronics I inspect because they're objectively better.

You're Right.