Performance Comparisons – TRIM Speed
Thanks to the plethora of data we have at our disposal from the new suite, I can derive some additional interesting data that nobody seems to have been paying any attention to yet. Have you ever deleted a large file and then noticed your system seem to hang for some time afterwards? Maybe file moves from your SSD seemed to take longer than expected?
That's your problem right there. In the above capture, a 16GB file was deleted while a minimal level of background IO was taking place. Note how that IO completely stalls for a few seconds shortly after the file was deleted? That's a bad thing. We don't want that, but to fix it, someone needs to measure it and point it out. Enter another aspect of our new testing:
Latency Percentile data was obtained while running a 'light' (1000 IOPS) workload in the background while files of varying sizes were deleted. The amount of latency added during the deletions was measured, compared with a baseline, and correlated with the sizes of the deleted files. The result is how much latency is added to the active workload per GB of file size that was deleted. In short, this is how long you may notice a stutter last after deleting a 1GB file.
To avoid confusion, I've maintained the performance-based sort from the mixed test for these charts. Here you can tell that some drives that did perform well on that test stick out a bit here when it comes to how they handle TRIM. Ideally, these results should all be as close to 0.000 as possible. Higher figures translate to longer performance dips after files have been moved or deleted.
This is another result from a different set of data. While our suite runs, it issues a full drive TRIM several times. Some of those times it is done on an empty SSD, others is it done on a full SSD. Any difference in time taken is measured and calculated, normalizing to a response time per GB TRIMmed. In short, this is how long an otherwise idle SSD would hang upon receiving a TRIM command for a 1GB file. These times are shorter than the last chart because the SSD controller does not have to juggle this TRIM with background activity and can throw all of its resources at the request.
All results here are decent, with the outlier being the Intel 600p and possibly the MX300, which is entering the area where there would be a more noticeable performance impact.
Below are more results for this valuable metric, sorted by performance. Note that the oldest SSDs (X25-M) are N/A here because they did not employ TRIM:
On the page “Performance
On the page “Performance Focus – 750 EVO 250GB” under the first graph it says “Very impressive speeds for the 1TB 960 EVO. […]”.
Clearly that’s wrong 😀
Fixed. Thanks!
Fixed. Thanks!
You’re welcome 😉
You’re welcome 😉
Was Samsung 840 EVO really
Was Samsung 840 EVO really worth Editor’s Choice Award?
840 EVO? Back when it
840 EVO? Back when it launched? Sure. There were issues that were fixed, but could not be discovered at the time of the review.
hey Allyn, is it possible to
hey Allyn, is it possible to include some raid0 SATA devices on your chart? for example samsung 850 pro raid 0 or 960 pro raid 0 to see how it fairs with single drives.
I understand due to raid latency, QD1 performance would drop but since your chart shows average of 1-4QD this would see some improvement in terms of raid, also see how well does SSD caching with intel RST would benefit us over single drive.
Isn’t the 750 EVO EOL now?
Isn’t the 750 EVO EOL now?
I love your write up about
I love your write up about the Latency Percentile. Your storage reviews are by far more realistic with some real engineering behind it. Keep up the great work!
Still waiting on a Storage
Still waiting on a Storage Leader board, like have the stats of all of them on an consistently updated page.
The 500GB 750 Evo is $241,
The 500GB 750 Evo is $241, the 500GB 850 Evo is $170. You’d be a fool to buy the lesser 750 for more than the better 850.
You would be a fool to pay
You would be a fool to pay that, especially since you can get one practically anywhere for ~$145-155 depending on tax/shipping.
Hi Allyn.
Wishing you all a
Hi Allyn.
Wishing you all a happy festive season………………
Samsung and Sandisk(rip)were the only ones to get a grip
on planer TLC.That Ultra 2 result in the write cache test
is really strange.
I remember when you did a comparison a while back I asked
if you could include ultra 2 which was using folding on
each individual die-obviously you were too busy.
Guess something was going on in the background there…..
As to the 750 EVO’s-the 250 and 500 pass my requirements.
1.More than 8000 IOPS read QD1.(must for a boot drive)
2.Write more than 200MB after the cache(cant have it slower
than my spinning rust)
Would be great if this huge
Would be great if this huge chart was searchable and not as an image. I wonder if my Toshiba Toshiba THNSNJ is somewhere there…