Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › 4k alignment vs 1k
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4k alignment vs 1k

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
OK everyone! Since this is getting to be a big topic I just reinstalled windows 7 using 4096 alignment and there is no performance increase as far as I can tell over 1024. I get the same results as I did before in AS SSD with my crucial M4 on firmware 0009.

So I am just going to use 4096 still.

Before:
attachment.php?attachmentid=236955&stc=1&d=1320168394

After:
attachment.php?attachmentid=236954&stc=1&d=1320168394
post #2 of 5
how reliable are the life estimates tho or more specific is it possible that extra 1 year could be a bluff
IT
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500k Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 ATi 6950 CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB CL9 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M4 120gb sdd HITACHI Deskstar 2TB sata 6.0gbs COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus Windows 7 
MonitorCase
HannsG SL231DPB 23" Corsair Carbide Series 500R Black 
  hide details  
Reply
IT
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500k Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 ATi 6950 CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB CL9 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M4 120gb sdd HITACHI Deskstar 2TB sata 6.0gbs COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus Windows 7 
MonitorCase
HannsG SL231DPB 23" Corsair Carbide Series 500R Black 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 5
I'll repost this here for anyone to look at since I posted it in your guide thread smile.gif

Man I really am struggling to find information on the benefits of 4096 alignment. As long as the alignment is divisible by 512 then it will be properly aligned. So a 4096 alignment will not hurt anything in terms of it being correct. Thats about all I can find to be totally honest with all the googling ><<br />
And as you pointed out Sean you gained a year with SSD Life but no I/O loss or gain. So the question remains other than possibly pro-longing the lifespan of your SSD, what else is the benefit?

@tony1420 SSD Life could be a bit funky with estimates but if Sean for example is always checking his SSD Life and for example say it shows 2013 and then after this alignment it jumps up to 2014 it COULD mean something.
post #4 of 5
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony1420;15532614 
how reliable are the life estimates tho or more specific is it possible that extra 1 year could be a bluff

Maybe/most likely
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabby654;15532639 
I'll repost this here for anyone to look at since I posted it in your guide thread smile.gif

Man I really am struggling to find information on the benefits of 4096 alignment. As long as the alignment is divisible by 512 then it will be properly aligned. So a 4096 alignment will not hurt anything in terms of it being correct. Thats about all I can find to be totally honest with all the googling ><<br />
And as you pointed out Sean you gained a year with SSD Life but no I/O loss or gain. So the question remains other than possibly pro-longing the lifespan of your SSD, what else is the benefit?

@tony1420 SSD Life could be a bit funky with estimates but if Sean for example is always checking his SSD Life and for example say it shows 2013 and then after this alignment it jumps up to 2014 it COULD mean something.

We need a few people to do a before and after to verify. I've done a few 1k installs and they always showed the same date, even after a few weeks.
post #5 of 5
Looks like BradleyW got back with more info the 4096!
Quote:
Ok it's about time we got this sorted.

1. You don't need to run AHCI when using a SSD. By this, i mean you can run hdd's in raid with a SSD on it's own. Whichever drives are not selected as raid will run in ahci although the bios reports raid mode.

2. 4096 is the correct allication size for newer storage devices. Why?
A hard drive or SSD is a chunk of free space (Let's talk in digital terms). So this free space needs to be devided into segments. By setting 1024, 1024 small little chunks can be help within a segment. By setting 4096, you can hold over 3072 more chunks per segment.

3. So yeah....why is this better?
Firstly we need to look at how information is stored and read on the hard drive. Lets take a file. It's saved as small chunks that fit into a segment. If you use 1024 allication size and the file will need 2000 chunks, the file will become split up. So the first 1024 chunks will be stored in the 1st segment whilst the remaining is stored into the next segment. Because the file is devided, it takes longer for the hdd, ssd and/or the OS to read/write the file. The file that requires 2000 chunks of a segment can fit into a 4096 segment. The file and information does not become scattered around. Of course, no matter what you do, chunks will become split up over time as you add and delete things on the computer and gaps in the stucture appear and get filled by new files. The new files just become scattered to fill the gaps between the empty chunks that appear from previous files becoming deleted by software or the user.

4. Why not use an allication size higher than 4096?
Because if the units that hold tiny segments become too large of an open space, it will take the OS and the hardware far too long to find and interpiete the information. It will also reduce the amount of formatted free space avialable to the OS and the user.

Hope this helps!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: SSD
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › 4k alignment vs 1k