Originally Posted by BrainSplatter
Just note that the date listed for those files is 2009 and not
the date at which the files have actually been copied onto the SSD. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to determine that date for all cases. If the copying transfers the 'modified' and 'created' date from the original files to the new copy on the SSD 'File Bench' will report the wrong date.
If you copy a file, Windows Explorer transfers only the modified date to the new file, setting the created and accessed date on the new file to the date of the copy operation. However, if you move a file, the created and modified dates are transferred to the new file, and only the accessed date is set to the date of the move operation.
, thank you for starting this interesting thread. I have always advocated defragmenting SSDs occasionally (for numerous other reasons), and have measured performance increases at times when doing so (despite all the misled hoopla), but this new twist is very interesting and unexpected to me! I will keep my eyes open for this phenomenon in the future.
I wonder if the Crucial MX100 SSD suffers from this as well, since I have always recommended (and used) the 840 EVO over the MX100 because the EVO is faster!
Another concern is this: If data is getting hard to retrieve after just a short time (causing reduced read speeds), I wonder how long it would take before the SSD would start forgetting data altogether?
Edited by Techie007 - 9/7/14 at 10:04pm