Very bad 4K read speed with Sandisk SSD Plus 240GB, any idea why? - Page 2 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

Very bad 4K read speed with Sandisk SSD Plus 240GB, any idea why?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-31-2019, 10:21 AM
AMD OC'ing Enthusiast
 
mattliston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,524
Rep: 104 (Unique: 82)
huh? thread about sandisk, now you mention wd green?




Either way, might be worth simply looking into what The Pook said, drop some files off the SSD, and retest.


I actually see a difference also when shortening the partition and leaving 5-10% of the drive unallocated, as the SSD firmware makes use of this extra space for internal functions.
A minor difference though.
mattliston is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-31-2019, 10:40 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
cfu97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 104
Rep: 2 (Unique: 2)
Quote: Originally Posted by mattliston View Post
huh? thread about sandisk, now you mention wd green?




Either way, might be worth simply looking into what The Pook said, drop some files off the SSD, and retest.


I actually see a difference also when shortening the partition and leaving 5-10% of the drive unallocated, as the SSD firmware makes use of this extra space for internal functions.
A minor difference though.
That wd green or this one is the same ssd
Have a look:
https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail...=490&t=5725468
The 4K read is just that bad, basically it is cheating.
cfu97 is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old 08-24-2019, 11:46 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 2
Rep: 0
It's slow because of how full the disk is that's all. Try freeing up some space you don't want to use more than 80% of most ssd's if you want good speed.
2600ryzen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old 08-25-2019, 09:42 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Liranan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Soviet China... Oh wait..
Posts: 8,644
Rep: 609 (Unique: 294)
These drives were already not the best due to lacking DRAM but when WD took over they became much, much worse. Also, as has been said, your drive is almost full so you need to free up some space to get optimal performance.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by faraz1729 go_quote.gif
Haha, Liranan, you creep.

Tacitus - The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. - Cree Indian Proverb
Liranan is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 08:45 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Omnidyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 16
Rep: 3 (Unique: 2)
Quote: Originally Posted by mattliston View Post
huh? thread about sandisk, now you mention wd green?
Because Western Digital owns Sandisk. The flash used in the WD Green is Sandisk NAND.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blameless View Post
Programing NAND, on a block for block basis, is generally no where near as fast as reading from it.

The reason why drives can often write, especially in smaller chunks, faster than they can read, is buffering/caching. You cannot cache a random read effectively without an enormous cache that already has the data you are looking for in it. You can cache any write, and even a small write cache can dramatically reduce the number of disk accesses needed.
Okay? As Sean Webster stated, it's optimized for faster writes at lower queue depths. So what are you trying to state? I'm confused. Additionally, the WD Green does not have a DRAM buffer. Those SSDs have notoriously low random performance and incredibly low endurance in addition to planar NAND; they are terrible OS drives for this reason and the OP's performance numbers are far from surprising.

Quote: Originally Posted by Liranan View Post
These drives were already not the best due to lacking DRAM but when WD took over they became much, much worse. Also, as has been said, your drive is almost full so you need to free up some space to get optimal performance.
What? Western Digital/ Sandisk has some of the best NAND flash on the market in addition to competitive products. The WD Green is from a time when all manufacturers were attempting to cut costs by excluding certain features. WD isn't the only one guilty of this.

Intel Core i5-8400 | Gigabyte Z370P D3 | Corsair CX550M | NVIDIA GTX 970 Founders Edition | ADATA SX850 256GB - SandDisk MLC 120GB | WD 1TB | G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR4 2666 | Windows 10 | Corsair Carbide SPEC-03
Alien Space Heater
(12 items)
CPU
i5-8400
Motherboard
Gigabyte Z370P D3
GPU
GTX 970 Founders Edition
RAM
G.Skill Ripjaws V
Hard Drive
ADATA SX850
Hard Drive
Western Digital Blue
Power Supply
Corsair CX550M
Case
Corsair Spec 03
Operating System
Windows 10
Monitor
Acer SA230
Keyboard
Gigabyte Force K83 Cherry MX Red
Mouse
Logitech
▲ hide details ▲

Last edited by Omnidyne; 08-29-2019 at 08:51 PM.
Omnidyne is offline  
post #16 of 16 (permalink) Old 09-01-2019, 01:28 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Liranan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Soviet China... Oh wait..
Posts: 8,644
Rep: 609 (Unique: 294)
Quote: Originally Posted by Omnidyne View Post
Because Western Digital owns Sandisk. The flash used in the WD Green is Sandisk NAND.



Okay? As Sean Webster stated, it's optimized for faster writes at lower queue depths. So what are you trying to state? I'm confused. Additionally, the WD Green does not have a DRAM buffer. Those SSDs have notoriously low random performance and incredibly low endurance in addition to planar NAND; they are terrible OS drives for this reason and the OP's performance numbers are far from surprising.



What? Western Digital/ Sandisk has some of the best NAND flash on the market in addition to competitive products. The WD Green is from a time when all manufacturers were attempting to cut costs by excluding certain features. WD isn't the only one guilty of this.
The NAND is quite low quality and the controller has been replaced with a USB drive one so performance is now even worse than it was. If you look up reviews of this drive you will see that the lack of DRAM seriously hurts this drive under certain workloads. Of course you don't notice it on a day to day basis but if you do anything strenuous the drive will show its weakness.

I have one of these drives and I don't care, considering how much it cost but now I would never buy it. Where I am the Samsung 981A drive (OEM 970 Evo Plus) costs the same so I see no reason to buy this drive.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by faraz1729 go_quote.gif
Haha, Liranan, you creep.

Tacitus - The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. - Cree Indian Proverb
Liranan is offline  
Reply

Tags
Ssd

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off