Exploring the problem
The block rewrite penalty affects all flash-based SSDs, but as we've discovered, some do a better job of managing this problem than others. Indilinx's Barefoot controller appears to be much worse off on this front, at least when running on Windows XP, than controllers from Intel and Samsung. But why?
One potential problem is Windows XP's default 63-sector offset, which starts the first partition right in the middle of an SSD page rather than at the beginning of one. Since flash can only be written in 4KB pages, the overlap caused by an initial misalignment can result in more pages being written than necessary for a given write request. The performance implications of this situation are particularly troubling when the drive has no empty pages. Microsoft suggests misalignment can drop SSD performance by up to 50% when block rewrite penalties come into play.
One solution to XP's default partition offset is to create partitions manually with a custom offset. Doing so is possible using a Diskpart utility available from Microsoft. Such tweaking isn't necessary for all SSDs, though. When asked whether the X25-M takes XP's 63-sector offset into account, Intel told us that its SSD tech is alignment-agnostic, just as long as there's some alignment present in the operating system. Also, the Samsung controller doesn't seem to be as adversely affected by XP's default offset as the Indilinx chip in the Vertex.
In fact, custom partition alignment may not even be necessary with the Vertex. When asked about the issue, OCZ Vice President of Technology Development Michael Schuette also suggested that an SSD could side-step XP's 63-sector offset by employing a default 128KB offset in its firmware. So why hasn't such an offset been incorporated into the Vertex's firmware? Because that firmware comes from Indilinx; according to Schuette, OCZ doesn't have access to the source code.
We fired off an email to Indilinx regarding the issue, specifically asking about XP's 63-sector offset and the comparatively poor used-state performance we observed from the Barefoot controller:
I've been testing a couple of Indilinx-powered SSDs (OCZ's Vertex and Super Talent's UltraDrive ME) and have discovered that the drives offer much lower performance in a used state than when in factory-fresh form. This is of course an issue for all SSDs, but the Indilinx drives suffer a much greater performance drop from fresh to used than SSDs powered by Samsung and Intel controllers.
I've been testing with Windows XP, whose 63-sector offset is apparently to blame for the Indilinx controller's disproportionally poor performance in a used state. Does the Indilinx controller take XP's 63-sector offset into account? Is it possible to add a default offset to the controller's firmware so that XP users don't have to resort to manual partition alignment for optimal performance?
Indilinx's replied with the following:
We support TRIM Command to recover the performance drop after fragmentation(used).
This command shows the original performance like Intel.
Rather than directly addressing XP's 63-sector offset and the controller's poor used-state performance, Indilinx is essentially suggesting that we avoid a used state altogether. The TRIM utility erases any pages marked as available but occupied with old data, reducing the chance of a block-rewrite penalty to slow a write request. This program effectively pushes a drive toward its factory-fresh state without erasing the data you actually want to keep.
That all sounds well and good, but Indilinx's TRIM utility doesn't appear to be ready for prime time. In a post releasing a beta version of the app in its SSD forums, an OCZ rep notes that he repeatedly encountered data corruption when running the utility on a 64-bit Vista system with an ICH10R south bridge. In fact, although the app is called 100% safe for 32-bit operating systems, OCZ says it's only "looking around 50% safe" for 64-bit operating systems. Support for 64-bit Vista and Windows 7 is listed as "limited", and Windows XP 64-bit isn't supported at all. Incidentally, we tried the latest TRIM utility on our original test system, a 32-bit XP machine, and it didn't work. OCZ's suggestion was to run the app up to six times, rebooting after each.
Windows 7 promises native support for the TRIM command, but the OS hasn't been finalized, and Indilinx's home-brewed utility doesn't look like a reliable solution for those running other operating systems. Based on the accounts of OCZ's own SSD forum admin, I wouldn't trust the app with a 64-bit operating system. The fact that data corruption has been observed would make me wary of running the utility on a 32-bit OS, as well.
Although the TRIM utility clearly isn't a robust solution, it appears to be the only one Indilinx is offering to address the poor used-state performance of Barefoot-based drives in Windows XP. And before you argue that Windows XP is far too antiquated to matter, keep in mind that it's still widely used by PC enthusiasts and mainstream folks alike. If Intel and Samsung have more effectively addressed used-state performance with their SSD controllers, shouldn't we expect the same from Indilinx or anyone else hawking an SSD controller?
We asked OCZ's Michael Schuette how much pull the company has with Indilinx in terms of getting new features (like a default partition offset) introduced to firmware and were told that OCZ is "doing a huge part of the debugging and performance analyses" related to the drive. Schuette went on to say that, "With more access to the details on the hardware and firmware, I am sure we could make this controller really fly, it is pretty good already, but we are stuck behind the iron curtain."
Indilinx's Barefoot controller appears to be, charitably, a work in progressas are the drives based on it. At present, their used-state performance issues have not been addressed adequately. Indilinx may be the only party capable of rectifying the problem via firmware changes, but that doesn't absolve OCZ, Super Talent, and others selling Barefoot drives of responsibility for a glaring flaw in the products they are selling to consumers.
If you want to dabble with Windows 7 release candidates, fine-tune partition alignments, or roll the dice with a TRIM utility that could corrupt your data, SSDs based on Indilinx's Barefoot controller certainly have intriguing potential. However, for those seeking a solid-state drive that doesn't require extensive tweaking for optimal performance, products based on the latest controllers from Intel and Samsung are much safer betsincluding, potentially, OCZ's own recently introduced Summit series.
In highlighting the used-state performance penalty associated with the Barefoot controller, we've focused exclusively on Windows XP performance with our ICH7R-based storage test system. But that's not all we've been doing. A new round of SSD testing has already begun on an updated system built around a Core 2 processor, ICH10R south bridge, and Vista x64. Stay tuned for more.
140 comments — Last by tfp at 10:35 PM on 06/03/09
|Toshiba's OCZ VX500 512GB SSD reviewedA19 flash bids adieu||33|
|Adata's Premier SP550 480GB SSD reviewedTaking aim at the budget segment||36|
|Samsung's Portable SSD T3 reviewed2TB in the palm of your hand||14|
|Crucial's MX300 SSD reviewedThe MX series enters the third dimension||57|
|Toshiba's OCZ RD400 512GB SSD reviewedNVMe inches towards attainability||24|
|Mushkin's Reactor 1TB SSD reviewedA familiar one-two punch||31|
|Adata's XPG SX930 240GB SSD reviewedAnother 16-nm Micron MLC challenger appears||24|
|OCZ's Trion 150 SSD reviewedOCZ and TLC, take two||18|
|SolidRun MicroSoM offers Braswell CPUs on a tiny package||10|
|Friday Night Shortbread||12|
|Doom's latest update adds Deathmatch and private matches||8|
|Rumor: Google to showcase mesh networking router soon||8|
|Deals of the week: SSD storage and a gaming laptop||15|
|Asus upgrades its G11 gaming desktops with Pascal power||9|
|Work with Pritchard again in Mankind Divided's System Rift DLC||5|
|Titanfall 2 PC requirements point to a smooth experience||33|
|DSFix creator Durante outlines the realities of game optimization||24|