View Single Post
Staro 25.02.2012., 06:11   #104
Quantum
Make it so
 
Quantum's Avatar
 
Datum registracije: May 2008
Lokacija: Enterprise-E Ready Room
Postovi: 93
Citiraj:
Autor Tomy B. Pregled postova
MAGARAC, ima li negdje nekakva usporedba GC-a?
Ne mogu reci da sam sve SSD reviewove od Ananda procitao, ali ne mogu se sjetiti detaljnije/dedicirane analize GC-a u njegovim reportima.

U biti se stvar svodi na to da postoje dva tabora - Intel/SandForce (real-time GC) i svi ostali (idle-time GC). Anand smatra da Intel/SF na pravom putu sto se GC-a tice.

Evo par quoteova (linkovi iznad):

Q1:
Citiraj:
Intel tends to have the right idea in how best to deal with random writes: work slower but clean up along the way, vs. write as fast as possible and rely on TRIM/idle garbage collection to improve performance later on. I've become wary whenever I see ultra high 4KB random write performance because it usually means that fragmentation can be a problem over time.
Q2:
Citiraj:
Given enough idle time the 830 should correct much of this and obviously TRIMing those LBAs will restore full performance (as you'll see below) but the point is that by delaying the bulk of garbage collection the Samsung SSD 830 is able to drop in performance by a degree that I'm not super comfortable with. This phenomenon isn't exclusive to Samsung, you'll remember that we've complained about it with Crucial drives as well. Other than SandForce and Intel most controller manufacturers tend to follow a similar clean up the mess later approach to firmware design. In my opinion I'd much rather see lower peak performance and get higher worst case scenario performance as it tends to impact the user experience less.

Q3
:
Citiraj:
I've had the SSD 830 for less than a week and in my limited testing it does seem to do very well. I'll be hammering on it for the weeks and hopefully months to come but as I've already mentioned, Samsung's reputation for reliability rivals that of Intel. Despite the praise though I do wish Samsung would more significantly address one of its long standing issues. I honestly believe Intel has the right idea of performing as much garbage collection in real time as possible. Very few (if any) desktop workloads require > 100MB/s of small file random writes, I would gladly trade some performance there for higher numbers in a fragmented state. Idle time garbage collection just seems like an ineffecient way to do things, you end up dealing with very high write amplification and potentially harm the overall user experience when you're not idle as a result.
__________________
====
If you try and design something idiot proof, God will create a better idiot.
Quantum je offline   Reply With Quote