Microsoft have just published a  detailed post about Windows 7 and support for SSD storage technologies.

As a full time SSD owner/user (Laptop/Desktop) i am really pleased Windows 7 has some SSD specific considerations.

Once you go SSD you never want to go back.

The FAQ section covers

Will Windows 7 support Trim?
Will disk defragmentation be disabled by default on SSDs?
Will Superfetch be disabled on SSDs?
Is NTFS Compression of Files and Directories recommended on SSDs?
Does the Windows Search Indexer operate differently on SSDs?
Is Bitlocker’s encryption process optimized to work on SSDs?
Does Media Center do anything special when configured on SSDs?
Does Write Caching make sense on SSDs and does Windows 7 do anything special if an SSD supports write caching?
Do RAID configurations make sense with SSDs?
Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?
Are there any concerns regarding the Hibernate file and SSDs?
What Windows Experience Index changes were made to address SSD performance characteristics?

Windows 7 Engineering Blog Link:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

My own blogs posts about SSD link: http://www.colindiponio.com/category/ssd-solid-state-drive/

Welcome to SSD week here at ColinDiponio.com (only kidding).

I have spent some research time looking at the benefits of SSD and doing some home made benchmarks.

Today’s Post contains a couple of real world scenarios that an average user can relate to.

1) System boot times.

2) Transferring a 3.5gb Folder from a USB Key to the System.

Test Methodology

I have one Laptop a Dell Latitude E4300 running a Dual Core 2.4 and 2 gig of Ram. I then installed Windows XP Pro Sp3 on each hard disk (an Intel X25-M, a Samsung 128GB SSD and a Toshiba 7200 RPM hard disk).

The question I am asking for people interested in SSD technology  is what am I really getting in practical day to day performance benefits?

Boot Times

The interesting thing with these results is how close both the SSD’s are. Both leave the traditional hard disk standing. However when you compare a "*Performance* SSD to a bog  standard one there is very little in the way of a real world performance benefit.

But the transfer rates make the Intel X25-M look far superior?

That’s correct.

Myth Buster #1: Just because the transfer rate is far superior that doesn’t mean this directly translates to something real world like boot up times.

Transferring Files Test

A decent real world test is copying a large amount of data onto the system.

My 3.5gig test Folder looked like this.

So the test here was to copy from the same USB Key contents onto each hard disk

It old Money that’s 2m50s, 3m36s and 3m54s respectively.

Finally the faster transfer rate of the Intel X25-M kicks in and it managed to complete the test significantly faster than the others. However this benchmark throws up a curve ball. The 7200 RPM hard disk beats out the Samsung SSD.

On the Transfer Rate benchmarks (above) the Samsung SSD had a transfer rate of 76.9mb/sec compared to the 7200’s 47.4mb/sec.

Myth Buster #2 File transfer benchmarks don’t always give  accurate real world equivalents.

Conclusions

I am glad these tests throw up some contradictory data and it has given me a chance to focus the spotlight on real world usage after all we all know what its like waiting on our computers booting up or waiting for files to copy etc.

Overall I would say the low seek times of SSD are the the real reason to move to this technology. This gives a punchy user experience when files are found and accessed instantly.

Is going to SSD worth it?

Absolutely YES but do some research on the drive first.

So is going the Performance SSD route really worth it?

Based on the results of these mundane real world tests (booting and copying) i would say no for the majority of users.  It is however a fantastic piece of kit. To get the full benefit of high performance SSD you need a Desktop PC. Other constraints in laptops keep them from performing to their absolute potential.

Moving to any modern SSD should provide most of the benefits but without the significant cost overhead of say the Intel.

Test Machine: Dell Optiplex 960 with 4gig of Ram and E8400 3.0 Dual Core CPU.

The Intel SSD was an Intel X25-M 80gig on a SATA II connection.

Comparing boot times between different Operating Systems isn’t really a fair comparison due to how each individual Operating System deals with the delayed loading of background services.

But chances are if you’re a windows user you can use these results to gauge relative to your own experience.

Test Methodology

I have a single machine and created 3 bootable partitions (XP, Vista and Windows 7).

The boot times above are taken from when I select the chosen Operating System from the Windows Boot loader screen and does not include the time spend in the Bios (which was about 13 seconds).  The stopwatch stopped once the Windows Sound started to play in each OS signifying the operating system was loaded (not 100% scientific but you get the idea).

Each test was run 3 times and the boot times are the average of the 3.

Thoughts on the Boot Speeds

I was actually quite surprised at the results i though the lean and mean Windows XP would be the clear winner. However 2.37 seconds isn’t too far behind. As Windows 7 is still beta and not final code its inclusion here is only as a guide. Hopefully the final shipping Windows 7 will be more optimised and at least equal Windows Vista.

Boot Speed is only a part of the Performance Story

The short version of this analysis is Windows XP is about 5% faster when it comes to looking at the average transfer rate of data on the file system. Both Vista and 7 are neck and neck.

Once again I would have thought there would have been a larger difference.

Is 5% really that noticeable in day to day operation?

Operating Systems

Windows XP: Overall this is still the fastest in day to day use but this is a hollow victory. Due to its age its bound to run well on the latest technology however the margins between XP and Vista/7 are in reality pretty small.

Windows Vista: This performed much better than I had expected but knowing that Windows Vista 2.0 (aka Windows 7) is in the wings it’s difficult to get excited by Windows Vista at this point in history.

Windows 7: As a day to day user of Windows 7 it just feels like a better version of Windows Vista. The performance of Build 7000 is on par with the mature Windows Vista SP1 and in theory should get better in the final stages of optimisation.

Note to Microsoft: Would some kind microsoftie put my name down for the future Windows 7 RC1. I am not sure of the Public beta status of the RC1 but if there is a list please put me on it (colindiponio@gmail.com).

So this Intel X25-M thing is fast then?

Yes, impressively so. I am now moving on to using the X25-M in my main desktop machine running in a Dual Boot XP/7 Partition so in a week or so I can compare all the benchmark data with real world usage.

To read my other posts on SSD see: View all posts in SSD Solid State Drive

Will SSD go mainstream in 2009? Well yes and no.

The yes answer is you will see SSD storage technology is low cost devices like netbooks. However at the performance end of the market there is still the huge issue of the high cost.

Even though Intel doesn’t have any serious competition at the performance end of the market they have decided to drop the prices of their high performance mainstream offerings.

For your typical consumer looking for a FAST storage technology you are looking at the Intel X25-M.

The X25-M has a transfer rate in excess of 200+MB/sec and would breath new life into any PC or Laptop that with a SATA II connection. Forget about Core i7 or the latest DDR memory. The plain old spinning hard disk is by far the biggest bottleneck in any computer and has been for years.

The smart move is to go SSD for your operating system and a larger traditional hard disk for media storage. This gets round the relatively low capacities of  80GB and 160GB SSD.

The only barrier to entry for performance SSD is the cost. In the UK you are looking at a cost per GB of between £4 to £4.50 which in relative terms today is very, very expensive especially compared to traditional hard disk technology. The cost alone will keep SSD on the fringe for another 12 to 24 months.

My job however is to be on the bleeding edge so I managed to find an X25-M in stock at the new price point. So expect a triple boot review (XP, Vista and 7) in the next few days.

Link About Latest Price Reductions: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340525,00.asp

My other posts about SSD here: View all posts in SSD Solid State Drive

I had access to 128GB SSD and decided to do a benchmark on the same drive but once in the laptop it came in and the other in a desktop PC.

This particular Drive was a Samsung 128gb SSD RBX Series 1 and is not the fasted drive around but the purpose of this post is to highlight the difference Between Laptop and Desktop on the same drive and then benchmark XP vs Vista.

Laptop Vs PC

Laptop: Dell Latitude E4300, 4gig Ram and 2.4Ghz running XP SP3

Desktop:Dell Optiplex 960, 4gig Ram. E8400 3.0 Ghz Dual Core, running XP SP3

As you can see you can there is a small but welcome increase in performance from the same drive but connected to a desktop PC.

Windows XP VS Vista (Same Laptop different operating system).

The question here is what difference does the operating system make?

Dell Latitude E4300, 4gig Ram and 2.4Ghz running Windows Vista Business SP1

Dell Latitude E4300, 4gig Ram and 2.4Ghz running XP SP3

As you can see the same SSD in Windows XP has significantly better performance.

So if you have access to an SSD and want the best possible performance the combination of a Desktop PC running Windows XP is the way to go.