Performance Consistency

Performance consistency tells us a lot about the architecture of these SSDs and how they handle internal defragmentation. The reason we don’t have consistent IO latency with SSD is because inevitably all controllers have to do some amount of defragmentation or garbage collection in order to continue operating at high speeds. When and how an SSD decides to run its defrag or cleanup routines directly impacts the user experience as inconsistent performance results in application slowdowns.

To test IO consistency, we fill a secure erased SSD with sequential data to ensure that all user accessible LBAs have data associated with them. Next we kick off a 4KB random write workload across all LBAs at a queue depth of 32 using incompressible data. The test is run for just over half an hour and we record instantaneous IOPS every second.

We are also testing drives with added over-provisioning by limiting the LBA range. This gives us a look into the drive’s behavior with varying levels of empty space, which is frankly a more realistic approach for client workloads.

Each of the three graphs has its own purpose. The first one is of the whole duration of the test in log scale. The second and third one zoom into the beginning of steady-state operation (t=1400s) but on different scales: the second one uses log scale for easy comparison whereas the third one uses linear scale for better visualization of differences between drives. Click the buttons below each graph to switch the source data.

For more detailed description of the test and why performance consistency matters, read our original Intel SSD DC S3700 article.

  Samsung SSD XP941 Plextor M6e Samsung SSD 840 Pro SanDisk Extreme II Samsung SSD 840 EVO mSATA
Default
25% Spare Area

The interface has never been the bottleneck when it comes to random write performance, especially in steady-state. Ultimately the NAND performance is the bottleneck, so without faster NAND we aren't going to see any major increases in steady-state performance.

The graphs above and below illustrate this as the XP941 isn't really any faster than the SATA 6Gbps based 840 Pro. Samsung has made some tweaks to their garbage collection algorithms and overall the IO consistency gets a nice bump over the 840 Pro but still, this is something we've already seen with SATA 6Gbps SSDs. I wouldn't say the IO consistency is outstanding because the Plextor M6e does slightly better with the default over-provisioning (both drives have ~7%) but if you increase the over-provisioning the XP941 will show its magic.

  Samsung SSD XP941 Plextor M6e Samsung SSD 840 Pro SanDisk Extreme II Samsung SSD 840 EVO mSATA
Default
25% Spare Area

  Samsung SSD XP941 Plextor M6e Samsung SSD 840 Pro SanDisk Extreme II Samsung SSD 840 EVO mSATA
Default
25% Spare Area

TRIM Validation

Update 5/20: I got an email from one of our readers suggesting that the TRIM issue might be related to Windows 7 and that Windows 8 should have functioning TRIM for PCIe SSDs. To try this, I installed Windows 8.1 to a secondary drive and ran our regular pre-conditioning (fill with sequential data and torture with 4KB random write for 60 minutes). To measure performance, I had to rely on Iometer as HD Tach didn't work properly under Windows 8. I ran the same 128KB sequential write test that we usually run (QD=1, 100% LBA) but extended the length to 10 minutes to ensure that the results are steady and not affected by burst performance.

Samsung SSD XP941 512GB - Iometer 128KB Sequential Write (QD1)
  Clean After TRIM
Samsung SSD XP941 512GB 607.7 MB/s 598.9 MB/s

And TRIM seems to function as it should, so it indeed looks like this is just a Windows 7 limitation, which is excellent news.

------------------------

To test TRIM, I took a secure erased XP941 and filled it with sequential data, followed by a 60-minute torture with 4KB random writes (QD32). After the torture, I TRIM'ed all user-accessible LBAs and ran HD Tach to produce the graph below:

It looks like TRIM isn't functional, although I'm not that surprised. I'm waiting to hear back from Samsung about whether this is a limitation in the operating system because I've heard that Windows doesn't treat PCIe drives the same even if they utilize the same AHCI software stack like the XP941 does. If that's true, we'll need either updates to Windows or some other solution.

In a Mac TRIM support is listed as "yes" when TRIM is enabled for third party drives using TRIM Enabler, though I didn't have the time to verify if it actually works.

Boot Support: Mac? Yes. PC? Mostly No. AnandTech Storage Bench 2013
Comments Locked

110 Comments

View All Comments

  • jimjamjamie - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    Looking forward to these hitting mainstream, though it will be quite strange plugging storage drives into PCIe slots..
  • Impulses - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    Can't wait for the "is it ok to sandwich this SSD between my two scorching hot R9 290?" posts!
  • pipja - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    rofl can't wait for that day to come, but then it'd be some R1000 980750235 something :p
  • LordOfTheBoired - Friday, May 16, 2014 - link

    Isn't the R1000 980750235 just a rebadged 7770?
  • Antronman - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    Clearly you haven't tested any Fusion iO products.
  • Kristian Vättö - Saturday, May 17, 2014 - link

    Fusion IO doesn't make any drives that are aimed for the client market.
  • snark9a - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    Can I install one in my 2013 rMBP?
  • SirKnobsworth - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    No. Apple uses a proprietary connector so an M.2 SSD won't fit. I believe aftermarket solutions are becoming available though - maybe from OWC?
  • darwinosx - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    Aftermarket solutions for Apple devices have been available for a long time.
  • Penti - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    They still does not have one for PCIe-based Macs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now