On 07/20/16 04:20, Tinker wrote: > It would be more interesting to get an idea of how a quality SSD such as > how the Samsung PM953 / 850/950 PRO/EVO performs on various hardware > with OpenBSD running bare-metal.
TL;DR no bonnie, but direct comparison of rotating rust vs ssd, on a recent snapshot. Slightly longer version - this list and tech@ have seen numerous posts involving the Clevo laptop I bought rougly two years ago. Nice machine really, the first dmesg relevant to this post is up at https://home.nuug.no/~peter/dmesg.hd.txt - the machine came with both SSD sd1 at scsibus1 targ 1 lun 0: <ATA, Crucial_CT240M50, MU05> SCSI3 0/direct fixed naa.500a07510c250249 sd1: 228936MB, 512 bytes/sector, 468862128 sectors, thin and a somewhat larger hard disk sd0 at scsibus1 targ 0 lun 0: <ATA, WDC WD10SPCX-22H, 01.0> SCSI3 0/direct fixed naa.50014ee659ea420c sd0: 953869MB, 512 bytes/sector, 1953525168 sectors I of course went with the SSD as the system disk (there was no way to convince the firmware to make the SSD appear as sd0, so whenever I upgrade I need to remember that root is on sd1, but I digress), and the sold-as-terabyte hard drive for my /home partition. I kind of liked having that space, and well, it's quite a nice machine. The only problem really is that whenever there's significant disk IO, there is more noise than the lady of the house appreciates having within a meter or two of her ears. So this week, not really for performance reasons but rather hoping that solid state storage would produce less noise than rotating rust platters, I decided that I would replace the hard drive with an SSD of equal size. After *several minutes* of browsing, I decided a Samsung 850 PRO SSD 1TB - MZ-7KE1T0BW was what I wanted. The package arrived yesterday but for various practical reasons I only got around to doing the switch this morning. The last thing I did before shutting down to switch the storage units was this: [Mon Jul 18 18:12:27] peter@elke:~$ time dd if=/dev/random of=foo.out bs=1k count=1k 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1048576 bytes transferred in 0.023 secs (45375222 bytes/sec) real 0m0.426s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.020s [Thu Jul 21 10:41:25] peter@elke:~$ time dd if=/dev/random of=foo.out bs=1k count=1m 1048576+0 records in 1048576+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 14.856 secs (72274766 bytes/sec) real 0m16.745s user 0m0.070s sys 0m5.870s [Thu Jul 21 10:55:38] peter@elke:~$ time du -hs . 355G . real 13m56.428s user 0m0.930s sys 0m12.530s Not really a benchmark, but data points. The system with the SSD for the /home drive looks like this: https://home.nuug.no/~peter/dmesg.ssd.txt For the impatient, [Thu Jul 21 20:26:57] peter@elke:~/20160721_ssd_before-after$ diff dmesg.hd.txt dmesg.ssd.txt 18c18 < cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4510U CPU @ 2.00GHz, 2793.92 MHz --- > cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4510U CPU @ 2.00GHz, 2793.89 MHz 36c36 < cpu3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4510U CPU @ 2.00GHz, 2793.54 MHz --- > cpu3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4510U CPU @ 2.00GHz, 2793.53 MHz 108,109c108,109 < sd0 at scsibus1 targ 0 lun 0: <ATA, WDC WD10SPCX-22H, 01.0> SCSI3 0/direct fixed naa.50014ee659ea420c < sd0: 953869MB, 512 bytes/sector, 1953525168 sectors --- > sd0 at scsibus1 targ 0 lun 0: <ATA, Samsung SSD 850, EXM0> SCSI3 0/direct fixed naa.500253884019088e > sd0: 976762MB, 512 bytes/sector, 2000409264 sectors, thin Then after dealing with various $DAYJOB-related stuff while my data was copied, I re-ran that sequence of commands: [Thu Jul 21 20:23:52] peter@elke:~$ time dd if=/dev/random of=foo.out bs=1k count=1k 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1048576 bytes transferred in 0.010 secs (104471057 bytes/sec) real 0m0.017s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.010s [Thu Jul 21 20:23:53] peter@elke:~$ time dd if=/dev/random of=foo.out bs=1k count=1m 1048576+0 records in 1048576+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 10.468 secs (102565159 bytes/sec) real 0m10.473s user 0m0.100s sys 0m10.290s [Thu Jul 21 20:24:13] peter@elke:~$ time du -hs . 357G . real 0m12.800s user 0m0.730s sys 0m7.270s At this point, I hear you say, "in other news, 'Water Still Wet'", or, as expected, solid state storage does indeed perform better than rotating platters with rust on them. And for the noise level part, when I said I thought the machine was both lighter and quieter, my sweetheart answered she hadn't noticed I had the machine perched on my knees. So it's a success on all stated criteria, only the monetary unit per unit of storage is still slightly disadvantageous for the solid state units, to the point that I'll need to hold on to this particular laptop for a while longer than I had originally imagined. Then again, now that the thing is actually silent for the most part, that may not be a bad thing. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
