5 ms·
I kind of anthropomorphize the devices in tests like this, so it's a bit sad to see the poor things made to run until their legs fall off. But it's nice to know
by devindotcom 12y ago
I kind of anthropomorphize the devices in tests like this, so it's a bit sad to see the poor things made to run until their legs fall off. But it's nice to know they run farther than expected.
- Scuds 12y agorunning a defragment operation on a few of these makes them emit some electronic noise if you listen closely. :D
- darkstar999 12y agoFor real though, don't defrag an SSD. It's pointless and wears it out for no reason.
- dghughes 12y agoThe old Windows defrag with the small blocks was like visual bubblewrap. We need more system utilities that are fun to watch.
- reitzensteinm 12y agoI agree that it's not a good idea to defrag an SSD. But I'd like to nitpick your assertion that there is no reason. Even on excellent drives, 4k random reads/writes are not as fast as sequential. For example, the SSD in my machine, a 120gb Intel 330 series, can do ~88 MB/s of random 4k reads, but 500 MB/s of sequential, a multiple of ~6x. Now, a Seagate 5 TB drive will do 146 MB/s of sequential reads and ~470 kB/s of random access, a difference of ~310x, so SSDs are punished for poor access patterns significantly less. But it's probably possible to manufacture a situation where defrag would indeed give significant benefits. Whether it's ever seen in the real world is another story. [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/67287/Intel-SSD-330-Series-120GB-SATA-6Gbs-25nm-MLC http://ark.intel.com/products/67287/Intel-SSD-330-Series-120... [2] http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/desktop-hdd-fam/en-us/docs/desktop-hdd-ds1770-4-1405us.pdf http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/desktop-h...
- noselasd 12y agoRandom reads are still significantly slower than sequential reads on most SSDs.