Samsung SSD 960 EVO M.2

Discussion in 'Computer Hardware' started by au38wzh, Dec 19, 2017.

  1. boogiewoogie

    boogiewoogie Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    196
    The 960 nvme is nice, BUT it is not a night and day diffence. I used a normal 840 EVO before, and then got a 960 and moved my OS etc there. You don't really notice much of a difference in real world situations. Only with benchmarks you get higher numbers. So, you won't be totally blown away by it :) I mainly got it because I got a new motherboard that had the m2 slots. But in the end, the day to day functionality is pretty much the same.
     
  2. taskforce

    taskforce Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    2,066
    Location:
    Studio 54
    About partitioning an ssd, i will try and demystify this as simply as possible:
    There is absolutely no problem whatsoever in partitioning an ssd. The OP should do as many partitions on his 1tb 850 evo, as he sees fit to his usage. The problems of the past concerning HDDs and partitioning are not present with modern ssds.
    Any user should not confuse how the filesystem works and how the ssd works storing data, and ssds are very different from hdds. Partitioning will NOT affect latency (read & write access times) as NAND memory used for storage in SSDs, works in parallel and all its parts are equally as fast adressable, as opposed to an hdd's magnetic surface where some data parts are further away on its physical surface causing slower access to those files. As long as you keep writing data on an ssd it will constantly move data across its nand flash memory to optimize access to it. Hdds will move data too but due to the hardware's architecture and its physical/mechanical limitations not all data will be equally as fast accessible and you have the problem of fragmentation too.
    After we understood how partitioning does not affect ssds' latency and access times, the other factor to consider is iops, as more partitions will increase the OS's demand for i/o operation on that partitioned drive. I will make a comparison with real world metrics here to demonstrate how superior is the ssd. The fastest consumer hdd atm should be the Seagate Barracuda Pro 12tb.
    At random 4k read (which is the most typical real world scenario):
    The Seagate Barracuda Pro 12tb maxes at around 700 iops.
    The WD Black 6 tb maxes at around 600 iops.
    The Samsung 850 EVO 1tb maxes at around 98000 iops.
    The Samsung 960 EVO 1tb maxes at around 215000 iops.
    This should show that even a humble 1tb 850 evo with -let's say- 14 partitions with a theoretical full load working at the same time, will still be as fast as a single ssd partition (due to parralel access) and each partition will still be able to perform 10 times better than the fastest hdd.
    Which of course again implies that, making a dual partition (one for os&soft and another for libraries) out of a 1tb 850 EVO should be a no brainer because it will perform about as fast as a single partition in real world applications.

    Also.
    Partitioning will NOT wear out the ssd more than if that same data was on just a single partition. SSDs have no moving/mechanical parts. More important, what the Windows filesystem may "see" as fragmented files on an ssd drive is 99.99% of the times false. The filesystem itself cannot know how an ssd works, and ssds work on a much lower level with blocks and pages, whereas the filesystem acknowledges only Logical Block Adress (LBA). So for example if Windows asks for a file at LBA #250 this could be at the ssd's block/page #700. But keep writing on that ssd and its internal system may move that file to block/page #1500 to optimize access while at the same time keeps track of where that file was moved to. Now when the Win filesystem asks for that specific LBA #250 again, it will be the exact same file but on a different ssd block/page and Windows can never know what happened to that chunk of data. This is the main reason why we don't defrag SSDs and let the TRIM function (or an equivalent of it) optimize them instead. The filesystem may think of stored files as fragmented but in reality they will all be optimized for access, and defragging an ssd will do nothing but cause unnecessary writes on the drive.
    Cheers :)
    EDIT:
    The new APFS (Apple File System) introduced in MacOS High Sierra is highly optimized for ssds. It is also the fastest file system on a consumer OS atm with highlights being file copying is almost instant and reducing dramatically the chance for corrupted files to occur. As i am more a Windows and less a MacOS user, i am hoping MS will eventually catch up with this, instead of churning out messy win10 updates and focusing on how to improve their spyware (telemetry) techniques... Y'all be well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
  3. spacetime

    spacetime Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    171
    An Samsung SSD 960 EVO M.2 would be amazing for example Bechstein Digital Kontakt Library


    It is huge, wont work properly if drive is below 900MB/s


    Probably any huge sampling, will be handled faster, saves, many things


    Samsung SSD 960 EVO M.2 is the way, definately something to slap in a fast computer, i7 quad or better
     
Loading...
Loading...