So...is there a need for an SSD defrag?

"The benefits of SSD storage include:

•Very fast random access times due to elimination of slow electro-mechanical components
•Low read latency times due to elimination of disk seek times
•Consistent read performance because physical location of data doesn't matter (no "fastest" part of the drive as in traditional disk drives)
•File fragmentation has negligible effect due to elimination of electro-mechanical component (seeking).
So...is there a need for an SSD defrag?
While there has been much discussion around whether or not to defrag a SSD - the consensus is in. Do not defragment an SSD. In fact, you can do more harm than good by performing a defrag on an SSD. But here are some key points surrounding this bit of information:

•Unlike a hard disk drive, any write operation to SSD storage requires not one step, but two: an erase followed by the actual write.
•SSD write performance degrades over time.
• Since there is no mechanical seek time on an SSD, traditional file-based defragmentation really doesn't provide any performance benefit.
With SSD storage, the whole idea is to decrease the number of writes/updates to the SSD, so you want to be sure that any sort of optimization pass performed on the SSD does as little "shuffling" of files and data as possible."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Unlike a hard disk drive, any write operation to SSD storage requires not one step, but two: an erase followed by the actual write."

I don't think this is true. If I recall, it just over-writes bytes, there is no setting data to null. Rather the state of sectors is simply stored in the meta map.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's really dependent on if you mean an Actual drive or something like a USB stick. In the instance of the stick, I wouldn't be surprised if a defrag operation is actually done when the device is connected, which is why such devices usually ask to be disconnected gracefully and if they are just pulled out sometimes there is a form of data corrupt. (I would gather that interrupting it's defrag causes it to corrupt)

Defragmentation is required when data has been shifted around on a drive over time, it's not like a large file will fit into a gap, so it gets broken up into pieces. When the pieces are apart from one another in older HDD's it would increase seek time (since any data has to be read from the drive and compiled into the memory). I'm pretty sure that solid state doesn't suffer the seek time problem so you'll likely not notice any difference even in a fragmented state.

However please note this is all speculation and would require more investigation to identify any accuracy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These two are the most important. Unfortunately, neither the OS or the user takes that into account, so it's treated like a regular HD. I have one of the first Netbooks that had these (2 SSD, C: and D: ), and while it's still going strong, I do wish that they had designed and installed Windows with that in mind. In retrospect, it would be nice to have the OS and "permanent" software on the main SSD, and have a replaceable smaller SSD, maybe a typical SD card, for the data that will be written more often. I plan on replacing the whole OS with Linux in the near future, probably help out in a lot of ways.

Actually I believe this happens when the OS is set to buffer data to the device instead of directly writing the data in real time. The buffer cuts down on reads and writes and is faster, but if you unplug before it's all saved....well, you probably mess something up.

 

SSD's cycle there storage periodically. It would be interest to learn whether SSD makes data into consecutive blocks during the cycle time.

 

Thanks for your comments. Wouldn't it be prudent to have:

"PerfectCache 5.0 - WorkstationAutomatic Disk Caching
Optimize PC performance to its full capability with PerfectCache 5.0 Workstation. Speed up processing times so your entire PC is running as efficiently as possible."

This program, among others like it on the market, will automatically keep any SSD or HD from fragmenting. Isn't this a good idea to have operating while your working?:shrug:

I'm not promoting this manufacturer but only showing something that would help with SSD problems since they can't be defragged.

 

The way I see it is that the whole idea behind an HDD defrag is to rearrange the data so it is more easily accessible physically.

But since any part of an SSD can be read at any time and there's no need for moving parts then its not necessary.

The best option would be to keep an updated index of the SSD so that it has a very accurate map of where information is held on the drive.


But if your choosing whether to get an SSD or not then I would reccomend that you shouldn't, rather then an SSD get a WD 10,000 RPM hard drive (there are two generations, the Raptor and the Velociraptor I don't know which is newer though) they have comparable read/write speeds due to the increased rotation rate and they eliminate the whole read/write problem of the SSD.

Plus, a 300 GB raptor can run for around 165 dollars while a comparable 300 GB SSD can run anywhere from 500 dollars to over 2,000 dollars. While the actual read write performance is comparable.

 

Yep.

Err... that's not so much the "best option," as a basic requirement to make the drive (or any memory component) work at all.

Yeah, SSDs are still too expensive for most general uses.

 

Nice.

You are correct.

Incidentally too many weren't intelligent enough to understand why you should 'safely remove' USB devices, even with Microsoft spending a ton of money trying to educate the dummies. Even 'techies' and 'IT guys' weren't able to understand why, so now Microsoft turns off caching as the default setting on almost all removable media, you have to go turn it on yourself if you want the improved speed for the device. They figure if you are smart enough to do that, you'll be smart enough to 'safely remove'.

Degradation of performance on an SSD is due to the low-level operation of SSD drives running the OS, as well as failing registers. TRIM(I wonder if you could google that?) was invented to try and counteract this, but it does not prevent it.

 

Noway Hozay!

I just dropped a cool $150 on my 65 gig SSD and it was worth every penny. I have another traditional 1tb HD and an external 500gb HD.

The thing boots up in like ten seconds (unless it's performing some rare startup function like installing a program or a error checking the disk). Plus it installs programs so fast I can't believe my eyes. When I installed Windows 7 on my laptop, it took over an hour. When I installed it on my new PC, it installed in 15 minutes. Would have been less had I not wandered away to open a beer--fully expecting it to take over an hour. Installed Office in less than 30 seconds (though, to be fair, I downloaded my new version from an online retailer and stored, unzipped and installed it all from the SSD which is pretty snappy-- no lag time waiting on a CD to pull the file).

~String

 

True that's not a bad price...but for some people, 65 gig is not enough room, so if you compare actual dollar per gig, it's still pricey. But like you said in the other thread, you aren't needing it for power gaming or anything, so it works for you.

 

Why would you need a gazillion gigabytes for gaming? How big are the games anyway? My OS + applications takes up, maybe 25gig. I have about 30gig left for whatever. As I said, I don't store anything on the drive. I have the 1TB partitioned into two additional drives. It's a fast drive with a 64Meg buffer. I have the "My Documents" and "Downloads" directories re-routed to that drive. I could--theoretically--even move the "Program Files" directory there if need be, but that would be silly.

~String

 

Note: If we're talking PCI-E SSD's then, yeah. WAYYYYY too expensive. Cheapest one I could find was over $500. Mine is SATA II, and as read/write speeds of 6GB per second.

~String

 

Gaming installations are pretty large for the mainstream ones. Data, video, and other stuff. Some approach 10-15 gigs. And of course if you're a video connoisseur, HD quality takes up a lot of room.

 

Ah. As a non-gamer, I guess I don't have to worry about that!

Wow. 15 gigs, huh? Jeez that's big.

~String

 

Interesting... Hadn't checked their prices in a while, but there do indeed seem to be some models that are now getting down into the "not unreasonable" range. Although the sizes available (60-120GB) are on the small side, they are definitely sufficient for most users who don't have big space requirements (which, honestly, I'd keep most of that data stuff on an external drive or whatever anyway).

I'm still a bit concerned about lifetime on these things, but my new work notebook has a 160GB Intel SSD and I'm loving it so far - less weight, less noise, less heat, much better performance, longer battery life, etc.

 

You know Quad, my erudite friend, at under $150 per pop, I could live with replacing it annually. By the time this one goes--in the hypothetical scenario--a year from now, I'm sure to get a far better product and for a good penny less. Again, that's an investment I could live with.

~String

 

True enough, and it wasn't that long ago that $150 would barely get you that much space in a conventional hard drive anyway.

But it can be difficult to follow through when there's 2TB drives for $150 on the next shelf over...