Is it too late to OP?

Ever since I had my 1 TB 840 Evos, I had them OPed by 10% as per Samsung's recommendation. Now after 10 TB of writes to each, I feel the performance is less by like 15-20%

Is it too late to OP by 30% or it's useless since the damage is already done?

 

If you're using Windows 7 or 8 you should be able to manually shrink the existing C partition, provided there's enough free space available.

Shrink The C: Drive - How to Partition A Hard Drive | PCMag.com

 

ughhh, that wasn't my question, please read the post again. I know how to shrink. I'm asking if it is beneficial at this stage after the performance of my SSD has gone down by 20%

 

OP or free space its exactly same thing for performance in consumer level SSDs.I never made OP with my drives and they are same as first day.Samsung is selling us mist.Same as with RAPID.By the way I love Samsung.
Question is where did you manage to collect 10TB of write.I bought my PROs when they market and they still don't have 4TB.
Do you have hibernation enabled,indexing ,big restore point or anything else?Do you maybe wipe free space with CCleaner.
Or install new game ever single day?
Also why didn't you put benchmarks so we can see those 20% less I suspicious that you drive was just in pretty dirty state before benchmark.

 

Everyone freaks about the "limited" lifetime of SSDs, but just as an example, you're using one of the worse-lifetime NAND types, and you'd think 10 TB is a lot, but you've used a maximum of 2% of the rated lifetime, based on what we know about Samsung's TLC NAND specifications (the 250 GB drives are rated at 240 TB lifetime writes, the 500s are about double that, the 1 TB drives should be higher, but I'm not sure how much higher). So, no, the "damage" has not already been done.

But generally it's never too late to over-provision anyway, unless you've actually used the space already. In which case you relocate what's using the space and THEN over-provision.

I should add that I've never had an issue with my drives, and I don't over-provision more than 10%. I also don't do a huge amount of writes on my laptop anyway, and I have RAPID enabled, which changes things considerably. You running RAID0? I'd be curious to see how a single RAPID-Enabled EVO stacks up against a pair running in RAID0, haven't had a chance to do that comparison yet.

 

AS SSD Benchmark with IRST v12.0.7.1002 (W7) [NOW]



AS SSD Benchmark with IRST 12.9.0.1001 (W8.1) [BEFORE]

 

RAID sucks on this drive. I tried it, didn't feel a single difference in snapiness. definitely not worth losing 1 TB of SSD space IMHO:

AS SSD Benchmark with IRST 12.9.0.1001 in RAID (W8)



Look at those horrible 4K speeds as compared to RAPID

 

so wait a minute, if I have so much free space....then OP by 30% isn't gonna make any difference right?

 

Did you change something in the mean time?

12357 MB/s is waaaaay over what SATA 3 can achieve. Personally, I'd run the benchmarks again and also try another benchmarking program. Sure you won't have a score to compare with before, but you'll be able to compare with reviews.

 

yeah that's due to RAPID

 

And did you have rapid enabled the first time you benched the drive? I mean, you're at 12357 MB/s now vs 1303 MB/s before. Seeing as there is such a large discrepancy between these two scores, something just doesn't feel right. If rapid was enabled both times, I'd question the accuracy of at least one of those benchmark.

 

ah I get you, no the only diff. is the one with the very high score is on Windows 7, on Windows 8, for some reason, RAPID doesn't give the same boost which is why I formatted and reinstalled 7

 

RAID0 doesn't lose you 1 TB of space, RAID1 does. Generally I don't recommend RAID0 unless someone is going to be very anal about backing up often. Then again, with SSDs, one should be anal about backing up often anyway, so one may as well. Except when RAPID is involved, it's apparently even better than RAID0 on some operations, and comparable on the rest.



Here it is without RAPID configured, the 4k thing seems to be endemic of the EVOs, RAPID only helps with the 64kThrd test.

Probably not when you get down to it, but it'll prevent you from filling the thing up to the point where it'll not have that space anymore. Handy if you might have large temporary files that might eat into that space otherwise.

Well, I got my question answered...RAPID is preferable to RAID0. Too bad you can't just have RAPID on both individual drives, but it only works on one.

 

I know man I have 24 GB of RAM and it is going to waste! I wish the muppets @ Samsung would allow us to enable RAPID for both drives and enjoy better performance

and wait a sec, here is how I setup RAID 0 before

Installed Windows on the 1st drive,

then when in windows, instaleld IRST, then created a RAID 0 volume with the 2 drives. Then it started migrating data to the second drive. at the end, I got a RAID volume of 1 TB for both drives combined.

am I missing something here? how does RAId 0 not lose half the data? teach me how to do it right bro

see here, someone has the same problem where he only got one of the drives' space:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248395-32-320gb-hard-drives-raid-320gb-space

 

Proper RAID0 should be done in the BIOS or RAID controller, you can't really do RAID0 on a bootable volume any other way. What happens is that alternating stripes of data are written to/read from each drive, so the first MB is on drive 0, the second MB is on drive 1, etc, etc. So you should have both drives' full storage available.

Sounds like what you actually did was RAID1. RAID0 is striping, it's a speed increase. RAID1 is mirroring, where the same data is written to both drives at the same time. That's how you lose 1 TB of storage, but you gain redundancy: if one drive fails, you operate off of the other one.

This is a pretty good visual explanation of RAID0 and RAID1 (and RAID5 if you're interested). RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 10 Explained with Diagrams

I'm not really up on desktop RAID controllers like IRST, I'm a server admin. We use manly PERC and SmartArray cards to do our RAID.

 

oh lord!! seems like I am gonna do another format!!

thanks man

 

If I'm not mistaken; IRST cannot load a RAID0 array when Windows is already installed (i.e. it can't be the boot volume). I'm pretty sure you are running a RAID1 array configuration.


You downgraded to Win7 because of 'scores'? Noooooo! Say it isn't so.

RAPID makes for a poor performance enhancer (I killed my test system in less than a week with RAPID enabled) when you want productivity and not benchmark 'scores' to brag about.


With the many systems/configurations I have had the chance to use, the fastest setups have consistently been (in order of importance):

Windows 8.1 x64 Pro Update 1
i7 QC CPU
16GB+ RAM
The largest SSD with as much OP'ing over 30% as you can do (depending on your workflow/capacity needs)


Thinking you're wasting your 24GB of RAM by not letting RAPID use it is simply wrong: Windows puts it to much better use than any third party ram caching program will.

What is wrong is relying on Win7 (circa 2006) era technology to drive (current) hardware designed in this decade (and not last decade, along with the O/S you seem to prefer).


Unless you're running a very specific workflow:
Forget about RAID, forget about RAPID, forget about ancient O/S's...

Clean install Win8.1x64 Update 1 Pro on your SE'd 1TB EVO OP'ed by at least 30% and use the latest Intel RST drivers available for your specific platform.

The only upgrade I would do? Maximize your RAM to 32GB DDR3 PC3-12800 or above with the lowest latency modules you can afford.

Anything else is a yester/franken-year build that might offer very specific benefits (if it offers anything at all) and a lot of potential drawbacks that make no sense to risk when you have one system to last you for the next few years.

A modern O/S, a balanced platform (which you have already) and a sensible setup will keep this system running well into 2020 with any luck.

If the 'scores' are that important to you with little/no real world benefits, no problem.

But at least know that chasing numbers will only get you a system good at chasing numbers and not a system that is real world fast (which is what I think you want).


Good luck.

 

thank you so much sir for taking the time to type all this! I appreciate your efforts.

I will install Windows 8.1 now then creating the RAID array in BIOS

 

RAPID works just fine, I've been using it for quite a while now. It's a much more inexpensive speed enhancer than going RAID0, particularly when one's laptop only has a single HDD/mSATA/M.2 slot. Unless you're doing heavyweight writes, RAPID works to smooth out the EVO's performance, and shore up its weaknesses (such as limited high-speed cache on the NAND). RAPID also only uses 1 GB of RAM for caching, if your write jobs are bigger than that, true hardware RAID0 is the better choice. Assuming you have the available slots and a hardware RAID controller.

Windows 8.1 does handle SSDs better but Windows 7 is just fine with them. Ask any enterprise.

Mr. Tiller I think you paint with way too wide a brush there. Frankly, there are a ton of situations out there that Win7 with RAPID, or Win7 on RAID, will be the better choice. And most rigs are NOT going to be quad core 16 GB systems with a TB SSD. The most common platforms out there tend to be Core i3 and i5, 8 GB of RAM, and (assuming they have an SSD) a 128 or 256 GB SSD. Frankly, 32 GB of RAM is a waste because even 24 is overkill for anything except a development machine running multiple VMs or SQL instances. And for that sort of production-style stuff, if you trust Windows 8(.1) for it, I need to question your sanity, sorry.

 

3

Sorry ,but that is with totally different driver on total different OS.I know you actually know that when RAPID is enabled ,AS-SSD also benchmark your RAM.So if you want check you drive state just disable RAPID ,bench it and compere to reviews.
Your benchmark is full of glitch and i wouldn't take it seriously.RAPID probably working better on Windows 8.
Yes you can definitely make RAID 0 in Intel RST and he did make RAID 0 in Intel RST ,but like we see for some reason you only get storage capacity of one drive and performance is lower for 20%,i checked that too.
So if you want RAID array you need to do it in BIOS and Intel RST 11.2 is still the winner when it comes to RAID
If i had 24GB of RAM i would definitely disable RAPID and give to Primo RAM-Cache 19GB.Man that is almost room for whole OS on it.There would be no flushing al the time like on RAPID.Windows just cant use all your memory.I tried one to start everything what was on my computer,two games ,10 programs,video,music,everything and i couldn't hit 5GB.

 

Here's a post I made for someone else changing from single disk in RAID mode with the OS to RAID0 with OS using IRST from Windows.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/msi/722196-official-msi-ge60-2013-owners-lounge-73.html#post9556273

In that post this part may also be relevant to the "size" problem.



IOW if the original volume size was 1TB then the newly created RAID0 will also have a volume this size unless the volume is expanded to take up all the space offered by RAID0 of 2TB. As suggested, Windows native Disk Management can do this.

 

While Windows does have a limit regarding how much memory it actually needs & can use, the biggest determining factor in how much Windows actually uses is going to be how much RAM is installed. It's designed so it limits RAM usage and either increases disc caching or limits performance in order to stay at or under a certain percentage of memory used. But if you have a lot of RAM installed, you can find out how much memory Windows uses when it has room to stretch. As an example, I have 32GB RAM on my system, and running a few intensive programs or games can easily use over 5GB. Doing the "run everything" test on my system (not counting virtual machines) uses around 12GB.