mSATA choices, pros and cons

I picked up an HP dv7tqe a month ago. I chose the dual 750GB drives with 32GB mSSD option. I'm considering replacing the mSSD with an mSATA and putting the OS on it. I've never had an SSD drive, so there is a alot I am unsure of at this point, and using an mSATA is muddying the waters for me a bit so to speak.

I'm currenly looking at 3 different manufacturers drives in a 240-256 GB capacity. All of these are currently listed by Newegg.com, but catching them in stock is spotty at this point.

I've seen a lot of folks recommend not going with a 120-128 GB drive for OS, and recommending going with a larger capacity from the start. In reading some different forums and opinions, I've seen people recommend maintaining from 10% to 30% space free to keep an SSD performing well. Depending on what the real answer is a 120-128 GB may be sufficient. Especially considering I will have 1.5 TB space for apps and storage.

All 3 of these makers have 120 or 128 GB versions of these same drives so if maintaining 10% free space is sufficient, I may go that route, but am not sure if there is anything else that needs to be considered other than maintaining sufficient free space for an SSD hosting the OS.

The 3 options:

ADATA XPG SX300 ASX300S3-256GM-C mSATA 256GB SATA III $259.99
Mushkin Enhanced Atlas Series MKNSSDAT240GB-DX mSATA 240GB SATA III $239.99
Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD3 mSATA 256GB SATA III $219.99

All 3 drives are SATA 6Gbps, the Mushkin and Adata use a Sandforce controller, and the Crucial M4 uses a Marvell. Not sure which is a better controller. The Adata and Crucial have a higher capacity than the Mushkin. Price goes to the Crucial M4.

For you SSD guru's, any pros and cons on these choices, recommendations? Any reliability considerations from any of these makers drives?

Thanks,

Les.

 

I don't know ADATA SSDs and Mushkin seems overpriced. Whatever you do don't get the low GB cards (unless you're absolutely sure that's all the space you'll ever need) programs fill up too fast. And as you say, you have to leave a bit of room for good measure.

 

Not only is 10% not enough 'free space' - the problem with smaller drives is that the controller's channels are not optimally populated and/or interleaved (think of it as nand RAID). The low capacities with those restrictions start 'life' with a crippled performance envelope vs. the 240-256GB or larger versions.

Also; if you buy an SSD and put any of your programs on the HDD's - you are shooting yourself in the foot. Buy an SSD and put the O/S and programs on it to achieve the most responsive system that you have paid for.

In my use: keeping an SSD at 50% or less filled is the only way to ensure the performance stays at what I paid for (and not by simply not filling it - but by partitioning the SSD on first use to 50% or less of the total capacity to allow the unused nand to be used by the controller as 'spare area' and not simply as spare capacity).

All the mSATA drives you've mentioned would not be on my short list. Mainly because of higher power consumption (M4, my only choice from those three) and potentially higher heat produced (with no proportional increase in performance).

If your notebook is designed properly and can adequately ventilate/cool the higher performance M4 (vs. the 32GB mSATA caching drive), then I would try it while keeping an eye out for any downsides. After all - who wouldn't want a 3 drive notebook with the system powered by a 'real' SSD?

What I will be attempting with this setup is this:
Get a 240GB or larger SSD.
Get 2x 1TB HDD's.
Use 64GB's of the SSD for caching of the DATA drives.
Use an additional 100GB's for your C: drive.
Leave the remainder (about 75GB's) as unallocated space so the drive can do the most efficient TRIM and GC cycles (giving the best WA ratio) and also allow you to enjoy the performance you paid for, sustained, over time (almost no matter how you use the system).

With the above setup (assuming it will work, of course) you will have a system that is SSD powered and enjoy the benefits of 2TB of data (I would be mirroring these, for my specific uses) that is also sped up too (up to 70% faster than HDD's on some access patterns).

To me, this would truly (and for the first time) make a mobile workstation.


Of course; the above needs/demands a clean Windows install and the SSD drive partitioned as 100MB, 64GB and 100GB (where Win will be installed to) at time of installation.

Note too that the 64GB I'm assuming for use as cache is because that is the largest that Intel allows/recommends - you can use a lower amount if needed - down to 20GB, I think, but for 1/2TB of data - the more caching the better.

Good luck.

 

How do you cache a drive?

 

I'm assuming it is done in Windows (probably after installing the IRST driver) by setting up the parameters such as size of cache to use - HDD to be cached and type of caching needed (write-back or write-through).

(Look up Intel Smart Response technology).

 

Don't forget that the chipset has to support the RAID functionality.

HM76, such as used in the HP Envy 17, won't do it. HM77, which is in the HP dv7, will do it. Other chipsets flavors in the 7-series will do it, as will the Z68.

 

I know a lot of people have had great luck with SandForce drives, but their relatively spotty record would make me loathe to trust my data to any SF drive. In terms of reliability, Intel, Samsung, and Marvell (ie, in Crucial/Micron SSDs) controllers are all great choices at the moment.

 

Thanks all for the comments. I think I will go with the Crucial M4 256 GB. Lowest price of the three options, ample capacity for the OS and applications, Marvell controller, and from what I've read good reliability.

 

I will be interested to know if what I suggested (one SSD used as a cache and O/S drive) can be done.

Thanking you in advance if you can find the time to try this for us!

 

It's my understanding this is possible, and I see some people are doing it this way from reading some threads on Anandtech forums.

It isn't something I will try myself as apparently you lose TRIM functionality in this configuration.

 

That is not correct (TRIM is not dependent or not, with anything related to caching).

Where did you read that?

 

50% is being a little overkill, Unless you do a LOT of read/write/erase cycles all day long, 75-80% capacity should be perfectly fine. A lot of review data on the M4 is older, like around beginning 2011, and there have been firmware updates since then. But here's a couple with interesting results:

(1) Crucial m4 256GB SATA 6G SSD Preview and Next Gen 2x0+ GB Shootout - Benchmarks - PCMark Vantage - Drives with Data Testing :: TweakTown USA Edition

Basically the M4 while degraded performance after being 50% full, the performance doesn't degrade any further, and it's still near peak SATA II speed. All tests were run consecutively and not given a chance to recover with TRIM / GC. While they didn't show numbers they did make the statement:

" Now for the drive we are previewing today, the Crucial m4. Just like with the Vertex 3, the m4 lost a lot of speed with 25% of its capacity taken. The curve kept going down with the 50% tests, but for the most part the 50% and 75% tests showed a steady state of performance. The part that is very impressive for the m4 is how quickly it recovers once the data is cleared. All tests are run back to back in rapid succession and are not given a chance to recover. Once the 25% test is completed more data is sent to the drive and the next test is started."


(2) Marvell Super Heroes: Corsair Performance Pro, Crucial m4 and Plextor M3S Solid State Drives. Page 7 - X-bit labs

The Crucial M4 bounced right back to a fresh performance after TRIM/GC after a straight 2x data fill.

Keep in mind that this is after a torture test and not even with "regular" use. Most users won't write 256GB or 512GB data to their SSD in one sitting. The system will have time to recover.

 

Thank you for those links. Tweaktown actually has a review of the Crucial M4 mSATA 256GB on thier site.

Crucial m4 mSATA 256GB Solid State Drive Review :: TweakTown USA Edition