Thinkpads Forum

Hi.

I'd like to buy a ssd for my thinkpad x60. I've read a lot about ssds and several blogs and forums, but till now I came to
no decision.
At the moment, I think about an intel postville 80GB (MLC) or a mtron mobi 3500 32GB (SLC).
(More is too expensive for me - of course, I'd like to have a 128GB SLC )

When I would take the smaller SLC, I'd put my internal 160GB Western Digital HDD (which I use at the moment and from which I use maximal 20 GB) in an slim adapter and put in in my x60 dock. There I would store all greater files and my mp3s, which I do not have in my notebook all the time.

I've read, that slc will live longer, but 32gb seems to be very few capacity for me.

Can somebody give me an advice please? Maybe someone with an x60 with ssd?

Thank you

Regards
applecookie

While a SLC would probably outlive a MLC, a notebooks typical lifetime isn't probably long enough to have it wear out. If you're looking for a SSD, the Intel 80GB is a solid choice.

Thanks for your reply, but I usually use a notebook about 4-5 years. Do not know, if a mlc lives that long.

applecookie wrote:Thanks for your reply, but I usually use a notebook about 4-5 years. Do not know, if a mlc lives that long.

Depends. A random cheapo OCZ or non-name? Probably not. The Intel drive almost certainly will though -- IIRC it's advertised to last for 5 years w/ 100GB of writes per day.

Personally I'd go with the Intel. The X25 series is, simply put, the best SSD series out there for desktop/workstation workloads.

Thanks for your posts.

I'll give it a try and order an intel.

I am using my X61 Tablet with an Intel X25-M G2 80GB SSD. Sadly, due to Lenovo's SATA controller implementation, I am only getting half the speed from my new SSD (X60's SATA port supports only 1.5GBps instead of 3GBps). Still, there's significant speed increase (I am using Windows 7), and total silence is soo welcome (particularly after installing TPfan).

If I knew this beforehand, I would have gone for Intel's X25-V line (which is about half the price, I guess).
Here it is: http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/ ... erview.htm

Good luck!

K.

Hi.

Yesterday, I got the intel postville X25-M G2 80GB SSD and mtron mobi 3500 SSD (SLC, 32GB)
for a test.

I at once restored the ubuntu image, I made from my western digital hdd in the x60 and tested
the starting time on both ssds...
Poor...Poor...is all I can say! 5-10 seconds faster as on hdd and the felt speed in gnome is not
even much faster as with the hdd.

Ok. I said. Let's install a clean windows xp and afterwards a clean win 7.
Same results.
The data transfer rate in the windows test is only 5,2 - my internal hdd (wd corsair) gave me
5,4!!!

AHCi was enabled.

Ok. Let's try compatible mode in bios, I thought. In Windows this gave me a 5,6 for data transfer.
"Wow. What a speed )

I do not understand, why everyone is so fascinated about the ssd speed. By my opinion it isn't worth
the money at all! The other thing is the silence. Ok. That's right. But my wd hdd was not loud. Any
the fan is in use as with the hdd. I thought, the sdd produces not so much warmth, so there is no
need for the fan most of the time. Fault...

I think, I'll send the sdds back to amazon and stay with hdd. Cheaper, same performance. I don't know,
how these guys with the youtube videos made their systems boot so fast with sdd...

Something must not be quite right with your setup. I have an OCZ Agility 60GB, which is not supposed to be as good as the Intel X25-M, and I get 7.1 on the disk test under Win 7. There's a huge improvement in responsiveness over the 7200rpm drive I had before.

tricky wrote:Something must not be quite right with your setup.

I agree with tricky! While I do not have an SSD in my X60 I do have a CF (compact flash) SSD for my X31 and T41. It is noticably faster booting and launching programs even thought speed tests (read/write) are slower than the HDD. Why? .. because access times are <1ms.

Your Intel SSD should be a HUGE improvement over this little ol' CF, thus I believe something is really wrong.

Cannot help but wonder if you need to do a few tweaks to see better performance. Take a look at this program:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum ... ak-Utility

Let us know how you make out.

Hi.

Thank you for your posts!

I did not try the tool, you recommended me, but the options, this tool
offers are the standard tweaks, I use on my windows - also without sdd.
So this makes no difference.

But windows is only for testing purposes - I normally use linux. I hoped,
the booting time would be significant better, but this was false.

Only hdtune says, the sdds make better and more constant data rates:
WD HDD between 24 and 63 MB/s
The Mtron SSD always round about 85 MB/s
The Intel Postville about 100 MB/s.
With the hdd the cpu usage is up to 10%, with the sdds always under 4%.

Booting from the WD is 11 sec. longer, than from the postville and 15 sec. longer, than from the mtron. Not really a big difference...

You asked me about my configuration. The Windows 7, I installed for testing is a clean new
install with all newest updates and drivers - but without any garbage like virus scanners, firewalls or third party programs. Only the intel drivers and windows 7 updates. Not more.

One thought... When installing Windows 7, did you delete your existing partitions and let the setup program install to raw unpartitioned space? Doing this would let it take care of creating partitions that are properly aligned to the SSD block size. If you want to try this manually under linux, use a starting sector of 128 (64K) for the first partition (and multiples of 128 sectors for any subsequent ones).

The 10-15 sec improvement in boot times you mentioned, how much is that relative to the total boot time? My X60 goes from the bios password to login screen in about 20 seconds, over half of which is spent with the drive idle while other lights like wifi and capslock blink as the hardware gets configured. My old HDD might indeed have been only about 10 seconds slower. For me the real gain is being able to launch I/O intensive programs like Outlook and Quicken almost instantly now.

Unfortunately the biggest Intel's X25-V line SSD is only 40GB which is way too small for me. I'll wait for 80GB version I think.

applecookie wrote:Only hdtune says, the sdds make better and more constant data rates:
WD HDD between 24 and 63 MB/s
The Mtron SSD always round about 85 MB/s
The Intel Postville about 100 MB/s.
With the hdd the cpu usage is up to 10%, with the sdds always under 4%.

What are the access times?

@tricky
Yes, I did install win 7 on an empty disc.

@qviri
for the ssds, the access times are 0,1 ms. For the hdd, I do not know (did not write a notice).

I just got an X18-M for my X60s, and I have to say I am extremely underwhelmed. Everyone was talking about how the difference is instantly noticeable, but neither boot time nor random program launch is noticeably improved (I'm not saying it's not faster... just that I don't notice the difference -- no "wow" factor).

I'm hoping that some of the above comments are correct and that I, too, have something wrong with my setup. Or maybe my processor is just slow enough to be the bottleneck. Even so, I LOVE the quiet operation and theoretically my battery life should improve too.

So anyone who has SSD on an X60... what did you do to install and optimize? I just used the included migration software, which adjusted the partitions (so I'm hoping the partitions are aligned correctly as mentioned above). BTW, I'm using XP still... don't see any reason to change until I finally get a new laptop.

trentblase wrote:I just got an X18-M for my X60s, and I have to say I am extremely underwhelmed. Everyone was talking about how the difference is instantly noticeable, but neither boot time nor random program launch is noticeably improved (I'm not saying it's not faster... just that I don't notice the difference -- no "wow" factor).

How much of a difference you notice depends on a vast number of factors, such as:

• Are your tasks IO-bound or CPU-bound? If they're the latter, an SSD may not provide much of an improvement.
• Are you doing something with a lot of small random reads/writes? If not, you may not notice as much of an improvement as you otherwise would.
• What are you using the machine for? Highly-interactive tasks typically only show improvement when they are IO-bound. Something like web browsing or video playback is likely not limited by your drive's performance.
• Are you doing heavy, IO-dependent multi-tasking? The X25/X18 really shine when coping with such workloads, but you might not be doing that sort of work.

For me, I noticed a massive improvement when I switched to an SSD. Build times for some things were cut in half, and my machine remained responsive even when the disk was under heavy loads. That said, I likely noticed far more of a difference than most people; software development tends to be the sort of work for which an SSD is tremendously useful. Were I, say, an accountant, improved IO performance might not be as big a deal for me.

So anyone who has SSD on an X60... what did you do to install and optimize?

You don't. A good SSD doesn't need special 'optimization'. About the only thing you can do for a good SSD is align the partitions along page size boundaries, and even that's of questionable benefit for drives like the X25-M.

Hi.

I just bought the mtron mobi 3525 32GB. Why?
I tested both and nevertheless I have a better feeling about slc, than about mlc. Also
the intel postville made some - let me say - think-pausings when using windows. The
mtron not.

Because of the controller of the x60, I also couldn't use the full power of the postville.

Thanks anyway for your help and hints!

applecookie wrote:
Because of the controller of the x60, I also couldn't use the full power of the postville.

Just FYI, the power of Intel's drives is not the sequential transfer speeds (the only aspect that could possibly by limited by a 1.5Gbit SATA port), but the random read/write performance (which is unaffected by the controller.) Even the sequential transfer speeds aren't affected all that much, as 1.5 Gbit/s translates to 192MB/s. That's below the theoretical max sequential read speed of the drive, but not the max. seq. write, so you're really only at risk for missing a small bit of performance from sequential reads under optimal conditions.

Still, if you want an SLC drive, the Mtron looks like a decent, affordable choice. I'm glad you're happy with your new drive!

ThinkRob wrote:A good SSD doesn't need special 'optimization'. About the only thing you can do for a good SSD is align the partitions along page size boundaries, and even that's of questionable benefit for drives like the X25-M.

I was talking more about computer optimization. I've seen people mention Intel Matrix Storage Drivers and BIOS settings, but in the context of other laptops/SSDs.

You're probably right about my usage patterns... I guess I don't do anything too IO intensive these days.

trentblase wrote:I was talking more about computer optimization. I've seen people mention Intel Matrix Storage Drivers and BIOS settings, but in the context of other laptops/SSDs.

Ah. Well I don't use Windows as my primary OS, so I'm afraid I'm out of my element re: Intel's chipset drivers. I do know that the one in the mainline (Linux) kernel work great.

You're probably right about my usage patterns... I guess I don't do anything too IO intensive these days.

Don't worry, it's not just you. It's true for most users in general: with a very, very few exceptions, nearly every desktop workload just doesn't benefit from sequential performance as much as the manufacturers would like you to think.

All that said, while MLC drives are certainly good enough for most desktop users, SLC drives are indeed superior in a number of ways -- so if you've got one, rest assured that you've got the nicer tech.

I just purchased the Intel 1.8" 80GB from newegg last week ($184 Canadian or $150 USD) which also includes a 2.5" SATA enclosure (great value).

I put in the drive in my X61T today and did a fresh Windows 7 install. The Windows 7 install took under 10 mins from start until I was at the desktop. It only took about 30 mins more to get the Lenovo apps up (care of System Update 4) and all my regular apps onboard.

I can't believe the speed. Even though I'm only hitting up to 150MB/s because of a speed limitation of the motherboard in the X61T (drive can handle up to 250MB/s), everything blazes. Everything feels instantatious.

I'm really considering buying a second for my X60.

I was using seagate 320GB 7200rpm drives in both machines (I have been using strictly 7200rpm drives since 2003 in any thinkpad, so I've been spoiled by speed). But I'm getting tired of RMAing my drives (2 RMAs for both drives since Sept 2008). I'm hoping I can at least go a year or two before needing to replace/RMA the SSD.

Coming from 320GB drives, 80GB will be a bit hard. But not as bad as 40GB that I was eyeing a few weeks ago before the 80GB went on sale. I'm expecting to keep my vmwares and other large infrequently used apps on a secondary drive in the ultrabay unit (in the media slice)

dmdsoftware wrote: I can't believe the speed. Even though I'm only hitting up to 150MB/s because of a speed limitation of the motherboard in the X61T (drive can handle up to 250MB/s), everything blazes.

Erm... unless I'm mistaken in my math, 1.5Gbit/s actually comes out to 192 MB/s, not 150MB/s. So you've got even more performance than you thought you would!

ThinkRob wrote:Erm... unless I'm mistaken in my math, 1.5Gbit/s actually comes out to 192 MB/s, not 150MB/s. So you've got even more performance than you thought you would!

The rest is overhead:

Wikipedia wrote:Taking 8b/10b encoding overhead into account, they have an actual uncoded transfer rate of 1.2 Gbit/s (~143 MB/s).

Vempele wrote: The rest is overhead:
[...]

Ah. So I *was* mistaken. Thanks.

Still, I stand by my statements that peak sequential speeds aren't very important for the vast majority of desktop usage.

i was on a budget, so i purchased the intel x25-v 40gb for my x60, and it works like a charm. i will probably stick with intel ssd's from this point forward, and highly recommend them. just remember to turn off all those features that perform unnecessary writes.

poderchang wrote: just remember to turn off all those features that perform unnecessary writes.

Actually, one of the perks of the Intel drives is that you don't have to worry about avoiding writes at all cost. They don't affect performance substantially -- these aren't the "stuttering" JMicron drives we're talking about here -- and they won't have any real impact on lifespan.

Now personally I'd disable indexing, etc. because they don't provide any benefits for me, but if you find them useful I'd leave them in place if you've got an Intel SSD.

I have an X60S (about 4 years old) and would like to fit a SSD inside it. 40GB would be plenty big enough.

When I have done this kind of thing in the past, I backed up the existing HD using Trueimage (v9 needed to handle the X60S's SATA controller) and then restore it.

Can anyone recommend a SSD which is definitely going to work straight out of the box in the X60S?

I live in the UK but can buy stuff from the USA, assuming the US disti is willing to ship to a foreign country.

I am running WinXP Pro, SP2. SP3 trashes the hard drive (tried it twice) and an image restore is the only way.

Many thanks in advance for any tips.

I have done this kind of thing before with a tablet computer, in the early days of SSDs... it was quite difficult mechanically to get inside, and the Samsung SSD was bought from the USA at great expense
http://www.peter2000.co.uk/ls800/index.html


Is the X60S easy enough to get inside?

peter-h wrote:I have an X60S (about 4 years old) and would like to fit a SSD inside it. 40GB would be plenty big enough.
...
Can anyone recommend a SSD which is definitely going to work straight out of the box in the X60S?
...
Is the X60S easy enough to get inside?

I got Intel X25-M 80GB from Novatech in the UK, last Christmas for about £180. Fitting an SSD on your X60s requires (1) removal of one philips screw to pull out the HDD caddy, and (2) removal of four philips screws to install your new SSD in the caddy. If you can hold and rotate a screwdriver, then you can do it.

I installed Windows 7 upgrade pack, and it was pretty straightforward. Took less than an hour... I am very happy with my current setup.

K.

PS: You might consider X25-V 40GB, it goes for about £80 in the UK.

Interesting... many thanks.

I am ordering this 80 GB one

http://uk.insight.com/apps/productprese ... 4%26y%3D14

Novatech are a similar price.

The reason I am doing this is because I have just replaced a 10000rpm SATA-300 HD (3GHz desktop PC) with a Corsair 128GB SSD and the speedup is massive. One big app load time has gone down from 10 secs to 2 secs. I have never seen anything like it. And the electricity saved works out at around £100/year; this machine runs 24/7.

Still on this topic, what do people here use for cloning their old HD to an SSD?

I normally use Trueimage, to image the HD to a file on a network drive. For the SATA HD used on the X60S, this needs to be v9 or later to support the SATA controller. However, TI throws up an error message / warning when one tries to image the whole HD. It sees a second partition, about 4GB, and it reports there are errors on it. I have no idea what this partition is; it may be some kind of hidden factory recovery feature. It says it cannot image this unless one uses "sector by sector" backup, and this results in a far bigger image; 70GB instead of 25GB for just drive c: in my case.

Anyway, I have done two images; one just drive c: and one with the whole lot using sector by sector, and will try restoring the 2nd one initially.