Over-provisioning an Intel X25-M G2 80Gb SSD

[vital-analitix]

Resolved: Just partition the SSD when new / unused less than the maximum unallocated space that is available. IMHO in this case the best tradeoff is using either 72 Gb or 64 Gb partition. In the first instance life and performance are more than doubled while with the 64 Gb life and performance are improved a tad under four times.

original enquiry:

I had ordered an Intel X25-V G2 40 Gb but got a notification that they were out of stock and was offfered the 80Gb at a decent discount.

I do not need all that space since my Windows 7 install is less than 20 Gb. After coming across an Intel white paper regarding the advantages of over-provisioning I like to do this but I do not want to brick my new SSD and would appreciate some help of one of the more knowlegeable forum members.

(advantages are a much longer life and a considerable improved performance: see the whitepaper on the page http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reselle ... /index.htm / http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/45/ ... 459555.pdf )

No longer familiar the jargon in the white paper perhaps someone can tell me if I am correct that I can achieve this over-provisioning by simply making a 64 Gb partition instead of using the full 80 Gb space.

Many thanks in advance.

Marinus

[ThinkRob]

No longer familiar the jargon in the white paper perhaps someone can tell me if I am correct that I can achieve this over-provisioning by simply making a 64 Gb partition instead of using the full 80 Gb space.

Typically the term "over-provisioning" refers to when the manufacturer adds spare space to a drive (e.g. sells a 80 GB drive as a 60 GB one w/ 20 GB used as spare). Quite a few controllers will use un-partitioned, un-used space as spare though (Intel's drives do this), so with those drives you can do the same thing by simply creating a smaller partition.

Note: unused space and un-partitioned space are two different things. If you have a 60 GB partition on an 80GB drive, the remainder will only be considered "unused" (and thus eligible for use as spare) if you haven't created a second 20GB partition. If you create a second partition in the remainder, even if you mark it as unused the drive will still consider it "used".

In your case, you'll want to create a new partition map and create a single 64GB partition, leaving the rest completely untouched. The drive should ("should" being the operative word, since I'm not quite sure how Intel's voodoo works ) see it is free and use it as spare area.

[vital-analitix]

Note: unused space and un-partitioned space are two different things. If you have a 60 GB partition on an 80GB drive, the remainder will only be considered "unused" (and thus eligible for use as spare) if you haven't created a second 20GB partition. If you create a second partition in the remainder, even if you mark it as unused the drive will still consider it "used".

In your case, you'll want to create a new partition map and create a single 64GB partition, leaving the rest completely untouched. The drive should ("should" being the operative word, since I'm not quite sure how Intel's voodoo works ) see it is free and use it as spare area.

Since stating the question I've done quite a bit of research on this subject (ssdreview.com, thessdreview.com and Intel's own website amongst lots of others) and you are quite right - the remainder has to be unused and neither has been used in the past or the whole disk has to have been secure erased in a particular way bordering on voodoo indeed. Alternatively some MAX parameter needs to be set under UNIX / LINUX and I do not want to go near that (too rusty, last time I touched UNIX is 15~16 years ago).

Many thanks for the reply.

[comps]

If you create a second partition in the remainder, even if you mark it as unused the drive will still consider it "used".

Really? So it recognizes a msdos partition table?

Since stating the question I've done quite a bit of research on this subject (ssdreview.com, thessdreview.com and Intel's own website amongst lots of others) and you are quite right - the remainder has to be unused and neither has been used in the past or the whole disk has to have been secure erased in a particular way bordering on voodoo indeed. Alternatively some MAX parameter needs to be set under UNIX / LINUX and I do not want to go near that (too rusty, last time I touched UNIX is 15~16 years ago).

The secure erase doesn't have to be performed, AFAIK.

The entire over-provisioning idea can be simply realized thanks to the internal firmware on most modern SSD drives. Those drives re-use flash blocks linearly, so when you write data on first 50% twice (on a new drive), the second write pass gets written on second half (50-100%) of the device.

Therefore if you simply begin to use the first 60GB out of 80GB total, you will get extended drive lifetime. It's as simple as that. No proprietary tools / methods (from OS side) or erase needed.

[ThinkRob]

Really? So it recognizes a msdos partition table?

I don't believe so, no.

No proprietary tools / methods (from OS side) or erase needed.

Correct. Basically: don't use the space, and the drive will.

[vital-analitix]

Some results:

Installation, os & applications: 14.6 Gb
Original hard disk: Hitachi 7K320-320, 320Gb, 7200 rpm, 16 Mb cache (one of the fastest at the time and also one of the quietest Hitachi's)
CrystalDiskMark 2.2
5 tests - 100 Mb
read - write
seq: 79.04 - 78.36
512K: 32.50 - 36.24
4k: 0.428 - 0.981

Intel X25-M 80 Gb, 48 Gb partition (no sense in a larger partition with the little data in use, this gives maximum life and performance), repeated the same tests as on the Hitachi HDD:
read - write
seq: 136.2 - 81.68
512K: 125.8 - 81.08
4K: 12.93 - 28.59

Results have to be viewed in the light that most reading and writing is done with 4K and 8K blocks.

Initially when I got the T61p (September 2008, it is the new MB without the graphic CPU issues) I replaced the noisy Seagate hard disk within the week with the quitest hard disk I could find, a Hitachi 100 Gb, 7200 rpm, 16 Mb cache. I used that for 3562 hours and then replaced it with the 320 Gb Hitachi which turned out to be slightly more silent. The latter has clocked up about 2900 hours.

I had cleaned the fan a few times but decided to replace the fan with a new OEM from ThermalFX (I thought the bearings were becoming a bit noisy).

Without a mechanical HDD the computer has become very quiet, especially when there is no noise around. Fan is also slightly more quiet (but not a lot). When it is quiet in the house (at night) I really notice when the fan comes on.

Although I primarily got it for reducing noise levels, I am very happy with the performance improvements . The palmrest above the disk does not get as warm as before.

[Harryc]

So, for a 120GB SSD, what would be the primary partition size recommended for best performance and life? If the partition is already maxed out, can it be re-sized leaving unallocated space with the same desired 'over-provisioning' effect or would it need to be blanked and partitioned from scratch?

[vital-analitix]

So, for a 120GB SSD, what would be the primary partition size recommended for best performance and life? If the partition is already maxed out, can it be re-sized leaving unallocated space with the same desired 'over-provisioning' effect or would it need to be blanked and partitioned from scratch?

Harry

According to this paper: http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/45/ ... 459555.pdf then 96 Gb is the recommended size for maxing it out. I do not know the internals of the Intel SSD so you have to take the following advise for what it is. (I thought about testing the differences but then decided against it, why tempt fate?)

In your 160 Gb case: Make a 96 Gb partition and then initally making the rest an extended partition. Leave the extended empty and run the Intel SSD Toolbox and run the optimizer. That will mark anything that has been deleted that such space can be reused. Afterwards delete the extended partition.

I am using Acronis for backup, you can run msconfig32 to see if the partition is aligned, I got the following from some other message:
====> paste
run msinfo32 by typing it into the search box on your start menu and hitting enter.

click on: components => storage => disks

Look for hard drive (or SSD) and check the partition starting offset for the 100.00MB partition. Here's mine as an example -

Partition Disk #0, Partition #0
Partition Size 100.00 MB (104,857,600 bytes)
Partition Starting Offset 1,048,576 bytes

Partition Starting Offset needs to be divisible by 4096 (ie return a whole number when you divide by this) otherwise the alignment is not correct.
In my case; 1,048,576 / 4096 = 256

<===== end paste

What I will be doing is instead of having the DVD/CD in the ultrabay slim I will have a HDD in there which can be set to spin down after 30 seconds or 1 minute. All my "user files" that I hardly use will reside on there. It will also hold my daily backups (this is a production machine), weekly go onto external media. I will be using an USB memory stick and boot Acronis from that memory stick for a cold backup. Hope this helps.

[Harryc]

Thanks for the reply. My SSD is 120GB though, not 160GB. That offset msconfig32 post sounds like one of mine . You said "make a 96GB partition", but my question is what if the 148GB (actual size) partition is already setup and loaded with W7. Can I simply re-size it using a utility like gparted then run the toolbox/optimizer to gain the over-provisioning benefits? My SSD's alignment is currently perfect.

[vital-analitix]

Thanks for the reply. My SSD is 120GB though, not 160GB. That offset msconfig32 post sounds like one of mine . You said "make a 96GB partition", but my question is what if the 148GB (actual size) partition is already setup and loaded with W7. Can I simply re-size it using a utility like gparted then run the toolbox/optimizer? My SSD's alignment is currently perfect.

I cannot give you an answer on that one.

I do know that after making a partition image with Acronis 11 I have to restore Windows 7 sector by sector or otherwise alignment and resizing is off (100 Mb system partition is no longer exactly 100Mb , if I remember correctly it got slightly larger and then did not want to boot). So resizing by doing a restore with Acronis is out.

You could try Paragon Partition Manager, I've used it to resized the bootable Windows 7 partition with success.

[Harryc]

Hmmm, I think that resizing will not effect alignment if the current install is aligned. I was more concerned about the over-provisioning aspect of re-sizing. I guess I'll give it a try .

[vital-analitix]

Hmmm, I think that resizing will not effect alignment if the current install is aligned. I was more concerned about the over-provisioning aspect of re-sizing. I guess I'll give it a try .

I have read (more accurately: glanced) some postings mentioning that just having unallocated space is good enough. Hope it works and let us know how it works out.

[ThinkRob]

Some SSDs are more sensitive to alignment issues than others. Almost all will benefit from having partitions aligned to erase pages, but exactly how much depends on the controller.

Generally, I'd say this: if you have an Intel SSD, don't bother. If you have a SandForce SSD, seriously consider aligning your partitions, but don't worry if you can't (you'll still get good performance, but nowhere near the max.) If you have a drive with a Barefoot controller, consider it if you're partitioning for the first time, but don't worry about it otherwise. If you've got a drive with a second-gen JMicron controller, do not pass go, do not collect $200, and align your partitions before you do anything. If you've got a first-gen JMicron-based drive, sell/trash it and get a newer SSD.

[vital-analitix]

One week on - some impressions after total re-install of Windows 7.

Install went very fast - SP1 took less than 20 minutes.
No HDD noise - bliss!
On a few occasions I seem to have had some lost settings, some items seem not to have been saved when shutting down. NEVER seen this before and am monitoring this. Examples are: Using Coretemp I had to tick the box from that it was downloaded from the net. It lost this setting. Then I wanted it to start automatically when windows starts - did it a few times and then "lost it". After resetting the same setting again no more problems. Lenovo's battery gauge in taskbar: always set to % yet on two occasions it reset itself to time.
Some other software did not allow me to edit some database data for two days and then suddenly "it sprung to life".

I am glad that I did not upgrade to the unofficial bios that switches the bus to SATA II since I would have blamed the BIOS change for that. (still running the official bios with SATA = 1.5 Gb).