I have data to show that there are significant advantages to large transfer sizes of data relative to the amount of dynamic area available. In addition, I also have custom hardware to drive the SSD/SD/MMC device directly (emulating the hardware interface), in complete control of all parameters static and dynamic areas, data pattern, sector size, transfer length and so many others. I directly monitor the embedded NAND flash component connected to the embedded controller (lazer shaved the NAND device, bond wires, connected to a dedicated fpga based tester), recording every NAND block erasure count directly on various controller commands, extending the test to the life of the product (some up to 100's of TB's of data).
My thesis is on the optimization of wear leveling algorithms on operating system file system usage. It has nothing to do with each other since wear leveling is the reorganization of data at the physical block level (cell) of the MLC SSD and defrag is the organization of the data at the logical (NTFS) level of the operating system. The magnitude of the fragmentation problem is reduced though, because the performance difference between an optimal layout and worst case isn't nearly as crippling as with a HDD."Īnd BTW, defrag is totally different from wear leveling. There might be a new opportunity for tools to be developed that will "defragment" an SSD, but they may need inside knowledge of how each SSD works. Currently the firmware is responsible for keeping everything as organized as possible. That said, there certainly are best and worst case layouts for data organization on SSD media. A traditional HDD will fetch that same scattered file drastically slower, which was the original motivation for defragmentation. SSDs are exceedingly fast at seeking, so fetching a seemingly scattered file is going to be nearly as fast as fetching a file that is written sequentially. I would cautiously suggest that anyone using any SSD should disable automatic defrag on that drive and don't bother running it manually.
#Diskkeeper free how to
For that reason, standard defrag tools will not make correct decisions about how to optimize the file system layout on an SSD. This is done to overcome the limitations of flash memory (eg. Solid state drives generally do not organize data the way that HDDs do, or the way the operating system is expecting them to. Unfortunately this answer isn't exactly straightforward. To add fuel to the fire, straight from an Intel SSD engineer:Ī. In fact, their numbers suggest that a HyperFast-enabled SSD will actually perform slower than one without the attached service. Forum members over at OCZ Technology ran benchmarks on HyperFast-enabled drives, and they claimed to see no performance improvement whatsoever. The company boasts reads that are 5.9 times faster and writes that are 19.5 times faster on the benchmarks it’s showing off. This reduces the overall number of write/erase routines that need to run and should lead to higher performance metrics and a greater lifespan.
#Diskkeeper free software
Defragmenting the SSD would only jumble the data around more, for a “sequential” file as seen by a software defragmenter doesn’t correspond to a sequential series of pages on an SSD block.Īccording to Diskeeper, its HyperFast technology makes sure that files are written to solid-state drives in a sequential order.
An SSD’s firmware uses wear-leveling functionality to assign different locations for the data you push to the drive.
#Diskkeeper free free
The company claims that it’s trying to reduce an SSD’s free space fragmentation levels-but the “benefits” of solid-state defragmentation are nebulous at best. What does that mean? We crawled through Diskeeper’s white papers to find out, but still couldn’t figure out exactly how this new process speeds up a solid-state drive.
0 kommentar(er)
