PDA

View Full Version : Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?


peterh337
25th Feb 2012, 06:23
I have installed a number of SSDs (example (http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT256M4SSD2)) in desktops (24/7 operation) and all failed within a year or so.

They get replaced under warranty but the result is still rubbish, not to mention hassle, loss of data (we have tape backups but it's still a hassle). It seems that specific files (specific locations in the FLASH) become unreadable. The usual manifestation is that the disk becomes unbootable (sometimes NTLDR is not found; those are fixed using the Repair function on the install CD).

Just now I have fixed one PC which used to simply reboot (no BSOD) and then report "no OS found" but if one power cycled it, it would start up OK. Then it would run for maybe an hour before doing the same. That was a duff Crucial 256GB SSD too - £400 original cost.

Years ago, on a low power PC project which shut down its hard drives, I did some research on what types of disk access windows does all the time. It turns out that it accesses the registry c. once per second, and it is a write, not just a read. At ~100k writes per day to the same spot, this is going to wear out a specific area pretty quick.

But don't these SSDs have a microcontroller which is continually evening out the wear?

Their performance is great, especially if you get one with a 6gbit/sec SATA interface and a quality fast controller (Adaptec) to match that. I've seen 10x speedups in some functions.

I gather that under win7 things are done differently but for app compatibility reasons, etc, we use XP.

OTOH I have installed 3 SSDs, much smaller at 32GB, in XP laptops, and all have been 100% fine. But those don't get run 24/7.

I have a couple of 256GB SSDs which have been replaced under warranty but which are basically unusable for windoze (XP). Can they be used under say Unix (we have a couple of FreeBSD email servers)? Or is there some winXP driver which can continually remap the logical sectors?

Mike-Bracknell
25th Feb 2012, 06:57
Do you not get a driver to provide TRIM support under XP???

Bushfiva
25th Feb 2012, 06:58
Wear levelling is standard. Some SSDs had serious problems with XP, including older Crucial and Intel especially if you couldn't run in AHCI mode.

If you think looking at the registry once a second is a problem, you'll poop yourself when you consider the paging file.

I've used SSD on and off for years. I find them somewhat more reliable than HDD and usually faster. As you note, Win7 is way better than XP simply because it supports TRIM correctly.

If your beef is specifically with Intel kit, then manual will point you to the Intel SSD Toolbox download, which among other things installs TRIM support for XP and a couple of other things. If it's a 500 series, Intel will get you a free download of Acronis Aligntool to fix several issues.

peterh337
25th Feb 2012, 17:32
Do you not get a driver to provide TRIM support under XP???

Not AFAIK.

If you think looking at the registry once a second is a problem, you'll poop yourself when you consider the paging file.In the tests I did, paging activity stopped after a while (a minute or two) following last activity. One could also disable paging (which causes problems with some apps).

I don't recall using Intel SSDs. The Crucial ones use Micron FLASH.

Is TRIM to do with wear levelling? I thought it was to do with collecting up all the "non new" blocks and reusing them.

However, it is hard to argue with a 100% failure rate, in several different machines. Something must be going on. 1 year is not an acceptable lifetime IMHO.

green granite
25th Feb 2012, 18:01
Presumable, since the TRIM command irreversibly deletes the data it affects, nobody can recover any forensic evidence from it?

peterh337
25th Feb 2012, 21:30
I have done some googling on this topic and it is quite a nasty suprise to learn how poor a life flash drives have. For example (can't find the URL right now) the Intel X25 SSDs can have only about 30TB written to the drive in its whole life. With wear spreading, this will push every part of the drive to the flash write limit in something like 5 years (they reckon) of average desktop computer usage (they reckon).

30TB is not all that much, over years.

And if the wear spreading is working less than optimally (firmware bugs) then all bets are off. On the SSD forums there is a ton of stuff about different SSD firmware versions doing different things. I have to wonder who actually has a LIFE after worrying about the firmware on a "hard drive" :) You don't worry about firmware updates on a cooker, do you?

So I am not suprised my SSDs are knackered in c. 1 year while hard drives seem to go on for ever, sometimes making a funny noise after ~5 years (on a 24/7 email/web server) at which point they can be changed.

Mike-Bracknell
25th Feb 2012, 22:10
You don't worry about firmware updates on a cooker, do you?

You'd be surprised. 2 years ago I very nearly 'bricked' my oven by finding that the pyrolitic cleaning function (first use after 3 years of having it) was faulty, which rendered the oven door lock (only used during this process) locked. Only by judicious use of a screwdriver and safe-cracking techniques did we manage to use it again!

If you have the function on an AEG oven and never used it....don't consider changing your mind :ok:

peterh337
28th Feb 2012, 17:06
Micron are replacing this 256GB M4 SSD, but I wonder if there is any way I can actually use it for anything...

An Intel 256GB SSD lasted ~ 6 months in that PC.

Win7 is not an option, but in any case if the swapfile is what is killing these SSDs then what should one do?

It would be perverse to have extra RAM and have a RAM disk like one used to under DOS :) Also XP cannot see more than ~3,5GB which severely limits the swapfile options.

I think it is this one (http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT256M4SSD2) - 6gbit/sec SATA.

Milo Minderbinder
29th Feb 2012, 15:32
On a 64-bit system, using excess RAM and a RAMdrive for the swapfile may actually be a sensible idea. No reason at all why you can't do it, and read/write times would be improved. You may need third party software to do it - I can't remember offhand, its years since I tried, but it does work - and can work well

As for the 3.4/4GB limit of XP, thats a strange one. There are a lot of reports around that say its not a restriction of 32-bit, but is actually an artificial restraint by Microsoft. Apparently 32-bit XP Ultimate isn't constrained by the limit, Never tried it myself, but something to be aware of