Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Buy SSD after LION release

Hellhammer said:
OWC has said for months that they are working on a firmware update utility for OS X. No idea when it will be out but at least they are doing something. It's not crucial if you have Windows in Boot Camp.



Intels appear to be the least problematic SSDs but they are also fairly expensive. They are good, no doubt about that. However, Intel should come up with new G3 lineup at some point.



IIRC Kingston V+100 uses the same controller as the SSDs Apple use. It is a decent drive but I can't remember how it is priced.
Click to expand...

I'm still fairly undecided by it all. :rolleyes:

From what I understand (please correct me if necessary):
Sandforce: hibernation problems, no Mac firmware update solution
Intel G2 (no point on getting the new one for my 2008 MacBook, right): Reliable, Slower, Mac firmware update solution, no garbage collection?
Kingston: Similar to Apple's, aggressive garbage collection, don't know about Mac firmware update solution.

I'm kind of considering Intel or Kingston now but maybe I should wait...

What about the report that came out regarding the inability to secure-erase some SSDs. Do any of the above have this problem?
What about SSDs that lose speed/performance over time?
Also, I'm considering doing the dual drive solution (removing optical drive) if that matters.

Thanks
 
InfiniteLoopy said:
From what I understand (please correct me if necessary):
Sandforce: hibernation problems, no Mac firmware update solution
Intel G2 (no point on getting the new one for my 2008 MacBook, right): Reliable, Slower, Mac firmware update solution, no garbage collection?
Kingston: Similar to Apple's, aggressive garbage collection, don't know about Mac firmware update solution.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right. You could add that SFs are cheap compared to Intels.

What about the report that came out regarding the inability to secure-erase some SSDs. Do any of the above have this problem?
Click to expand...

See this guide.

What about SSDs that lose speed/performance over time?
Click to expand...

That depends on the drive but I wouldn't consider this as a big issue. You can always perform a secure erase to restore the performance.

All in all, picking an SSD is pretty hard at the moment like you may have noticed ;) There are lots of choices but all seem to have tradeoffs.
 
re: secure erase, picking an SSD, etc.

Hellhammer: Yeah, except I'm not sure you can *always* do a secure erase to restore lost performance in every case? About the most exhaustive SSD test I've been able to find online for Macs with OS X can be found here:

http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld.html

This guy tested most of the major brands, including writing a LOT of random files to each one using a script to simulate months of real-world use, and benchmarked read/write performance before and after. He claims that the Crucial "RealSSD" drive he tested never could be restored to its original level of performance once it dropped off! (mentioned in his "conclusions" on the last page of his multi-page article)


Hellhammer said:
That sounds about right. You could add that SFs are cheap compared to Intels.


See this guide.


That depends on the drive but I wouldn't consider this as a big issue. You can always perform a secure erase to restore the performance.

All in all, picking an SSD is pretty hard at the moment like you may have noticed ;) There are lots of choices but all seem to have tradeoffs.
Click to expand...
 
kingtj said:
Hellhammer: Yeah, except I'm not sure you can *always* do a secure erase to restore lost performance in every case? About the most exhaustive SSD test I've been able to find online for Macs with OS X can be found here:

http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld.html

This guy tested most of the major brands, including writing a LOT of random files to each one using a script to simulate months of real-world use, and benchmarked read/write performance before and after. He claims that the Crucial "RealSSD" drive he tested never could be restored to its original level of performance once it dropped off! (mentioned in his "conclusions" on the last page of his multi-page article)
Click to expand...

A secure erase should empty all blocks which should restore the performance back to normal. The reason why you experience degradation is that when you delete a file, it is not deleted from the actual SSD. Also, you can't erase individual pages so if you have a block with lets say 10 files and you delete 2 of them. Nothing will be deleted. Then, when you want to write something to the block again, the whole block will have to be erased because you can't erase individual pages. So, your operation will require first reading the whole block into cache or other memory and then rewriting the whole block. That makes it slow because it requires the extra read.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/8
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/11

Those two are good articles about SSDs.
 
Hellhammer said:
SandForce SSDs are the best in terms of performance but at least with OS X, there have been few unpleasant issues. Maybe reliability wasn't the best word since they are reliable but these issues makes them less appealing. They work but have some issues.

OWC uses SF but they currently ship SSDs with an older firmware that does not suffer from this issue. I can't recall if there are some other issues with the older firmware though. The only reason I recommend OWC is that OCZ has showed no interest towards fixing the issues with Macs. OWC, on the other hand, has reportedly been working with SandForce in order to get rid of this issue. Also, they are developing a firmware updater for OS X while you need Windows to update the FW with other SF-based drives.

No idea does Vertex 3 and other SF-2000 SSDs suffer from this but since they use different firmware, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I have also been looking at the OWC 1.8" drives for a 2008 Air but still can't find anyone who can advise how to reliably erase an ssd
 
Isidore said:
Interesting, I have also been looking at the OWC 1.8" drives for a 2008 Air but still can't find anyone who can advise how to reliably erase an ssd
Click to expand...

See this guide I linked earlier. SandForce based drives are pretty good at fighting against degradation so there may not be a need to secure erase it.
 
Hi,

So it seems that Intel may be replacing the X-25 G2 within a month (it seems the 510 series is not for regular consumers).
Is it likely that Intel will include some sort of garbage collection as I can't find out whether the 510 series has it ...

I've also read conflicting views on the utility of garbage collection ... Is it really useful?

Thanks,
 
re: garbage collection

Well, "garbage collection" is absolutely necessary due to the nature of an SSD. If it wasn't done at all, you'd always wind up with a drive that performed well for a limited time after a fresh wipe (or new out of the box), but rapidly degraded in performance after that.

The big question is how that garbage collection/background optimization is best handled. Originally, it seems the "quasi-standard" of using TRIM at the operating-system level was the way it was done. Later, some of the manufacturers started trying to handle it internally, via the SSD's own firmware. (And as far as I can discern, if you own a drive that does it internally AND you have TRIM support enabled for it on a given OS, the two can work together without causing any serious issues. I'd imagine it's up to a manufacturer to implement that however they wish though. Perhaps one would give TRIM priority over internal garbage collection, so as long as TRIM is doing its job, the internal support basically sits idle? Another might try to clean things up aggressively at all times using the internal firmware, and let TRIM support decide for itself if it has any remaining work to do or not?)


InfiniteLoopy said:
Hi,

So it seems that Intel may be replacing the X-25 G2 within a month (it seems the 510 series is not for regular consumers).
Is it likely that Intel will include some sort of garbage collection as I can't find out whether the 510 series has it ...

I've also read conflicting views on the utility of garbage collection ... Is it really useful?

Thanks,
Click to expand...
 
I guess I'll wait too.
When it's certain that Lion enables TRIM for 3rd party SSDs, I'll get an Intel.
Guess I'll start freeing up space now on my drive. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, waiting makes some sense, really ....

That was one of my original points I was trying to make, I guess. Even though I forked out the money for a 512GB SSD for my Macbook Pro last week, I did so only because I went with a Toshiba with Apple's firmware on it. My thinking is, if this specific configuration was good enough for Apple to ship as an option on new systems with OS X Snow Leopard, then it should be good enough for me to use as somewhat of an "early adopter" of SSDs in Mac portables.

Unfortunately, this drive isn't one of the faster models out there, AND there's at least some evidence that its firmware does a lot of background reorganizing of data stored on it, in an attempt to compensate for lack of TRIM support in OS X. This is likely BOTH while Apple chose it for current shipping systems AND why it may not have the lifespan or performance of models that don't do this.

It looks like many of the other SSD options out there still have various firmware issues that need to be sorted before they'll behave 100% well with OS X. (Heck, that's still true for Windows with some of them! I'm fighting right now with a 128GB PNY "Optima" SSD that seems to randomly corrupt data in Windows 7 every 3-4 weeks or so. A quick Internet search revealed another guy who reviewed one, saying he was having the exact same issues with his -- so I'm suspecting a firmware issue more than just having a defective drive.)

If money was no object, I'd likely buy a Mercury Extreme from OWC for my Mac, today. It may have some issues with waking from hibernation mode on Macs, but I could turn that mode off and not really miss it. In most other respects, they seem to be highly rated and FAST options for Mac users, with a potential advantage of getting better support by way of future firmware updates. (Some SSD makers seem to pretend OS X doesn't exist. OWC has a vested interest in caring.)

But otherwise? I think summer isn't THAT much longer to just hold out and see what OS X Lion brings to the table. Better TRIM support would at least get you much more "on par" with being able to choose whichever SSD a Windows user found to be a "good, reliable performer" - vs. having to worry about special limitations of OS X.
 
kingtj said:
Unfortunately, this drive isn't one of the faster models out there, AND there's at least some evidence that its firmware does a lot of background reorganizing of data stored on it, in an attempt to compensate for lack of TRIM support in OS X.
Click to expand...

2011 MBPs with SSDs ship with active TRIM support.
 
re: 2011 MBPs

Yeah... I saw that. Interesting they slipped that change in for those machines like they did, yet it's not available for anyone else yet.

I'm referring to the rest of the situation though, like my 2010 Macbook Pro, or the people who got SSD drives with their Macbook Airs in the past. None of these have TRIM support available yet.


Hellhammer said:
2011 MBPs with SSDs ship with active TRIM support.
Click to expand...
 
hellhammer, i have to disagree re FW.. the latest owc firmware update still suffers from sleep/wake freezes..
ocz staff have told me it sandforce who produce the firmwares, these are then mod'd by the manufacturers.. do not forget ocz's exclusivity with sandforce - hence they got the SF-2000 first.. for a certain time

ocz, on the other hand do not have this problem on osx

V3>>>V2 on sata 2 3GB/S, the V3 will have faster seq write and random 4K and will be future-proof

with the transition from 34nm-25nm ocz have a head-start
already learnt the hardware on the optimal layout of the nand-flash.. the whole 32GB vs 64GB die size fiasco.. altho from what i understand 25nm is not inherently = slower performance, it was how the channels were laid out.
the point is lessons were learnt and everything is pointing that the V3 will be awesome

i would not buy a vertex 2, as there is a massive divergence on the product nand-flash.. and unless you open the drive (thus voiding the warranty)

both owc and ocz are amazing drives

my dream set-up would be a 120gb vertex 3 boot
owc 240GB mercury extreme in the optibay!:D
 
Don't know if I should dig up this old thread but here goes:

With Lion's release next month, are we any clearer on the whole TRIM enabled in Lion for third party SSDs? I'm thinking of getting an Intel 320 for Lion.

Thanks,
 
InfiniteLoopy said:
Don't know if I should dig up this old thread but here goes:

With Lion's release next month, are we any clearer on the whole TRIM enabled in Lion for third party SSDs? I'm thinking of getting an Intel 320 for Lion.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

From what I have read, it's only for Apple's SSDs. You need to use TRIM Enabler.
 
Hellhammer said:
From what I have read, it's only for Apple's SSDs. You need to use TRIM Enabler.
Click to expand...

Thanks,
Does TRIM Enabler work OK with Lion?
I've got less than 5Gb left on my current drive and I'm really debating whether to get a bigger HD or get a bigger HD and an SSD for Lion and apps (using the optical bay).
Would it be OK getting a small SSD (like a 40Gb) for this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back