Recovering SSD performance

Two questions. If you're speculating, please be sure to say so. SSD threads are too often full of misinformation.
Does Leopard support SSD extensions for deallocating SSD physical blocks, or does it treat SSD drives as standard physical SATA devices?
If the latter, are any/all of the SSD drives Apple uses capable of recognizing and unmapping zeroed pages?
I ask because I'm wondering if there's anything a user can do to release pages to the pre-erase pool to regain fast write performance on a drive that's seen heavy use. I'd hate to have to do a factory reset on the drive.

Similar Messages

Does Linux do anything About SSD Performance Degradation?

I have been thinking about getting an SSD for my laptop but just read this article on performance degradation of SSDs: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/8
I typically use ext4. Does anyone know if any of the Linux filesystems/kernels/etc do anything about SSD performance degradation? Has anyone found a solution to this problem? Maybe new SSDs don't have the issue?

My OCZ Vertex 2 SSDs slowed down just a tiny bit soon after installing them, but TRIM seems to be working well and they don't seem to be slowing down any further. I'm running them on ext4 with journaling enabled, and only the log files are being directed to temp files. Everything else is going to the SSDs, and they are being used just like regular hard drives.

Compaq 8510w, poor SSD performance

Something seems to be limiting my read performance with a SSD installed. Running Windows 7 (64-bit), with the latest BIOS, Intel Driver INF and SSD Toolbox (for TRIM). Drive is Intel X25-M G2 80GB, spec-ed at ~250MB/s for sequential writes. Benchmarks tested include HD Tune, HD Tach, ATTO, Datamarck and DiskMark. All show around 55MB/s sequential read with W7 resource monitor confirming that throughput.
I have found articles online describing "poor SSD" performance due to either running SATA-I vs. SATA-II or AHCI vs. IDE. The drive is running IDE (UDMA-5) and SATA-II. What is described as poor performance is 225MB/s for IDE vs. UHCI and 175MB/s for SATA-I vs. SATA-II. No where near the performance I see.
I have also run across posts mentioning that the 8510w utilizes a bridge for IDE to SATA. If this is the case, the bridge could be the culprit. Any insight would be appreciated.

Hi doasc,
I just re-imaged my 8510w to Windows 7 onto a Kingston SSDNow V Series 128 GB drive.
I was quite silly and did not run HD Tune before enabling the employer mandated McAfee Endpoint Encryption whole disk encryption.
I get 60MB/sec in HD Tune with the disk encrypted - and you are likely quite correct about getting better results without disk encryption enabled and I wish I had tested it that way first.
/dan

[Problem disappeared in new kernel] Bad SSD performance

Hello all, I'm an ex-gentoo user turned arch. Looking forward to it!
Anyway, I have a brand new OCZ Vertex SSD -- theoretical 230MB/s read times. In the livecd installer, hdparm gets 210MB/s reads, pretty awesome. However, in my current installation, I am only getting 75MB/s.
My kernel is 2.6.29, the livecd has 2.6.28. I checked, UDMA/133 is enabled on my drive. I (and some generous IRC users) have absolutely no idea what's happening here.
Any help would be appreciated!
[root@wakka jake]# hdparm -i /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Model=OCZ-VERTEX, FwRev=1370, SerialNo=92M9W154QY80YY06496G
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs RotSpdTol>.5% }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=12288
BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=32767kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=62533296
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5 *udma6
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: Unspecified: ATA/ATAPI-5,6,7
Last edited by wakkadojo (2009-06-17 13:40:38)

I have been all over google and many other forums, there's really nothing on this. I'm almost certain it's an Arch linux problem of some sort.
I just gave your suggestion a shot. Here's what we get:
# hdparm -t -W 0 /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
setting drive write-caching to 0 (off)
write-caching = 1 (on)
Timing buffered disk reads: 220 MB in 3.02 seconds = 72.96 MB/sec
So no improvement -- but then again it says it turns off write caching when it really does not.
However, I would like to point out that it is probably not write caching that is causing this slowdown, since on the livecd write caching is enabled, and others have not posted anything about disabling write caching to improve ssd performance.
Last edited by wakkadojo (2009-05-31 23:55:24)

SATA II or III on late 2010 MBP - Also SATA III and SSD performance

Hello:
I would like to confirm that only the new 2011 MBP's have 6gb SATA interfaces. My MBP reports Series 5 and 3gb on both optical and HD bay. I have an SSD in the optical bay and a WD Scorpio Black in the HD slot. Both have a negotiated link speed of 3gb. I put the SSD in the optical bracket and the spinning drive in the real drive slot to take advantages of the physical protection in the HD bay.
If the new MBP's have one SATA III channel, I would assume it's important to put the SSD in that slot.
My SSD has a SATA II (3gb) interface. Some new ones have 6gb. Do SSD drives even approach that throughput or 3gb throughput? Which leads to the question, would a SATA III SSD perform better in a SATA III MBP?
I know the benchmarks may not even be noticeable in real life use for most of us

I have just out a SSD on my 2010 MBP, from all the info i could find both the HDD and optibay in the 2010 late SATA II, this is the reason i put my SSD in the optibay as the speed would be the same.
I did think about getting a SATA III SSD for the future when i upgrade but at the time they were very expensive and i had read reports about problems connecting to a SATA II.
The new MBP do only have SATA III in the HDD spot so this would be the best place for any SATA III SSD.
Personally on a 2010 MBP im happy, i still get great speeds Vs a HDD but with keeping the HDD in its original spot i get to keep spin down and the motion sensor.

SSD Performance Questions

I've just ordered a MBP 2.4Ghz with 7200rpm 750GB drive, I will be adding either a single 8GB memory stick (total of 10GB) or a 16GB kit. I'm looking for my first SSD use as a boot drive for OSX and potentially Win 7 in BootCamp and hope I can get some counsel on model selection and configuration.
I read that SSDs suffer a performance drop (sometimes significant) as the drive fills up. Also there are both 256GB and 240GB drives. Ideally I'd like to avoid the frustration associated with seeing performance drop and maximize my formatted capacity.
1) Are there models that maintain performance over time? Is there a specification that indicates how performance drops as the drive fills up?
2) Is there a performance difference (current / long-term) between 256 and 240GB drives?
3) Does an abundance of RAM improve performance and / or longevity?
4) How much space (if any) should be kept free for swap files in OSX / Windows?
5) With 240 / 256GB SSDs, how much usable space is available after formatting?
6) Is there a difference in performance based on file format NTFS vs. HPS+?
7) Do I need to be concerned about major name brands (Intel, Samsung, OCZ, Kingston, etc.) being incompatible with MBPs?
8) Are some SSDs easier to install / configure / maintain on a MBP than others?
9) Are there any issues I should be aware of regarding the installation or use of a SSD that would impact my MBP's warranty?
Based on performance, reliability and 5-year warranty, I've been attracted to the Intel 520. I've also read good reports on the Samsung 830. One review indicated that the 830 maintained performance over time while the 520 experienced a significantly greater drop. True?
I can buy either drive in the $330 range. Here on the forum I've read many recommendations for the OWC drives and support. For comparable performance and a 5-year warranty, it looks like the Extreme Pro would be the model to buy, however, at $460 it is 50% more expensive. Thoughts?
Thanks in advance! This is the kind of purchase that I can only make once every 5-years, so I really appreciate any help.
JD

kayakjunkie wrote:
I've just ordered a MBP 2.4Ghz with 7200rpm 750GB drive, I will be adding either a single 8GB memory stick (total of 10GB) or a 16GB kit.
Your performance with the large 16GB should outweigh any drawback the 7,200 RPM drive or even a 5,400 RPM drive unless you start swaping then the 7,200 shoud be fine enough.
The SSD is good for transfering large data sets off the machine, to another SSD, but little benefit on the same machine with most files as they are small so you don't see any benefit really in most day to day operations. If you had low RAM then the SSD would help with a faster memory swap. As you know SSD's wear out faster than hard drives.
I'm looking for my first SSD use as a boot drive for OSX and potentially Win 7 in BootCamp and hope I can get some counsel on model selection and configuration.
Here's the speed demon chart, note the fastest ones are smaller in capacity
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html
Again, unless your transfering large data to a external SSD via Thunderbolt on a constant basis (and can afford to replace the worn out SSD's) then a SSD as a boot drive really isn't worth it for most computers if you have a large amount of RAM.
It used to be with 32bit processors/OS , 3.5GB RAM limits, that having a fast boot drive mattered in day to day because of the faster memory swap, but not anymore. My 4GB with 5,400 RPM stock is fast enough, but I will be getting 16GB soon for my virtual machine OS's.
I read that SSDs suffer a performance drop (sometimes significant) as the drive fills up. Also there are both 256GB and 240GB drives. Ideally I'd like to avoid the frustration associated with seeing performance drop and maximize my formatted capacity.
Hard drives do this too because the files have to be broken up more to fit into tiny spaces.
Hard drives also suffer a bit past the 50% filled as the sectors get smaller.
I use my 750GB partitioned 50/50, A cloned to B so I can option boot either as I won't use the second 50% of the drive day to day as it's too slow for my tastes.
IMO 250GB is too small for a drive with Windows too, the fastest 500GB SSD would be better $$$. better balance of speed and onboard storage.
1) Are there models that maintain performance over time? Is there a specification that indicates how performance drops as the drive fills up?
2) Is there a performance difference (current / long-term) between 256 and 240GB drives?Not that I know of.
Not that I know of.
3) Does an abundance of RAM improve performance and / or longevity?
Yes, more RAM = less swapping to the SSD means it will last longer and run faster.
4) How much space (if any) should be kept free for swap files in OSX / Windows?
I would suggest 25% for a SSD should be free space, ideally 50% filled for a hard drive, but to 75% max is likely more realistic for most people.
6) Is there a difference in performance based on file format NTFS vs. HPS+?
You will have little choice of format for OS X or Windows, OS X needs HFS+ and Windows needs NTFS.
If you do a third partition (hard) then exFAT would likely be the best choice for both OS's to access.
7) Do I need to be concerned about major name brands (Intel, Samsung, OCZ, Kingston, etc.) being incompatible with MBPs?
8) Are some SSDs easier to install / configure / maintain on a MBP than others?
Not that I know of.
9) Are there any issues I should be aware of regarding the installation or use of a SSD that would impact my MBP's warranty?
Just don't break anything doing so, as one is allowed to replace the RAM/storage. However the warranty/AppleCare doesn't cover the newley added items of course.
http://eshop.macsales.com/installvideos/
Based on performance, reliability and 5-year warranty, I've been attracted to the Intel 520. I've also read good reports on the Samsung 830. One review indicated that the 830 maintained performance over time while the 520 experienced a significantly greater drop. True?
Performance isn't going to matter unless your dealing with large amounts of data on a constant basis, a long warranty is always good. But SSD's have no moving parts that I know of, so...easy to give a 5 year warranty. IMO.
Look here
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/
I can buy either drive in the $330 range. Here on the forum I've read many recommendations for the OWC drives and support. For comparable performance and a 5-year warranty, it looks like the Extreme Pro would be the model to buy, however, at $460 it is 50% more expensive. Thoughts?
OWC is good, but your basically doing all the work anyway so you can choose to install what you want if you find a faster/larger SSD someplace else.
You need to learn how Lion Recovery Partition works, there are no OS X install disks anymore, it'a all on a partition to boot to install Lion. If you remove the drive, you need to install Lion somehow again right?
Carbon Copy Cloner, clones your entire Lion and Lion Recovery Partition to a external drive, can option boot from it and it's the same thing. Reverse clone onto the new SSD.
Other info you will need.
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT4718
https://support.apple.com/kb/dl1433
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/08/lion-recovery-disk-assistant-tool-makes-external- lion-boot-recovery-drives/
A option is you can choose is after you installed Windows in Bootcamp (as the machine won't boot a Windows disk from a external optical drive) on the SSD and used WinClone to clone Bootcamp for backup, is to replace the Superdrive with a kit and place the hard drive there for partitioning and storage.
This way the SSD stays unchanged and fast, the hard drive takes all the work of the users files, changes etc, places the wear and tear on that instead.
The Superdrive goes into a enclosure (sold with the kit) and is a external optical drive.
This modification will of course void your warranty/Applecare.
For more information, see Bmer (Dave Merten) over at MacOwnersSupportGroup as he has done this and knows all the tricks.

SSD performance in the future with the T500

SSDs apparently perform slower as they are filled up and blocks are rewritten. Here is an article on it.
Will there be a firmware update to solve the problem on the T500's (2081-CTO) SSD?
Will firmware updates require wiping the data on the drive?
Lenovo shipped my Vista OS with automatic defrag, superfetch and prefetch enabled. Bad Lenovo! They should all be turned off for an SSD.

Hi olddoc, and welcome to the Lenovo User Community!
This is a very interesting question.
As I understand it, Windows 7 will be the first version of Windows which has optimizations specifically for SSD's.
The Trim operation mitigates the performance problem you mention. For it to work you obviously need Windows 7, and an SSD which supports Trim.
Some SSD manufacturers have made it clear their drive firmware will be updated to support Trim (e.g. Intel), some take their own approach to mitigating the problem, and some have not yet said what their approach will be.
Windows 7 detects SSD's and automatically chooses the right settings for SSD operation (defrag, superfetch, prefetch, readyboost, etc.).
As SSD prices fall and Windows 7 releases this is going to be of interest to more Community members...
I don't work for Lenovo. I'm a crazy volunteer!

Expert advice on SSD performance bottleneck needed.

Masters of storage, please step forward...
I guess I need some technically advanced advice on SSD, SATA, in/out limits etc.
I'm programming a video installation where I continously read and write quite a lot of data:
To the first SSD, drive A, I write 50 frames per second (= 50 files per second) plus simultaneously read some other 50 fps (from the same drive!).
From a second SSD, drive B, I read an additional 50 frames per second.
The question is: Where is the bottle neck? I succeed running my program at 25 fps but not faster (and i would need to get it to 50 fps).
The total amount of data is actually not that excessive: Each frame is 1,8 MB so each stream is about 90 MB/s which comes down to a total of 180 MB/s read plus another 90 MB/s write = 270 MB/s total data transfer in 150 read/write operations per second.
What confuses me most is the following:
- I get the same performance when I run the patch from two separate SSDs as when I run all three streams from a single one without using the second SSD at all.
- The speed does not increase substantially if I make one or two of these streams smaller (and reduce the file size to 260 KB/file which equals only 13 MB/s per stream).
- It does increase however (to 40-60 fps) if I switch all three streams to 260 KB/file.
This makes me wonder what is going on... is it the drives? Is it SATA? Or some other stuff I maybe even never heard of? And what can I do about it?
I use a Macbook Pro (Retina, early 2013, i7 2,6 GHz, 16 GB RAM, OS 10.9.2), drive A is a Samsung 840 pro 256 GB SSD connected via thunderbolt, drive B is the internal 512 GB Macbook SSD (built-in from Apple).
My program is built in MAX/MSP and I use a an arbitrary, uncompressed binary data format (.jxf). I can rule out CPU-/GPU-load issues.
Thanks for any help, it is appreciated a lot!
Karl

karlkusher wrote:
...do you happen to have any more tips like that? : )...
I'll pass this along because it seems to make sense. I only discovered noatime myself today and set it up using these instructions; it doesn't seem to break anything so far and should speed things up some as well as reduce wear. There's also mention of Chameleon which can activate TRIM but also turn noatime on. There's a discussion of atime and noatime here. Note that there's mention of relatime replacing atime as default though what the upside and downside of the variations are is above my paygrade.
If you're going to tinker with .plists, I'd suggest using TextWrangler.

SSD performance of new MacBook Air?

There are huge performance differences for SSDs. Does anyone have some numbers about the performance of the SSD of the new MBA?
Depending on the speed it may make sense to get buy it with the cheaper harddisk drive and then replace it with a really fast SSD

Here are a couple on older models...they should be close in performance...
http://www.barefeats.com/macair1.html
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2008/02/macbook-air-ssd-review.ars
Dave M.
MacOSG Founder/Ambassador  An Apple User Group  iTunes: MacOSG Podcast
Macsimum News Associate Editor  Creator of 'Mac611 - Mobile Mac Support'

SSD & performance update 1.0: DON't ..

better not to update this "performance" update when you are using SSD !!!

Reporting back..…….
I have bad news. Everything worked well as described above with my 256GB SuperTalent SSD until I tried to write a large file to it. It hangs after around 300 or 400 Megabytes have been written. Just as before.
So next I roll back the EFI to 1.6 (my computer came out of the box with 1.7 when I bought it last August or September) and then it worked much better. I was able to clone to it (I have it partitioned into 3 separate volumes) for about 15 Gigabytes. But then it hangs. I restart and restart the cloning and am able to finish cloning. I then erased the clone partition, try it all again, and am to as successful. It hangs overtime halfway thru the 39GB clone process and requires restarts.
This is as with EFI 1.6, Performance Update re-installed, and I THINK my SSDs firmware is 1571. I am not sure how I had determined that. I also do not know how to install and update to the SuperTalent SSD firmware with my Mac. I don't own a PC.
Perhaps my next thing to try will be to turn OFF sleep mode for the drive and turn OFF SMS for the drive. My hopes are not very high however.
For whatever reason, this computrer hangs requiring a force restart whenever writing large amounts of data to the SSD. I have no problem with the standard Hitachi 5400RPM and with a Western Digital 7200 I bought, and that is with EFI 1.7 and before they even came out with the new Performance Update 1.0.
As far as sleep/wake goes, the computer will hang when doing a clone even if I am typing in a TextEdit document, so it would not be trying to sleep anyway.

[SOLVED] Poor SSD Performance, Low Buffered Disk Reads

Hello. Today, I ran hdparm -t and noticed unusually low performance:
/dev/sdb:
Timing buffered disk reads: 342 MB in 3.00 seconds = 113.85 MB/sec
This is on a Samsung 840 EVO with an FX-8320 4.5ghz. Testing /dev/sda, my mechanical hard drive, gives me nearly identical results, which makes pretty much no sense. I ran this about a week ago, and got numbers around 520 MB.
I am using the BFQ scheduler and the Linux-ck kernel. I tried other IO schedulers, but only gotten worsened performance.
The only thing I can think of that I've changed recently was from the performance to ondemand CPU governor. Could that have caused this?
Any help would be appreciated. I am using UEFI/GPT. uname -a:
Linux msw1 3.13.11-2-ck #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Apr 25 20:19:47 PDT 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux
EDIT:
Now solved! It turns out the 840 EVO with its TLC NAND is an odd SSD, and that the alignment needs to be a multiple of 1.5.
Last edited by msw1 (2014-05-01 21:28:31)

supermariolinux wrote:
I have the same SSD(840 EVO) as you do and i am getting similar results with hdparm -t, although i thought this had something to do with the fact that my SSD is only connected to SATA 2.
Partitions are aligned and manually trimming the partition doesn't seem to change anything.
I noticed there is new firmware update available on Samsung's website(You can boot from a CD with the ISO without having to use Windows), unfortunately i cannot get it to work as the program just crashes.
Using the standard 3.14.1-1 x86-64 kernel with default cfq scheduler
EDIT: It appears i already have the latest firmware installed, still i recommend checking with
hdparm -i /dev/sdX | grep FwRev
and seeing if new firmware is availbe here: http://www.samsung.com/global/business/ … oads.html#
hparm -t results:
/dev/sdc:
Timing buffered disk reads: 368 MB in 3.01 seconds = 122.36 MB/sec
I do have the latest firmware. As for you, it could be SATA2. I, however, have this connected to a SATA3 controller. As I said, this used to get 500+ easily. Now, it's more like 80.
gedgon wrote:I had exactly the same issue with my EVO when it was not aligned to EBS. It's 1536 KiB or 2048 KiB (depending of source), so it's safe to set the sector alignment value to 12288 (6144 KiB), multiple of 1536 KiB and 2048 KiB.
I wish this solved it. However, I still get the same result:
sudo blockdev --getalignoff /dev/sdb
0

Yosemite ssd performance degradation

Hi. I have a Late 2012 mac mini and Plextor M5Pro ssd drive. Before upgrading to Yosemite i had ssd write speed about 400-430mbps (according to benchmark utilities like "Blackmagic disk speed test"), but after i upgraded to Yosemite today - ssd write speed degraded to 100mbps, which is just awful.
What should i do?
i tried to reset smc, but it had no effect. Also I'm not considering fresh installation of Yosemite after full disk format since i have too much stuff installed and configured right now.

The BMDST test is s piece of software and the software is out of date now. I have a samsung 840 Pro and although the test does show slower my drive is as fast as it was before I upgraded. I use FCP, AE, Photoshop extensively and if anything my machine is faster since Yosemite. You also cannot test the startup disk accurately while it's running so you will need to target boot or usb boot to get an accurate performance test.
I really don't think apple even has a way to detect and slow you system based on TPH. The performance advantages of TRIM, as measured by Toms Hardware, are relatively small and some believe it will increase drive life. Backblaze reported SSD life is way longer than reported. I have run SSD for years and even my POS custom RED SSDs for my camera are still fine after everyone once complained they would die in a few years, it's been almost 6 years
TL;DR
F the Benchmark and do work and see whats really happening rather than read blogs designed for link bait. Funny how OWC posted this story and everyone is freaking when they sell drives that don't need TRIM or so they say and right after Sammy released the 850s #imjustsaying

"Work offline" button went away from taskbar and cannot recovered after performing CSC cache clear

Hi All,
Some Windows 7 Pro users reported DFS folder mapping issue, CSC cache was cleared by following below KB article.
- On a Windows Vista-based or Windows 7-based client computer, you can still access offline files even though the file server is removed from the network
support.microsoft.com/kb/942974/en-us
After CSC cache clear, I am not able to see "Work offline" button from file explorer taskbar.
I was recommended to look for "always available offline" by right mouse click, but the item is not available for my platform.
- "Always available offline" option and Offline Files tab disappeared in folder options
social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/6285c814-837c-4798-838f-e2ba00dec5fe/always-available-offline-option-and-offline-files-tab-dissapeared-in-folder-options?forum=w7itpronetworking
So far I tested with 4 of workstation and all of them has no "Work offline" button or "Always available offline" item with right mouse click.
We are disabling IPv6 and wondering whether this is causing not to recover "Work offline" button or not...
- Offline Files versus VPN a.k.a. The case of the missing “Work Online” button
thommck.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/offline-files-versus-vpn-a-k-a-the-case-of-the-missing-work-online-button/
I would appreciate if anyone know how Offline feature works under Windows 7 Pro environement and the relation between IPv6.
Many thanks in advance,

Hi,
Regarding how the offline files works, please take a look at the following blog:
How the synchronization in Windows 7 Offline Files works
Besides, please also check the below article for the work offline button missing:
User Cannot Make Files and Folders Available Offline
Hope this may help
Best regards
Michael Shao
TechNet Community Support

IMac 2011 + Intel 510 SSD Performance

Yesterday I installed Intel`s SSD 510 (120GB) in my iMac 2011 27 inch (along with a 2TB WD Caviar black)
Today I did some testing and the results are somehow disappointing.
It would be great if other owners of Intel`s 510 can post some benchmark results! Here is mine:
Tested with AJA:
Write: 131,3
Read: 174,4
720x486 8-bit and 128mb file size
The 510 in system profiler:
Finally: xbench
The results should be WAY higher!?
Does anybody have a hint what I did wrong?

How did you manage to get the SSD and the 2TB drive in your new Imac? OWC said you couldn't update those internal parts. I am too looking to get an Imac 27" but I want to add my own SSD and 2TB drive similar to what you did. did you buy the imac with this set up already from apple? do you have to get the SSD/Harddrive combo from apple to have the parts needed for the replacement? thanks in advance.

SSD performance is low on T61 machines

Hello "Lenovo",
The T61(x) series use the 965 chipset from Intel. The chipset is capable of higher transfer rates, but it seems like Lenovo has decided to limit the transfer rate much lower than what the chipset is capable of (maybe SATA 1 ?).
I want to know the reason why and if it will be fixed in the future BIOS releases, and hopefully soon. SSD is the future storage alternative, and as you can see, more and more people are getting interested to speed up their laptops. At our company, we have almost 1000 laptops, and most of them are Lenovo T61/T61p and pretty many T400/500.
Worth to mention is also that we have around 300-400 laptops from two other manufacturers, which also use the 965 chipset, and the SSD transfer rates are almost the double on those machines compared to Lenovo, and transer rates on these unnamed machines can be compared to the T400/500 series _thou_ they have older chipsets.
In past, we suffered from the 3GB RAM limit in the T60(x) machines with the 945 chipset, while those unmentioned manufacturers did not have the same problem and could access more RAM with 945 chipset laptops. Lenovo was not the only manufacturer with this memory accessing problem thou.
However, I do not need to mention that this is something you definitely need to think about, but apparently, I just mentioned it!

Mark_Lenovo did say that the T61, R61 and X61 do not support the SATA3 mode in their system, due to the issues of compatibility with the PATA ultrabay and the power usage on battery.
Also, people at NBR are trying to see whether they can program the bios in the T61 to able to use SATA3 speed, so you may want to input some positive efforts into this if you have the time. There is no point complaining here, since the later thinkpads with the sata interface ultrabay all have the sata3 speed switched on.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=399772
Regards,
Jin Li
May this year, be the year of 'DO'!
I am a volunteer, and not a paid staff of Lenovo or Microsoft

Recovering SSD performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for