<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Understanding SSD Advertised Performance and Its Purchase Implications &#8211; An SSD Primer	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/</link>
	<description>The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource &#124;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:09:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Grimrian		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/#comment-57456</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Grimrian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thessdreview.com/?p=2088#comment-57456</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What I find odd is why it immpssible to find a simple external Thunderbolt3 NVMe SSD with two ports, so it is not end-of-chain (for my MacOS SSD install - without available TB3 ports) ....]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I find odd is why it immpssible to find a simple external Thunderbolt3 NVMe SSD with two ports, so it is not end-of-chain (for my MacOS SSD install &#8211; without available TB3 ports) &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: TheOptiPesmicMinimist		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/#comment-23980</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TheOptiPesmicMinimist]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thessdreview.com/?p=2088#comment-23980</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Did you optimize your IO in windows to minimize IO on accesses?  Somewhere in the registry there is an option to disable last acces time stamps.  I&#039;ve heard this is less of an issue in Windows 10, but I haven&#039;t personally checked it out.  By default, at least previous versions of, Windows would update time stamps on files and folders on every access and force synchronized writes for every read making you wait even if all of what you&#039;re accessing is already in the cache.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you optimize your IO in windows to minimize IO on accesses?  Somewhere in the registry there is an option to disable last acces time stamps.  I&#8217;ve heard this is less of an issue in Windows 10, but I haven&#8217;t personally checked it out.  By default, at least previous versions of, Windows would update time stamps on files and folders on every access and force synchronized writes for every read making you wait even if all of what you&#8217;re accessing is already in the cache.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: LLiseil Web		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/#comment-22414</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LLiseil Web]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2015 22:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thessdreview.com/?p=2088#comment-22414</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Latter better than never.
Article&#039;s title, comparisons and real-world test, I like a lot }-]
Linux user here. *Commercial* value of sequential I/O no surprise; your figure of 1% says it all! Will check on my desktop boxes to compare, especially random write vs read.
The 4k *writes* over 55% of all I/O does amazes me. If on Windozw I&#039;d do as Hsimpson suggested: Test again with OS and programs, Pagefile disabled on SSD, Pagefile and logs on spinning drive.
Or and a glimpse on which files (or dirs at least) are written would have been nice especially for non-Windows user.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Latter better than never.<br />
Article&#8217;s title, comparisons and real-world test, I like a lot }-]<br />
Linux user here. *Commercial* value of sequential I/O no surprise; your figure of 1% says it all! Will check on my desktop boxes to compare, especially random write vs read.<br />
The 4k *writes* over 55% of all I/O does amazes me. If on Windozw I&#8217;d do as Hsimpson suggested: Test again with OS and programs, Pagefile disabled on SSD, Pagefile and logs on spinning drive.<br />
Or and a glimpse on which files (or dirs at least) are written would have been nice especially for non-Windows user.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Croatoan42		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/#comment-19150</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Croatoan42]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2014 18:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thessdreview.com/?p=2088#comment-19150</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/#comment-9771&quot;&gt;Les@TheSSDReview&lt;/a&gt;.

Where is option in Diskmon to show drive access by type and percentage?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/#comment-9771">Les@TheSSDReview</a>.</p>
<p>Where is option in Diskmon to show drive access by type and percentage?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: snadge		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/beginners-guide/the-ssd-manufacturers-bluff/#comment-15888</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[snadge]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 00:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thessdreview.com/?p=2088#comment-15888</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[thanks &#038; a good article, but as some have already pointed out (and you seem to be avoiding the questions) that loading of OS and Files (4Kb dll&#039;s or not) are &#039;reads&#039; - not &#039;writes&#039; - regardless that &#039;your&#039; 10 minute test was 80% writes, IMO one ten minute test is not conclusive, also, one measures system speed by noticing how quick windows, apps &#038; files load, not whats going on in background while &#039;using&#039; the apps, so it will be &quot;4k Reads&quot; that are more important, you even refer to 4K &quot;transfer&quot; speeds sometimes but then go back to pointing out that 4K &quot;write&quot; speed is most important? you should have simply used the term &#039;transfer speeds&#039; the whole time - just recommend users get a drive that has optimal IOPS performance as this is shown on most/all adverts

 - what IS important is some manufacturers use of crap benchmarking tools to quote the drive speeds from, an example would be OCZ on their Agility 3 series where they advertised really high speeds but used ATTO benchmark (which zero&#039;s the disk - an unrealistic example of real-world use) to quote the speeds off on adverts, yet when tested with &quot;real-world&quot; testing suites like AS SSD the performance is way off! other manufacturers like Samsung deliver drives that perform same as their speed quotes on real-world benchmarks, I swapped out the OCZ for SAMSUNG (both same specs on paper) but the Samsung performed up to the job and was very noticeable in windows boot time etc too compared to the OCZ.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks &amp; a good article, but as some have already pointed out (and you seem to be avoiding the questions) that loading of OS and Files (4Kb dll&#8217;s or not) are &#8216;reads&#8217; &#8211; not &#8216;writes&#8217; &#8211; regardless that &#8216;your&#8217; 10 minute test was 80% writes, IMO one ten minute test is not conclusive, also, one measures system speed by noticing how quick windows, apps &amp; files load, not whats going on in background while &#8216;using&#8217; the apps, so it will be &#8220;4k Reads&#8221; that are more important, you even refer to 4K &#8220;transfer&#8221; speeds sometimes but then go back to pointing out that 4K &#8220;write&#8221; speed is most important? you should have simply used the term &#8216;transfer speeds&#8217; the whole time &#8211; just recommend users get a drive that has optimal IOPS performance as this is shown on most/all adverts</p>
<p> &#8211; what IS important is some manufacturers use of crap benchmarking tools to quote the drive speeds from, an example would be OCZ on their Agility 3 series where they advertised really high speeds but used ATTO benchmark (which zero&#8217;s the disk &#8211; an unrealistic example of real-world use) to quote the speeds off on adverts, yet when tested with &#8220;real-world&#8221; testing suites like AS SSD the performance is way off! other manufacturers like Samsung deliver drives that perform same as their speed quotes on real-world benchmarks, I swapped out the OCZ for SAMSUNG (both same specs on paper) but the Samsung performed up to the job and was very noticeable in windows boot time etc too compared to the OCZ.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
