dbw09 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Hello, I recently purchases the Corsair Extreme 64GB SSD. The performance has been very good so far, but when running some benchmarks I noticed the that disk cache size is reported incorrectly in every benchmarking suite. Both CrystalDiskInfo as well as HD Tune report the cache size to be 32MB. Also, I was wondering about the garbage collection features available for the barefoot controller that this SSD has. Is it present on these drives? Other posts speak of TRIM, and I know that isnt functional yet, I am wondering about right now... is there some firmware controlled features that handle garbage collection on the extreme series SSDs? Please let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted August 28, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted August 28, 2009 The drives support Trim so that is not an issue and its my understanding that the drive controller will perform this function in the back ground when not in use but I have asked for clarification on Extreme Series drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbw09 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 Thanks for that, it appears as though something may be keeping it clean. Do you have any idea about the cache size showing up as half of what it is supposed to be though (32M instead of 64M)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted August 28, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted August 28, 2009 I am sorry I have not seen that happen before, please run another Disk utility and see how much cache is shown. And does it sometimes show the proper amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbw09 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 HD Tune and CrystalDIsk are posted above, and here is one from DiskCheckUp. I have never seen any of them show the correct 64MB buffer size after multiple tests. Is there something wrong with this drive? It is still within the return period. %5Bimg%5Dhttp%3A//i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn257/Asystole_Diesel/diskcheck.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted August 28, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted August 28, 2009 There may be Let's get it replaced, please use the On Line RMA Request Form and we will be happy to replace it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 PLEASE trim your pics :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted August 28, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted August 28, 2009 Please wait before you do the RMA on your drive I am checking this now and it seems that the program may be incorrect or the drive cache is miss reported I will get back to you on Monday or Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbw09 Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share Posted August 29, 2009 That sounds good. I found references to other manufacturer's drives showing incorrect cache/buffer sizes as well. I'd link the page but it's on their forums! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted August 29, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted August 29, 2009 NP we are looking into this now but its late on Friday so I don't expect any more information till next week. Also can you take a pic of the label on the drive for me and post it here I really need to know the lot code? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbw09 Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share Posted August 29, 2009 Lot code is 09270133 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted August 31, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted August 31, 2009 Thanks for that information, and we are looking into this now and we have a sample here that is showing 32Meg of cache but when we took it apart it does indeed have 64 Meg of Cache on the drive. So it looks to be a software issue but we will let you know ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbw09 Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 That sounds great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted August 31, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted August 31, 2009 BTW you are not having any performance issues with your drive are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbw09 Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 Its rated for 220/135, I am getting 260/165 from ATTO, so performance is great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted September 1, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted September 1, 2009 NP I would just keep the drive that is above spec and if you did replace the drive the next one may not perform that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisJohn Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 I have the 128 version of the Extreme and I note that CrystalDiskInfo is simlarly only reporting 1/2 the cache. I will watch this thread with interest to see if it turns out to be a software issue or if, in fact, the OS can only see (and use?) 1/2 the installed cache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisJohn Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Just out of curiosity I have just downloaded and installed SiSoftware Sandra Lite (latest version SP4) and that similarly reports 32Mb of cache on my 128Gb Extreme instead of the expected 64Mb. The drive seems to perform well on spec however, with a Read perfomance of 242Mb/sec. I haven't worked out how to measure "Write" performance as yet. When I select Write measurement it shows an error and tells me "Disk not empty: Remove all its partitions and try again" which has completely confused me! I have never used this utility before so I am probably doing something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 To test the full drive on writing it would have to write across the whole drive. That warning is normal and SHOULD be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyc Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 I have the same thing showing on my X64 too - only half cache; I'm not worried tho as the drive is performing great, with one exception - boot time is actually considerably slower than my HDD but once into windows it flies. http://www.ppsuk.com/capture.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted September 8, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted September 8, 2009 I have never seen an SSD take that long to boot. How did you get Windows on the drive was it a fresh install or did you image it to the drive from another HDD? And how many applications are loading at start up? Hvae you timed it with a watch from the BIOS Post screen to Windows Desktop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyc Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a fresh install of Windows 7 Professional RTM; the install was done from a DVD and I just let the installation program do its bit with regards to creating and formatting the partitions; the usual 100MB system reserved and the remainder for the OS. No probs installing, it all went well. Only apps loading at startup are my AV (Eset Internet Security 4), Realtek Sound Manager and the usual OS background apps; nothing other than them. Timed it with a watch and it worked out around the same time. I've got the SSD on Sata 1 - my Samsung Spinpoint 1TB on Sata 4 - my LG DVD/RW on Sata 5 and have an external drive connected via eSata on Sata 6. Got the SSD working on AHCI as recommended and made the changes necessary in the BIOS to effect this (three options available IDE, RAID and AHCI). Screenshot of running processes below: http://www.ppsuk.com/capture3.png I've changed the SATA cable twice to make sure it wasn't a problem with the cables. As I say tho, once I get into Windows everything flies along; apps open instantly and even the bigger apps like PhotoPaint and Dreamweaver open in under 3 seconds. Tis a strange one :-) Just as an aside, from post to logo its about 2 seconds; from logo to welcome screen its about 6 seconds; then it sits on the welcome screen for the remaining 38 or so seconds and then the desktop appears with everthing ready to roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyc Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Update: >>>>> I ran diskpart .... "Clean All" command ..... took a little while. Reinstalled Windows 7 Pro letting the installer do all the work for partitioning, etc. Ran Boot-Timer again and WOW ..... look at the result: http://www.ppsuk.com/capture4.png Don't know what the problem was in the first instance, but I think the results above proves that it must have been something hooky in the first install. Happy chappy now lol :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyc Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Further update: >>>>> This is a new one on me - back to slow-coach boot time, "but", I know why - though I don't know why it should make a difference. If I leave the default theme on - whoosh boot-time; if I change the appearance (for eg the desktop to black) sloooooow down boot time. This is the only change that I made to make this happen; change it back to default theme and the boot time whizzes along. Any ideas anybody???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted September 9, 2009 Corsair Employees Share Posted September 9, 2009 I would suggest contacting the software vendor but they may be loading a lot of small file or that theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.