Using a SSD Drive in the Field

[Larry Sabo]

I will test them both backing up via the same USB 2.0 port on a desktop and a USB 3.0 port on a notebook and post results.
It should produce at least a starting point for discussion.

The results will be much more meaningful if you run the test on the same system, using a USB 2.0 port and a USB 3.0 port.

 

[allanc]

The results will be much more meaningful if you run the test on the same system, using a USB 2.0 port and a USB 3.0 port.

I could do that also.
The reason for the two different computers was to test the speed on an older system versus newer.
However, I could expand the test to include your suggestion as well as a verify.

 

[allanc]

The results will be much more meaningful if you run the test on the same system, using a USB 2.0 port and a USB 3.0 port.

Here are the results of my testing.
Testbed is a Lenovo ThinkCentre with the following specs:
Windows 7 sp1, I7-4770 @ 3.40 Ghz, 64-bit, 16 Gb of RAM.
All USB connections are via a USB 2.0 or USB 3.0 powered hub as appropriate.
'C' drive which is being backed up has 110 Gb used and the resulting backup is 67 Gb.
Backup program = StorageCraft Shadow Protect

512 GB Western Digital Portable Passport USB 2.0 = 34 min., 54 seconds;
512 Gb Samsung PRO SSD USB 2.0 = 30 min., 16 seconds

512 GB Western Digital Portable Passport USB 3.0 = 22 min., 30 seconds
>>> 512 Gb Samsung PRO SSD USB 3.0 = 11 min., 28 seconds <<<

 

[Larry Sabo]

Interesting; thanks. So an SSD is of significant benefit only if used on a US 3.0 port, which doesn't surprise me. For systems that don't come with USB 3.0 ports, it might make sense to remove the drive and slave it to one's own system if it has USB 3.0 ports, but only if the drive removes easily. It would make more sense to just take the system back to the shop and do it while multitasking on other jobs. I assume using a USB hub doesn't affect speed, versus using the native port. That's your next assignment, should you choose to accept it.

BTW: Very nice test system!

 

[allanc]

Interesting; thanks. So an SSD is of significant benefit only if used on a US 3.0 port, which doesn't surprise me. For systems that don't come with USB 3.0 ports, it might make sense to remove the drive and slave it to one's own system if it has USB 3.0 ports, but only if the drive removes easily. It would make more sense to just take the system back to the shop and do it while multitasking on other jobs. I assume using a USB hub doesn't affect speed, versus using the native port. That's your next assignment, should you choose to accept it.

BTW: Very nice test system!

Or, pop it in a rig and use SATA.

 

[allanc]

Here are the results of my testing.
Testbed is a Lenovo ThinkCentre with the following specs:
Windows 7 sp1, I7-4770 @ 3.40 Ghz, 64-bit, 16 Gb of RAM.
All USB connections are via a USB 2.0 or USB 3.0 powered hub as appropriate.
'C' drive which is being backed up has 110 Gb used and the resulting backup is 67 Gb.
Backup program = StorageCraft Shadow Protect

512 GB Western Digital Portable Passport USB 2.0 = 34 min., 54 seconds;
512 Gb Samsung PRO SSD USB 2.0 = 30 min., 16 seconds

512 GB Western Digital Portable Passport USB 3.0 = 22 min., 30 seconds
>>> 512 Gb Samsung PRO SSD USB 3.0 = 11 min., 28 seconds <<<

Some more test results using the above but only testing USB 3.0.
Fabs AutoBackup Pro (current version), ~32k files, ~48 Gb storage

512 GB Western Digital Portable Passport USB 3.0 = 31 min., 20 seconds
>>> 512 Gb Samsung PRO SSD USB 3.0 = 11 min. <<<

The backup test was one large file and FABS is writing ~32k files.
From a simplistic point of view - the more files written - the larger the gain in terms of %.

 

[zofiatalia]

What's your exact purpose for switching drive, is it reliability or speed?

 

[DataMedics]

In windows 7 and higher you run Defrag. The defrag program if it properly knows that it is on a SSD will perform the trim commands for the drive in place of a defrag.

Didn't know this. Thanks.

You didn't know this because it's just wrong information. Defrag doesn't TRIM any files other than the one's it moves around.

Also regarding the previous mention of the SSD doing TRIM on it's own without the OS, this is also wrong information.

An SSD is a block level device and is not file system aware, no block storage devices are. When Windows, MacOS, Linux, etc. delete a file they never go and zero out the area where the file is stored (unless TRIM is running in the OS). It only deletes the entry in the file table and modifies the $Bitmap (NTFS) to show the space as now being available. The SSD itself, is unable to know the difference between residual data from a "deleted file" or a very much still present file. The only way it knows is when the OS sends a TRIM command to the SSD notifying it that the appropriate blocks have been deleted. It is true that the deletion itself isn't handled by the OS with newer SSDs (Windows doesn't have to generate all the zero's to fill it now), but it still needs to notify the SSD to TRIM those blocks. So over USB it's unlikely this will ever happen.

Wikipedia is your friend guys, before spewing your opinions about something technical you don't understand try reading up on it.

 

[allanc]

You didn't know this because it's just wrong information. Defrag doesn't TRIM any files other than the one's it moves around.

Also regarding the previous mention of the SSD doing TRIM on it's own without the OS, this is also wrong information.

Wikipedia is your friend guys, before spewing your opinions about something technical you don't understand try reading up on it.

I was not spewing 'opinions'.
The information that I was posted was based upon a conversation that I had with Samsung Canada.
I did not (and do not) think that it is necessary to double check *every* piece of information that I obtain from supposedly reliable sources such as manufacturers unless, of course, I have reason to be suspicious.
I could carry on further - but I won't.

 

[gikstar]

Hopefully you won't be using it in a USB 3.0 external case to install the operating system. Just tonight I was using a USB 3.0 stick to install an O/S. The Bios would not see the stick when inserted into the USB 3.0 slot but it would see it in the USB 2.0 slot and would then install the O/S.

 

[NJW]

The Bios would not see the stick when inserted into the USB 3.0 slot but it would see it in the USB 2.0 slot ...

That's a limitation of that machine's BIOS, not a general case. I have seen more machines that wouldn't boot from any USB port (Toshiba) than those that would only use USB 2.0 over 3.0.

Also, a USB 3.0 external drive will work happily in USB 2.0 ports, if necessary, so it's not a deal-breaker.

 

[Mainstay]

Here are the results of my testing.

Just wanted to really give kudos to @allanc for actually doing what I've been meaning to get around to for a long time.

Thank you!

 

[gikstar]

That's a limitation of that machine's BIOS, not a general case. I have seen more machines that wouldn't boot from any USB port (Toshiba) than those that would only use USB 2.0 over 3.0.

Also, a USB 3.0 external drive will work happily in USB 2.0 ports, if necessary, so it's not a deal-breaker.

I wasn't inferring that it should be a deal breaker, just that it's something to keep in mind when using it.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link"

Aside from USB ports...2.0 or 3.0..what are you copying from/to? Generally out in the field it will be SATA based computers. So if you're copying to/from a SATA drive...the SATA drive will control your transfer speed.

Also many external USB drives are just 4,200rpm or 5,400rpm spindles....look for 7,200 rpm ones. Naturally an SSD upgrade would appear much faster than a 4,200rpm external SATA....but less compared to a 7,200 SATA....if you were copying to/from another SATA.

An SSD would certainly run faster if it was USB 3.0 to a computer that had an SSD.

Cost would be a factor for me...most transfers I prefer just a USB stick. But sometimes you need a huge capacity..we have a couple of WD Passports we use for those...2 TB. Trying to do that size for SSD...ouch!

Might consider it more durable...being knocked 'n tossed around, versus a spindle drive.

As for Trim...it's an external drive....not worth my time to even consider if it needs it or not...but last I knew about Trim was current OS's are SSD aware, and do what they need to do. I don't worry about WIn2K or XP on an SSD and if I need to manually set it. I'm not a believer in manual defrag anyways...OS's are self tuning/defragging since the XP days.