OCZ Octane 512GB SSD Full Review - Indilinx Has Returned With Everest
IOMeter v2006.07.27 - IOps
Iometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. It was originally developed by the Intel Corporation and announced at the Intel Developers Forum (IDF) on February 17, 1998 - since then it got wide spread within the industry.
Meanwhile Intel has discontinued to work on Iometer and it was given to the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). In November 2001, a project was registered at SourceForge.net and an initial drop was provided. Since the relaunch in February 2003, the project is driven by an international group of individuals who are continuesly improving, porting and extend the product.
Whoa. OCZ wasn't kidding about that lower latency! I didn't think anyone would ever unseat Intel on low latency / high IOPS at lower queue depths, but the proof is clearly in the pudding here. This is significant, since while SandForce controllers have to let IO's "pile up" on them as they scale up to higher IOPS, the Everest just plows right through at lower queue depths. This is the key factor for how 'snappy' an SSD feels in use, and is a primary reason I've favored Intel over SandForce for home use.
PC Perspective Upcoming Events
|
Great review and an interesting product. I am finally tempted to put an SSD in my Laptop. To bad about the compatibility issue. There is no way I would do a fresh install.
also, on the pc per File copy test page, you haev a small typo :
''Even with a laege cache''
Thanks, fixed!
This is a very good tip particularly to those new
to the blogosphere. Simple but very precise info… Thanks for sharing this
one. A must read post!
My website: Allure Flooring
When making screenshot :
Please do not using JPEG , use PNG
It looks a lot better with PNG.
Took me about 1/2 sec to spot the JPEG artifacts ...
delete this lame^^
blocked and cleaning now
It is still made by OCZ and that alone is reason enough to go no where near this product.
Times are changing... keep your eye on them.
My vertex recently failed and it took over a month to get a replacement from them. In the mean time, I had to buy another ssd for my system. I got the intel 320 because I was more interested in reliability than having the fastest drive out there. Really two issues come up here: one is that the vertex failed; and two is that it took over a month to get a replacement. I too will stay clear of OCZ for the foreseeable future. I just hope my vertex 3 max io edition that I bought previous to my vertex debacle hangs in there.
Your perception is based on a first gen product. Look at the reviews of the Vertex 3 (or all SF-based drives) and you'll see that they've become a lot more reliable. I've had a Vertex 3 since launch and never had a single issue.
Now at OCZ is developing their own products (own controller), they'll be able to respond much quicker to compatibility issues. Keep in mind they're a relatively small company. As they grow their support and subsequent reliability will improve.
Allyn,
Can you say anything as to the effectiveness of trim on the drive?
It's too bad that OCZ handed out all 512GB drives, considering the price, that's probably more than what the majority of buyers are going to consider as viable option. I'd love to see a review of something smaller since the specs are worse, I'm not sure it would keep up to any SF-2281's or other competitors.
Rumor has it OCZ is being qualified at a major OEM who wants to put SSD's in every laptop across their product line, either all SSD or as part of a hybrid system. This is part a response to the recent HDD shortage. I'd assume that's where the 128GB and 256GB drives are being shipped at the moment.
I just read a relevant review on tom's hardware. Honestly, based on my knowledge of SSDs, I think their test approach is more complete, especially if your are evaluating a new controller.
The worst case scenario and steady performance they pointed out is orthogonal to what you've tested here (sequential/random I/O). I don't see many other websites doing the same thing, and it would be great if you can try similar methodology if possible. Thanks.
First - I am the original source for review sites conducting this type of testing:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Long-term-performance-analysis-Inte... (dated Feb of *2009*).
The part of the Tom's article you speak of:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/octane-sata-indilinx-benchmark-perfo...
...is a dated method that is no longer relevant when using an SSD with an OS that continually issues TRIM commands to the drive. Benchmarks can not accurately test for this as they are unable to issue TRIM commands directly to the drive while doing all of those random writes. The closest you can get is to run something that fragments the drive, but then to partition and format the drive under Windows 7, *then* run the HDTach pass and see what happened. I do this to all drives as part of my testing, and the Octane behaved as all other modern SSDs do - performance had returned to normal. This was actually noted below the basing portion on that page of the Tom's piece.
That said, I'll revive my "Performance Over Time And TRIM" page for future pieces.
When I initially commented I clicked the "Notify me when new comments are added" checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service? Bless you!
Post new comment