I bought another SDD and will use it to test Linux builds until I can move back to Linux full time. (All 3 of my other laptops are running Linux)
This is EXT4 and NOT encrypted.
Everything but SDD is purchased from FrameWork
DIY Edition
CPU: Intel Core i7-1165G7
WiFi: Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX210 No vPro
Storage: 1TB - SK hynix Gold P31 SSD NVMe
Memory: 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR4-3200
Operating System: EndeavourOS BUILD_ID=2021.08.27
Kernel: 5.15.5
File System: EXT4
Encrypted: NO
Benchmark: KDiskMark 2.2.1
@Xavier_Jiang
My benchmark numbers are due to BTRFS and encryption. I just uploaded a non-encrypted EXT4 version for you. The new numbers are probably more what one would consider ānormal.ā The SN850 appears to be almost 2x faster than the P31. (Which is on par and expected.)
My framework just arrived, and Iām finding the storage drives slower than expected.
Batch 5. i5 1135G7. 32 gigs of ram. Windows 10.
Iāve got a 1TB SK Hynix P31 and the 1TB expansion slot.
Iāve been testing things out by moving 26 gigs of video files around, and according to the windows 10 file transfer box, I seem to be averaging 500 MB/second moving files from one internal drive to the other.
Moving files from my CFe card to the internal drive goes at about 700MB/sec.
500MB/sec to move them from the CFe onto the expansion card.
My XQD card moves data at about 400 MB/sec.
I was expecting more from all these drives, and A LOT more from that internal drive.
I seem to be averaging 500 MB/second moving files from one internal drive to the other.
Framework only has one internal drive. Could you elaborate on this?
Just speculating, you are getting numbers that indicate a bottle neck. You have many irons in the fire of your current tests, because you are not controlling your variables. Please run the benchmark and report your findings.
Oh, and PLEASE post your system specs and the size/benchmark of that Framework expansion card. I am sure many here would love to start getting benchmarks for that. Donāt forget to share the benchmark for the P31 as well! Also indicate if you are using bitlocker, please!
Moving various files around will always be slower than synthetic benchmarks.
The OS and the drive controller have to do various operations in order to actually create files and that can slow things down considerably. If you had 1000 1KB files it would be much slower to transfer them than a single 1MB file.
In addition, copying files between media will always take the slowest rate. So your overhead before NTFS is only about 1000MB/s. Add in multiple file handling, the overhead of NTFS, and the overhead of USB, and 500MB/s doesnāt sound too bad IMO. This also doesnāt take into consideration the possible I/O penalties due to any file fragmentation.
In this case, since your CFe card is faster, I would say that your bottleneck is mostly the USB > expansion card.
Example: From your benchmarks the fastest possible speed Expansion > SSD is 1028.62, the fastest possible speed SSD > Expansion is 1027.41. This is all before any overhead.
Iām not sure but they only have 150TB write endurance ā which is a lot, but rather finite. Iām worrying that pagefile might be a bit too ā¦ well, frequent.
A hibefile is very good. It can probably last a decade or two. Temp file too. If only you can tell Windows to allocate that.
Currently mine act as a āglorified thumbdriveā because, frankly, I have no system with the slots. Itās also a 1st-gen accelerator stick and I bought it when they first appeared on market. They now seem to have higher-capacity ones (with maybe 3 or 4 chips)
Hmm well not a issue if you got plenty of ram. Plus it only has to last 3-5 years and it will be replaced. Itās just a $20 SSD on Ebay now.
Having a dedicated Pagefile drive is pretty āenthusiastā so itās not going to be there forever. People worry about SSD wear too much I feel. But that latency makes it perfect IMO. But whether youād notice it over a standard SATA SSDā¦hmmm.
