SSD unbearably slow under XP

both are SSD, why eeepc writes faster than ONE?
for SSD lifetime I don't think we need to worry about it.
8G ssd will be much cheaper 3 years later and I will be more than happen to replace one with larger capacity and faster speed.

 

nope. in fact both are using PHISON PS3006-L controller and neatly the same dims... so thats not the point...
r/w rates should be the same...

lifetime? who gives a f**k about the ssd lifetime of a netbook?

but maybe installing a old 1,8 ipod hdd with 20g would be an option for winxp user...

 

I dont see what the problem is.

You nlite your windows, and remove all the stuff you dont need.

Then install windows and then the drivers... mine works just fine .. I've tried to stress the system and yes.. the installaton is a bit slow but when its all done it works just fine.

I've even installed photoshop CS3 to stress the system and it works better than expected.

i'll see if I have some time make a video of the start-up

 

I've bought today an Aspire One. Copying a 300MB file from USB stick to SSD takes about 30 seconds under Linpus. I don't think that SSD writing is slow

 

You are wrong.
EEE 900 has two SSD. One is faster, one is slower (and alot of people are complaining about it).
One is connected to PCI-e, and the other one is connected to the board via ZIF.
Guess what: the slow one is the Phison one, connected by ZIF.

 

I have Windows XP Professional, a very useable install of Office (Word, excel, powerpoint, access) Windows live writer, WinRAR, Adobe Reader, Internet Explorer 7.. I still have 3.5GB of storage left.

We have mirrored an enterprise install that our clients use and it's a great little test machine.
Occasionally the SSD goes into ignore mode (This is when the access light stays on for about 2-3 seconds and it freezes the screen), apart from that, it's a very useable machine.
I'm going to have a difficult decision when they release the 3G version, i'm really set on the tiny new Gigabyte Tablet, however i have a feeling it's not going to be as fast as the Aspire. I might hack this one and change the SSD for a quick CF, if that solves the issue with the lockups and makes it a little faster then bang for buck it's probably the best value for money when it comes to a subnotebook.

PS. Our Aspire has 1.5GB RAM.

 

not shure about that... i mean - honestly

i dont have one, so no pers. experiences... but kinda numbers seem to proove otherwise (see links)

http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?pid=316923

http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2008/05/a ... ts-4g.html


___________________________________________


i can't tell u too much jet, but has anyone of u tried eBoostr so far? seems quite usable to me an solves at least a part of the probs im having with that godamn slow ssd!


anyone any experience?

 

You must look at the write speeds, not the read speeds.
Slow write speeds is what is holding down the One's performance.

http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2008/05/a ... ts-4g.html

Original EEE 4GB drive had write speeds 1.5-2x the EEE 900 4GB drive.
The EEE 8GB drive (Phison, similiar to the one) is almost 2x slower than the 4GB of the 900, and alot slower than the drive on the original EEE 701.
Just an example taken from the benchmarks:

16.0
EEE 701 (4GB) -> 15.420 MB/s
EEE 900 (4GB) -> 8.920 MB/s
EEE 8GB Phison, similar to the One) -> 3.120 MB/s

Just compare this results. 3.120(One) vs 15.420 (EEE 701) !!!!!!!

 

Where is the benck mark taken from?

If they are all taken from Xp then, obviously the bench mark is incorrect.

if they are all taken from Linux then i would agree that the SSD in the one is slower. But again, I don't think the SSD is that slow as Linux runs fine...

I do believe it's the I/O controller driver that is causing the stalling effect.

 

You replace the SSD with a faster CF and does not stall and is screaming fast.
Same controller, same drivers.
You change the partition to FAT and it becames faster.
Again, same controller, same drivers.

As for the benchmarks being wrong, the spec sheet from Intel states that this SSD has a maximum of 7MB/s for sequential write, and 3 MB/s for random write.

 

One (stupid) question maybe :
on the motherboard, is there the SATA port to plug a regular laptop 2.5" HDD into the Linux Aspire One?
[...]
Edit: I posted the question under "Hacks and Modifications" - Zif 1.8" IDE - I believe that's where it belongs. Thx.

 

nono, got your point.... i know, that the writing is slowing down performance in the aao. my point was, that it is not the phision controller. phision is used in most low cost devices. means as well in that of the eee as in the embedded sector(think they work quite close withe samsung). the pics, i was linking to, where showing, that all (means exept one!) ssd drives in the eee have a phision controller. the exeption is the 701 of course.

but i dont think, the controller is the issue!

taking a look at what is clear 4 now:

linux writes AND reads quite fine (for a cheap slc at least... and faster then the eee 701!)

the prob could be the ich7 controller driver or the bios.
not even the transfer mode udma 4 (i would be happy to have a 66,7 transfer rate for my disk )

in generall: the software / bios

there are two steps thar could work out:
someone extract the bios and (re)write a bios
someone rewrite a driver / modify one


thats what i think 4 now....

 

Linux is faster because it takes less memory and writes less stuff to the disk.

 

no, thats exactly the point that linpus realy uses swap! while all my cache etc stuff are sourced out to other disks (high speed sdhc / ram disk / ebooster) and temps are there as well it is still fucking slow!

you can have better r/w times with ntfs journaling AND temp on disk AND pagefile on a CF (with zif addapter).

 

I made a ghost image of XP system from my computer to make the system restore easy. Interesting thing is, The system restore for the 2.5G Windows XP and Office, and some other applications with Ghost took just around 16minutes, that included File system converting from EXT3 to FAT32.

That means the system speed slow down is not just caused by SSD's perfomance nor File system. Well, for sure, the SSD's writing speed is really crapy, but the main reason for this dead slow must be located some where else. It could be I/O controller issue like somebody said, or Widows's file writing process issue.

 

hey, shure the ssd is not the best. not even a good one, but hey, 0,27 mbs is just toooooo slow

if read in a german forum, that someone got a response from acer, that they would not bring
xp to the ssd version due to driver problems. dont know where that was...

but realy im so happy with my fbwf - neatly all my probs are gone, and the little thing works
as it should. try it out, its realy great!

see a comparison of it booting without and with fbwf: klick me

a few images: (in progress)

link1

link2

link3

link4

link5


the point is, that the "power" of the fbwf is not boot time but fast accesability. it
should even take some time to load the driver. but using it is really a great experience!
i was comp. pissed off, when i could not set up the openvpn under linpus (for
my university), even more pissed, when ubuntu took weeks to boot up (over 1 1/4 min!)
and super pissed, when when i realised the windows probs.

now everything is fine with me i start to like the aao so try it out...

 

Has anybody tried the power protected disk caching mode provided by windows xp and enabled with the dskcache.exe Utility from Microsoft ?

The power protected mode will not force cache flushes on eg a registry write.

 

Ok can u show us where u got that info from?

I tested the acer one SSD myself and it pulls 35MB/s reads on hdtach which is better than the eee.
on hdtune i pulled 30MB/s transfer average.

I can't test write speeds but i doubt they're worse than the eee

 

What is slowing down the one is THE WRITE SPEED.
So please, stop comparing the read speed. .

 

With Acronis 11 bootcd (bootcd = linux) it takes around 8 minutes to restore 4GB.