SSD Speed test in 2009 Mini - disappointing results, advice?

[Ruahrc]

Probably can't process through files at 6gb/s, but when you are moving those huge files from one location to another, transferring at 600MB/s vs. 100MB/s can really make a difference in time invested. In a typical setup, the computer is going to be waiting on I/O, or you. By putting in an SSD you drastically reduce the time spent waiting on I/O, which while taken one operation at a time isn't much, it starts to add up.

Also, raw sustained transfer rates are not the best gauge of "practical SSD speed". It is the small size (4k) random read/write operations that really makes up the majority of typical computing tasks- and here the 6G drives also outperform their slower counterparts.

Ruahrc

 

[MJL]

...... By putting in an ssd you drastically reduce the time spent waiting on i/o, which while taken one operation at a time isn't much, it starts to add up.

Also, raw sustained transfer rates are not the best gauge of "practical ssd speed". it is the small size (4k) random read/write operations that really makes up the majority of typical computing tasks- and here the 6g drives also outperform their slower counterparts.

Ruahrc

+1

seek times (moving the heads) on a typical HDD is around 10 - 12 mSec and on a SSD it gets measured in nano seconds.

 

[sparkie1984]

Hi guys, sorry to bump an old thread (at least i searched!!)

I am thinking of getting a early 2009 mac mini as a 24/7 running server and was thinking an SSD I have had laying around for a while (80gb) would do to help the power consumption rather than powering a spinning disk,

Are there any issues with fitting an SSd to early 2009 models

thanks for any help

 

[mdgm]

Hi guys, sorry to bump an old thread (at least i searched!!)

I am thinking of getting a early 2009 mac mini as a 24/7 running server and was thinking an SSD I have had laying around for a while (80gb) would do to help the power consumption rather than powering a spinning disk,

Are there any issues with fitting an SSd to early 2009 models

thanks for any help

Make sure you use a 3G SSD in that model. Don't use a 6G SSD.

 

[philipma1957]

Make sure you use a 3G SSD in that model. Don't use a 6G SSD.

this.


the 2009 mini liked the old intel's a lot those 80gb g2 models were nice in a 2009 mac mini

 

[mgartner0622]

Reading a lot of these posts has got me worried. I have a a Samsung SSD in my Early '09 Mini that's actually as old as the mini. This is what I have, does it seem normal?

 

[Razzerman II]

Make sure you use a 3G SSD in that model. Don't use a 6G SSD.

Was thinking of putting an ssd in my early 2009 mac mini - was thinking of putting the crucial m4 (6gbs) and not the v4 (3gbs) - what reason would I choose the apparently slower ssd?

Cheers,

Ray

 

[paulrbeers]

Was thinking of putting an ssd in my early 2009 mac mini - was thinking of putting the crucial m4 (6gbs) and not the v4 (3gbs) - what reason would I choose the apparently slower ssd?

Cheers,

Ray

The problem, is that many SATA 3 (6gbs) SSD's take issue with the SATA 2 controller in the Mac MIni and will sometimes drop all the way down to SATA 1 speeds. I highly recommend something like an "old" Vertex 2 (which is what I run in my Mac Pro). At Newegg you can get a Vertex 2 120GB right now for $60 or a 240GB for $140.

 

[Razzerman II]

Ah I see - thank you

 

[paulrbeers]

Reading a lot of these posts has got me worried. I have a a Samsung SSD in my Early '09 Mini that's actually as old as the mini. This is what I have, does it seem normal?

The Samsung 470 (which is what I presume this one is), was a decent performer, but nothing amazing. I really wouldn't be concerned about those speeds. Besides, the real advantages of an SSD is the almost instantaneous seek times over mechanical hard drives which is why even "slow" SSD's can feel so much faster than a "fast" mechanical drive.

 

[philipma1957]

Reading a lot of these posts has got me worried. I have a a Samsung SSD in my Early '09 Mini that's actually as old as the mini. This is what I have, does it seem normal?

you have an 800 series samsung ssd. you have the 128gb size. this is first generation samsung the numbers are normal. if you had a samsung 810/470 series 256gb ssd your numbers would be better about 240 write 260 read. keep in mind no ssd will be faster the 270/270 due to the sata II interface in your mini.

The Samsung 470 (which is what I presume this one is), was a decent performer, but nothing amazing. I really wouldn't be concerned about those speeds. Besides, the real advantages of an SSD is the almost instantaneous seek times over mechanical hard drives which is why even "slow" SSD's can feel so much faster than a "fast" mechanical drive.

the samsung 810/470 256gb ssd was the best sata II ssd ever made.

Why it never broke down and was pretty fast. For pre 2011 mac minis 2009 or 2010 it is a great choice.

Compared to the samsung 830 ssd the 810/470 is only okay. but remember that is comparing a sata III to a sata II

 

[mgartner0622]

you have an 800 series samsung ssd. you have the 128gb size. this is first generation samsung the numbers are normal. if you had a samsung 810/470 series 256gb ssd your numbers would be better about 240 write 260 read. keep in mind no ssd will be faster the 270/270 due to the sata II interface in your mini.

Thanks for the info, very helpful!

 

[California]

this.


the 2009 mini liked the old intel's a lot those 80gb g2 models were nice in a 2009 mac mini

So that Toshiba 512gb on OWC will really give my Mac Mini 2010 a boost? Now that it's running 16 gbs of ram, will I really see any more gains from an SSD?

Running OEM 500gbs/7200 rpm hdds.

 

[philipma1957]

So that Toshiba 512gb on OWC will really give my Mac Mini 2010 a boost? Now that it's running 16 gbs of ram, will I really see any more gains from an SSD?

Running OEM 500gbs/7200 rpm hdds.

yeah you will notice the difference.

most improvement is not long reads and writes of big files.

you may go from 90mbs to 220mbs and it only matters on clones.

so on a long copy 2x improvement.

the real improvement is with small files. as much as 50x on small files.


look at my disk scores first is a 3 drive raid0 ssd second is a 5400 rpm hdd


the small file random write is 123mbs on the ssd


the small file random write is 1.3mbs on the hdd.

almost 100 times the speed!


the small file read is 10.69 mbs on the ssd that is a raid0 3 drive (slows a bit due to 3 drives)

the small file read is .46 mbs on the hdd


that is 23 times faster.


the toshiba 512gb ssd should be a really big improvement over your 7200rpm hdds in these 2 areas

 

[California]

yeah you will notice the difference.

most improvement is not long reads and writes of big files.

you may go from 90mbs to 220mbs and it only matters on clones.

so on a long copy 2x improvement.

the real improvement is with small files. as much as 50x on small files.


look at my disk scores first is a 3 drive raid0 ssd second is a 5400 rpm hdd


the small file random write is 123mbs on the ssd


the small file random write is 1.3mbs on the hdd.

almost 100 times the speed!


the small file read is 10.69 mbs on the ssd that is a raid0 3 drive (slows a bit due to 3 drives)

the small file read is .46 mbs on the hdd


that is 23 times faster.


the toshiba 512gb ssd should be a really big improvement over your 7200rpm hdds in these 2 areas

Thank you for the head's up on the 512gb, that is quite a good deal -- not sure if I need space or speed right now and

did you notice I am running 16gbs of ram on the Mac Mini 2010 Server? I'm amazed how easy that was and reminded how expensive that initial eight gigs of ram was a year and a half ago.