I bought an Intel SSD 530 120G for my laptop several days ago. It worked well with the OS Win8.1 Pro x64.
When I paid attention to the NAND writes, something make me confused.
The situation is as follow:
The SSD with the OS is the first(primary) Disk, and the HDD is the second one. I have moved the cache of IE, chrome and Firefox to the Hard Drive using IE setting or mklink command, and verified it correctly. With the explorer working, the written data stream from cache is produced in the HDD partition theoretically, also I have got this conclusion through the System's Resource Monitor and the Diskmon from Microsoft website. When I cached several Movies embedded in any explorer without other operation separately, there are lots of written data traffic produced in the HDD partition, and just little data wrote in system disk(SSD), it's no doubt. Finally, each test(using one kind of explorer) improved less than 200Mb in Total Host Writes which is normal for system operating, but this process also consumed about 3Gb SSD's Total NAND writes in total in the CrystalDiskInfo 6.0.1. Also I have got the same result with the newly Intel SSD Toolbox, AIDA64 3.20 and CrystalDiskInfo 6.0.1. In fact, this written data traffic produced by explorer's cache in HDD is calculated into the SSD's total NAND writes.
Actually I'm not care of the SSD's wear, and I'm sure it couldn't reach the limited lifespan with normal usage until next generation product arrives. This accidental discovery confused me now, and the result above make me suspect the theory, Putting IE/Chrome or System cache into other medium/drive saving your SSD's wear.
Q:Here, I want to know what makes this strange condition happen, the drivers, system's bug, bad support for old mainboard, the system's setting&config or the special system log?
Thinkpad R400(GM45 motherboard)/P8700/8Gb RAM/Intel 530 SSD+Hitachi 7k500/Intel 5300 AGN/Win 8.1 Pro X64 with the Win 8.1's Default config and drivers, except trunning the service Superfetch off mannually.
I could make sure the location of explorer cache(IE, Chrome, Firefox) in HDD, also the written data traffic in HDD, and the vast imprived NAND writes in SSD simultaneously.
Thanks for your help.
I have tested the total NAND writes in OS win7 x64 newly installed with the all x64 drivers, the chrome cache is moved to HDD partition, and the result is same as the one in win8.1. when the Value of Host Writes improved only one, namely 1*32Mb total host writes, there are almost 2Gb added to the total NAND writes. Attached is the captured graph from which we could get the monitoring data and the disk activity.
Finally, I speculate that there is a bug in the Intel 530 SSD firmware, DC22, if nothing wrong is in the testing environment.
The beginning capture:
The final one:
I have copied the folder including several folders and files from HDD to SSD, the total size is about 1.70Gb. The Total Host writes improved approximately 1.80Gb, and Total NAND writes increased about 2Gb. All seems to be going well, The following is the captured graph.
The original capture:
The final image:
Thanks a lot.
I am not satisfied with your illogical and arbitrary reply.
Yes, the SSD could work well. But the Total NAND writes is calculated correctly ONLY for file copy process, NOT for the cache stream in the HDD. We all could notice this result from the custom or system monitor software data. The file copy and the cache data stream in HDD are two different things, the cache data stream is generated only in the HDD in the latter procedure, we mustn't mix them up. The correct file-copying result ONLY gives an indication of the normal Write Amplification (WA) of SF2281 controller, nothing else. Also this finding confirmed that if the Total Host writes improved 32Mb data, there must be at most 64Mb Total NAND writes happened. In fact, 2Gb Total NAND Writes data is increased in this process, which should have been generated in the HDD. In another aspect, there are 2Gb data improved in the Total NAND writes, only 32Mb Total Host writes. Do you think it's normal?
I want a specific solution or reply, not a general one. And please note the detail condition I showed in the main post and # 1 comment, actually, I have tested this problem with detail in OS win7, win8.1 and the IE9,11, chrome, firefox, especially, the newly installed system without other software, The same result is got in all environment. For your reply, do you mean that I should test it also in Win VISTA, XP and MS-DOS again? OR Mac OS, Linux, Safari? On the other hand, as for the Total NAND writes, I think it must be controlled by the DDS's framework or the SF controller, but not relative to the operation environment. So why not think about the product, the controller, the compatibility of the SSD's framework with the mainstream OS? or maybe there is a bug in the 530's framework?
I just show the problem for Intel's product to improve it, and hope we could lay emphasis on this actually happened problem. If we couldn't treat this problem well, I appreciate you if you could transfer this thread to the Intel's technical support or engineer.
Thank you very much and have a nice weekend.
I work with Joe_Intel and thought I would jump in here.
I want to start by making sure I understand your question.
Your initial question seemed to be "do writes to the HDD get calculated into the NAND writes on the SSD". The answer to that is definitely "no". The NAND writes is calculated directly by the controller based on total writes. This includes writes caused by Write Amplification (as you pointed out). Data written to other drives in the system can not affect that indicator since the SSD in question did not do any writing.
I think a comment in your first post may be correct. Your comment was "This accidental discovery confused me now, and the result above make me suspect the theory, Putting IE/Chrome or System cache into other medium/drive saving your SSD's wear.". It appears that write requests are being sent to the SSD even though you have directed the cache to your HDD. Perhaps this is some sort of temporary data that is quickly deleted? This is a question for the OS or software vendor.
I hope this helps. If we still don't fully understand your question, then it might be more effective to speak with one of our support agents. You can find contact information at: http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/support/contactsupport Contact Support
Thank you for you reply.
I could agree with your comment that "the NAND writes is calculated directly by the controller". If there are some data generated in the SSD when cache is working, there must be an improvement of the Total Host writes. In fact this condition haven't appeared, only 32Mb improved in the Total Host Writes, but about 2Gb in the Total NAND Writes, here the Write Amplification is at least 50! It is abnormal. You could assume that it is an OS or monitoring software error, there will be some temporary data produced, then deleted quickly, but the Total Host writes nearly never increased during this process. How could we explain this phenomenon? Possibly the OS or the controller have omitted such extensive quantity of data
Another possibility for this case is that there is the same phenomenon occurred in other company's product. I haven't another SSD, so never test this matter. Maybe "Putting IE/Chrome or system cache into other medium/drive saving your SSD's wear" is suitable only for other company's product, not for Intel's SSD, or even it is suitable for nothing.
Even though I mention this NAND writes problem here, the SSD could be used up for a long time in the normal operation condition. There is nobody besides me caring this matter, I had expected maybe we could find a "bug" and improve this product. But now I don't want to continue this stuffy topic. It is not because we have got a solution, but there is no further proof for it, and I am just an user.
Thanks for your attention, Joe and Ken.
sorry for my bad english
have same problems on intel ssd 530 240gb with abnormal HIGH nand writes compare host writes
the drive is installed on the desktop and there is a tendency: the less is recorded on a disk, the relative (and sometimes completely) higher consumption flush. The high consumption of nand writes occurs while the system is idle when there are no active task. Nand writes reaches in hour 3-4gb when the host writes about 0.4-0.7gb
sf2-based, relatively recently, it added an additional level of energy saving, sending the drive into a deep sleep, and allows you to compare the consumption in a simple modern competitors.
For example, if the "load" disk reading, sector 1 with the period of 125ms, that he had not time to fill the resource consumption (nand writes) radically reduced.
For example Kingston KC300 has the same problem due to the timing of care in deep sleep, but Toshiba THNSNS deprived of this problem.
Kingston KC300 60gb fw.507KC4
KC300: nand/erase: 9549-9346=203GB, nand/write: 6194-6070=124GB, host: 1689-1657=32GB, wa~6,3(3,9)
KC300 "deprived of sleep": 9555-9550=5GB, 6199-6194=5GB, 1694-1690=4GB, wa~1,25
Toshiba THNSNS 120gb fw.TA5ABBF0
THNSNS: 5388-5329=59GB, 2410-2376=34GB, wa~1,7
of the software every time run ff,opera,utorrent with identical settings/your open web pages, but no interaction has not carried out, remained idle for 2-3 days.
the main hypothesis about the causes of this behavior when on rare unsolicited entries ssd is deprived of the possibility to group the data to be burned forced to record them separately, allocating each record a new page to a flush.
differences between kc300/thnsns lie in different timing sleep:
the "ordinary" sf2 (with firmware versions 5.x) was two conditions:
<50ms, consumption of about 200-300mA<p> >50ms, consumption of about 50-100mA[subject to the availability dipm], withdrawal from additional delay ~1.5ms
the new advanced came another.
<50ms, about 220mA<p> <700ms, about 50mA, delay ~1.5ms<p> >760ms, about 10mA[dipm], delay ~140ms
<700ms, about 220mA<p> <2800ms, about 80mA, delay ~1.5ms<p> >2800ms, about 10mA[dipm], delay ~100ms
Is it possible to fix that in the firmware that was not elevated record nand writes due to the use of "deep sleep" with existing timings.
Implementation timings as Toshiba THNSNS or Intel 520
Thanks and sorry again for the bad English.
I am experiencing large NAND write consumption as well. I have a new intel 530 120 GB ssd with a fresh Windows 8.1 install. After the initial install period with many host writes I immediately noticed that the NAND writes continue to accumulate with little corresponding host writes.
As of now: 90.22 GB host writes and 227 GB NAND writes.
I have observed that I accumulate about 1 GB NAND writes per hour idle when basically the only writes are lastalive0.dat and lastalive1.dat updating at the usual 1 minute interval. If I disable these writes I can achieve several hours without NAND writes incrementing.
Running Photoshop CC with scratch disk on a separate HDD I accumulate 4 GB NAND writes per hour with only 0.25 GB host writes. This is sitting idle with no image open.
Basically, any small amount of host writes triggers a large amount of NAND writes.
I think this is a bad trend and increased consumption of flash write cycles. Frustrating earlier Intel products dont have this problem, and all because of deep sleep. Interestingly guarantee applies to Intel Host writes or NAND writes 20gb per day? What that comments from Intel will support on this issue?
I have check total disk writes with SsdReady, and value is small but NAND writes to SSD grow fast,
looks that it's issue related to firmware
Intel - please fix this as soon as possible in other case you will have lot of RMA/returns disks for 530 series
I really hope that this issue will be fixed with new firmware as soon as possible...
it's not good experiance have 10 times more NAND writes as Host writes.
I noticed that on compressable data behaviour is right for example I see 10 Gb Host writes and only 1 Gb NAND - it's right, but on real life use NAND writes grow much faster as host writes.
Intel support your comments?
I also thinking about "device sleep", but after disabling it on Link Power Management and and disabling on Power Options, huge NAND writes it is certainly exists