Samsung 840 / 840 Pro in older MacBook Pro? TRIM support?

[Eug]

Anyone using the Samsung 840 or 840 Pro in a Mac?

The pricing for the 840 Series 120 GB is less than CAD$100 shipped, so I'm thinking of picking this up to replace my Kingston V+100 in my MacBook Pro, and then putting the V+100 in my new obsolete MacBook. The 840 Pro 128 GB is about $140 shipped.

One reason I got the V+100 was because it had the same Toshiba controller as existing Mac SSDs at the time. So, I didn't have to worry about any compatibility issues, including with TRIM. The other reason is the Kingston V+100's uber low idle power consumption, which is even lower than the Samsung 840 and Pro. However, I'm considering the 840 and Pro because it has lower idle power than most of the current competition. (For quite some time after the V+100 came out, most SSDs had worse idle power draw for some reason.)

Laptop is a mid-2009 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro 13", model 5,5.

The 840 Pro has much lower active power than the 840 according to Anand, but that doesn't concern me as much.

 

[Eug]

Bump?

Surely someone with a MBP has one of these...

 

[vailr]

Isn't Mountain Lion required for SSD Trim support?
As long as you have that, Trim should work.
Disclaimer: don't own a MBP.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

You should check over in the Macrumors.com forums, there's an extremely long thread on this series of hard drives.

 

[Eug]

Thanks, will check it out.

I didn't know ML included TRIM for 3rd party drives. You can turn on TRIM though for 3rd party drives via 3rd party scripts.

 

[Eug]

Hmmm... 595 posts in that thread. I only skimmed a few of the later pages, but it seems some of the 840 drives have boot issues on certain older Macs. I guess I'll look to other models. Or maybe I'll just keep what I have in my MacBook Pro, and harvest the 96 GB V+100 I currently have in my Windows laptop to put into my MacBook.

Or maybe I'll just chance it...

 

[mike2fix]

Don't know if this is any help but I have a 128G 830 in my 2010 MBP, no native trim support and I do have ML installed.

 

[manly]

Isn't Mountain Lion required for SSD Trim support?
As long as you have that, Trim should work.
Disclaimer: don't own a MBP.

I think there's an old TRIM enabler for Snow Leopard (and a newer one for Lion).

Didn't realize TRIM is baked into Mountain Lion for aftermarket SSDs?

 

[Eug]

TRIM Enabler

You need it for 10.8 too.

 

[Eug]

Installed the Samsung 840. Even though 120 GB is supposed to be slow (half the write speed of the 250), it's an improvement over my old Kingston V+100 128 GB. And a bonus surprise is that it's much, much lighter than the Kingston, and much thinner too.

However, the firmware update process is kinda stupid. First off there is no Mac updater. So I plugged it into a Windows 7 desktop via USB... and nada. Not seen. Tried other ports and dual-power cables, but still nothing. So, I plugged into my laptop and it was seen fine... but... the Windows updater doesn't work over USB. Furthermore, the full firmware version number is not displayed via USB. It's just some shortened version, so you don't know if the thing needs an update or not.

Finally I connected it up to another Windows machine via eSATA and then everything was detected properly. Firmware was already up to date. It took me an hour to figure out I didn't need to go through this process.

Then I tried to install my Mac OS X 8.3 onto it. Nope, it didn't work because it wouldn't let me install my 128 GB partition on the old drive to this 120 GB partition. So I repartitioned the old drive to < 120 GB and did the copy. Worked fine after that.

Xbench's disk bench on the Kingston V+100 was 252, and it is 292 on the Samsung 840. The Samsung actually has slower sequential write speeds than the Kingston, and indeed, max write speeds are the Achilles' heel on the 120 GB Samsung 840. However, the Samsung wins with 4K random writes, and there's really no comparison. On the Samsung, uncached random writes are about the same speeds as uncached sequential writes. On the Kingston, uncached random writes are much slower.

TRIM was not active after drive installation, but TRIM Enabler did the trick. TRIM is now up and running on the Samsung 840.

 

[TheStu]

Installed the Samsung 840. Even though 120 GB is supposed to be slow (half the write speed of the 250), it's an improvement over my old Kingston V+100 128 GB. And a bonus surprise is that it's much, much lighter than the Kingston, and much thinner too.

However, the firmware update process is kinda stupid. First off there is no Mac updater. So I plugged it into a Windows 7 desktop via USB... and nada. Not seen. Tried other ports and dual-power cables, but still nothing. So, I plugged into my laptop and it was seen fine... but... the Windows updater doesn't work over USB. Furthermore, the full firmware version number is not displayed via USB. It's just some shortened version, so you don't know if the thing needs an update or not.

Finally I connected it up to another Windows machine via eSATA and then everything was detected properly. Firmware was already up to date. It took me an hour to figure out I didn't need to go through this process.

Then I tried to install my Mac OS X 8.3 onto it. Nope, it didn't work because it wouldn't let me install my 128 GB partition on the old drive to this 120 GB partition. So I repartitioned the old drive to < 120 GB and did the copy. Worked fine after that.

Xbench's disk bench on the Kingston V+100 was 252, and it is 292 on the Samsung 840. The Samsung actually has slower sequential write speeds than the Kingston, and indeed, max write speeds are the Achilles' heel on the 120 GB Samsung 840. However, the Samsung wins with 4K random writes, and there's really no comparison. On the Samsung, uncached random writes are about the same speeds as uncached sequential writes. On the Kingston, uncached random writes are much slower.

TRIM was not active after drive installation, but TRIM Enabler did the trick. TRIM is now up and running on the Samsung 840.

What were you using to install/clone OS X? I've never had size mismatch issues with Carbon Copy Cloner, it might throw up a warning, but so long as the destination drive has enough capacity for the data from the source, it works.

 

[Eug]

I was using Disk Utility. I think this drive size limitation may be a new thing in 10.7 or 10.8 or something. I don't recall having this issue with 10.5. It's really annoying for backups.

For example, I have several G4 Macs, and I back up ALL of their boot drives to one 160 GB drive, in multiple partitions. Even though those drives may be 120 GB or whatever, they only have 20-30 GB of data on them each, which is why they all fit on the 160 GB backup drive.

However, for my MacBook (128 GB SSD) and MacBook Pro (120 GB SSD), it looks like I may have to back them up to a 250 GB hard drive in two partitions, assuming there's enough space.

Or maybe I just have some setting incorrect somewhere, but I can't figure it out.

 

[TheStu]

I was using Disk Utility. I think this drive size limitation may be a new thing in 10.7 or 10.8 or something. I don't recall having this issue with 10.5. It's really annoying for backups.

For example, I have several G4 Macs, and I back up ALL of their boot drives to one 160 GB drive, in multiple partitions. Even though those drives may be 120 GB or whatever, they only have 20-30 GB of data on them each, which is why they all fit on the 160 GB backup drive.

However, for my MacBook (128 GB SSD) and MacBook Pro (120 GB SSD), it looks like I may have to back them up to a 250 GB hard drive in two partitions, assuming there's enough space.

Or maybe I just have some setting incorrect somewhere, but I can't figure it out.

I never liked using Disk Utility for that purpose, I just stuck with Carbon Copy Cloner. But that may have been just from my early days with OS X being turned off by disk utility and finding CCC easier overall, who knows.

 

[Eug]

CCC is great, but there was often a significant lag time between a new OS release and CCC compatibility. Same with SuperDuper! So, I just started using Disk Utility. Disk Utility also proved to be 100% reliable for completed disk clones. With CCC and SuperDuper!, I'd occasionally get clones that didn't work.

Plus CCC is $40 now.

 

[TheStu]

CCC is great, but there was often a significant lag time between a new OS release and CCC compatibility. Same with SuperDuper! So, I just started using Disk Utility. Disk Utility also proved to be 100% reliable for completed disk clones. With CCC and SuperDuper!, I'd occasionally get clones that didn't work.

Plus CCC is $40 now.

I forgot that he was charging money for it now and trying to make a living... ugh, what a jerk

 

[Chiefcrowe]

What do you guys think of the Chameleon SSD Optimizer program?

 

[Eug]

What do you guys think of the Chameleon SSD Optimizer program?

I have never used it, since I've just been using TRIM Enabler.

The problem with TRIM Enabler is that the software is a bit of a black box. There is nothing to set, and it doesn't tell you what it is doing. However, it works fine on both my laptops (MacBook Pro with Samsung 840, and MacBook with Kingston V+100). TRIM support is listed active by the System Profiler.

I just checked a couple of reviews of Chameleon SSD Optimizer and they say the app also gives the instructions to manually patch in TRIM support. It's good to read that it's so open that way.

 

[ViRGE]

I forgot that he was charging money for it now and trying to make a living... ugh, what a jerk

This is completely off-topic here, but many, many years ago the organization I was working IT for hired Mike Bombich as a consultant to handle a tricky server transition from Classic to Mac OS X, so I can actually say I've worked with him (however briefly). The dude is nothing but a completely awesome guy. He works hard and knows his stuff, which is why CCC is such a classic utility.

 

[Eug]

Yeah, he deserves to be paid for his work, and I think I donated ten bucks once many years ago. I'd buy a licence if it was ten bucks, but at forty bucks I'm not really interested, esp. since I can just use Disk Utility or SuperDuper.

 

[umrigar]

I think if you donated in the past, he has some discounts in place.

 

[Eug]

Do I need to align the partitions in OS X? If so, how do I do it? The 840 is working fine though. I formatted it with 10.8's Disk Utility before doing the clone, also with Disk Utility.

I did the partition alignment on my Windows 7's SSD, and I gained significant performance in 4K read/writes. However, it fubared my wireless, so I'm now reinstalling Windows. I had a backup, but for some reason, my laptop can't read the drive. Bad day. Luckily there's nothing important on that machine.

 

[ViRGE]

Do I need to align the partitions in OS X? If so, how do I do it? The 840 is working fine though. I formatted it with 10.8's Disk Utility before doing the clone, also with Disk Utility.

No alignment is necessary. Mac OS X creates partitions at the right boundaries right off the bat.

Though it's weird that you had to do an alignment on Win7. WinVista and later should not require alignment.

 

[Eug]

No alignment is necessary. Mac OS X creates partitions at the right boundaries right off the bat.

Hmmm... I've been looking around and there have been some posts out there saying their partitions are off a bit.

However, I'll take your word for it.

Though it's weird that you had to do an alignment on Win7. WinVista and later should not require alignment.

It wasn't a new install. It was a clone from a hard drive.

 

[sauria]

http://chameleon.alessandroboschini.it/index.php