Slow to Wake up SSD from Hibernation

[Coup27]

And also thanks to ALL of you for the explanations, this all has been very illuminating and productive.

Glad we've got there in the end, however I am still troubled by your 4k read score. What motherboard do you have? Is there a reason your using msahci and not your boards storage driver? the 4k reads are what makes Windows feel so fast. Mine, on the same drive, are around 50% higher than yours.

 

[zuffy]

And you included the startup of all applications, windows and co in there as well? If yes, interesting results - quite different with my Intel G2. If not - how exactly is this an useful comparison?

It's from after POST to complete startup. I don't have much in my startup other than AIM, Symantec Endpoint, Malwarebytes, Task Manager.

 

[know of fence]

Glad we've got there in the end, however I am still troubled by your 4k read score. What motherboard do you have? Is there a reason your using msahci and not your boards storage driver? the 4k reads are what makes Windows feel so fast. Mine, on the same drive, are around 50% higher than yours.

This is my MSI board http://www.anandtech.com/show/2929/6. Main reason for using microsoft drivers, is that I switched to AHCI today and those things installed themselves automatically , demanding a restart.
Your intuition might be -yet again- spot on. I have to investigate if MSI has driver updates, or to re-run the other benchmark until the numbers match.

 

[Emulex]

i had a marginal sector that was near the hiberfil - that file is usually placed in an optimal location for hard drives to read fastest . as it actually failed the system went from slower than normal to many minutes to un-hibernate.

 

[Coup27]

This is my MSI board http://www.anandtech.com/show/2929/6. Main reason for using microsoft drivers, is that I switched to AHCI today and those things installed themselves automatically , demanding a restart.
Your intuition might be -yet again- spot on. I have to investigate if MSI has driver updates, or to re-run the other benchmark until the numbers match.

Motherboard manufacturers are notoriously slow for updating their drivers page. Most hardware on a board you can get drivers direct from the manufacturer, this is especially true for Intel.

Current Chipset - http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&ProdId=3151&DwnldID=20019&ProductFamily=Chipsets&ProductLine=Desktop+Chipsets&ProductProduct=Intel%C2%AE+5+Series+Chipset⟨=eng

Current RST Storage driver - http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&ProdId=2101&DwnldID=20215&ProductFamily=Chipsets&ProductLine=Chipset+Software&ProductProduct=Intel%C2%AE+Rapid+Storage+Technology⟨=eng

Install chipset, reboot, install RST, reboot, retest!

If that doesn't improve your 4k's to inline with mine, outside of a secure erase and format there is nothing you can do.

 

[know of fence]

Motherboard manufacturers are notoriously slow for updating their drivers page. Most hardware on a board you can get drivers direct from the manufacturer, this is especially true for Intel.

So I installed chipset and storage drivers (as well as a new Bios and a bunch of other stuff), but I can't seem to get beyond around 15 MB/s random 4k read. I'll try again some time in the future when a system reinstall is due. Thanks again.

 

[Termie]

So I installed chipset and storage drivers (as well as a new Bios and a bunch of other stuff), but I can't seem to get beyond around 15 MB/s random 4k read. I'll try again some time in the future when a system reinstall is due. Thanks again.

For what it's worth, your 4K numbers are identical to mine, and they're also identical to the numbers posted in that thread I linked to earlier, so while they may not be optimal, they aren't out of the range of normal. I think you're fine - no reason to tear your computer apart (or your hair out) trying to get the number up.

Glad to see that all the input you got in this thread helped.

 

[know of fence]

for what it's worth, your 4k numbers are identical to mine, and they're also identical to the numbers posted in that thread i linked to earlier, so while they may not be optimal, they aren't out of the range of normal. I think you're fine - no reason to tear your computer apart (or your hair out) trying to get the number up.

Glad to see that all the input you got in this thread helped.

Intel boasts access time (latency) as 0.065 ms. So if 4 KByte are read every 0,065 ms, this should result in a maximum theoretical random Read of 63 MB/s.
Tested Latency 0.120 ms still means 34 MB/s.

Knowing this concerns me ;D.