- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Debian and new cloned SSD has slowish speeds
Posted on 3/20/25 at 11:56 am
Posted on 3/20/25 at 11:56 am
I am running Debian with KDE on an old AMD system (phenom II 1075T with an ASRock 890GM Pro3 MB & 32GB of ram).
I had a 64GB OCZ SATA SSD that was about 13 years old so I decided to replace it as I just landed a 500GB 870 Evo for $50 and thought it'd be a no brainer upgrade. I usually just reinstall everything and start fresh when I replace a system drive but this time I tried doing clone via clonezilla. Here was the entire process from start to finish
1) tested old SSD using Kdiskmark as a baseline
2) opened 870 Evo and connected it to my win11 box. Ran Crystaldiskmark and everything checked out perfect. Drive is good.
3) Used live USB clonezilla to clone the OCZ to the Samsung 870 Evo
4) Installed the 870 Evo into the debian box
5) Booted up and extended the partition to utilize all 500GB of the 870 Evo
6) Ran trim on the 870 Evo
7) Rebooted
8) used Kdiskmark to test the 870 Evo. None of the speeds are as fast as crystaldiskmark in win11 but 3 of the 4 categories are faster than the old OCZ
From doing research on the 870 Evo and kdiskmark, I'm getting about 83% of the performance the drive is capable of from other users doing the same testing. And since one of the 3 categories is drastically slower than the old OCZ drive, I'm feeling like something is definitely not optimal.
So I guess my first question is, when it comes to cloning a linux system drive, is it possible to have a bad configuration that slows down a newer drive compared to the old? Would installing fresh change anything?
Any help or troubleshooting suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
I had a 64GB OCZ SATA SSD that was about 13 years old so I decided to replace it as I just landed a 500GB 870 Evo for $50 and thought it'd be a no brainer upgrade. I usually just reinstall everything and start fresh when I replace a system drive but this time I tried doing clone via clonezilla. Here was the entire process from start to finish
1) tested old SSD using Kdiskmark as a baseline
2) opened 870 Evo and connected it to my win11 box. Ran Crystaldiskmark and everything checked out perfect. Drive is good.
3) Used live USB clonezilla to clone the OCZ to the Samsung 870 Evo
4) Installed the 870 Evo into the debian box
5) Booted up and extended the partition to utilize all 500GB of the 870 Evo
6) Ran trim on the 870 Evo
7) Rebooted
8) used Kdiskmark to test the 870 Evo. None of the speeds are as fast as crystaldiskmark in win11 but 3 of the 4 categories are faster than the old OCZ
From doing research on the 870 Evo and kdiskmark, I'm getting about 83% of the performance the drive is capable of from other users doing the same testing. And since one of the 3 categories is drastically slower than the old OCZ drive, I'm feeling like something is definitely not optimal.
So I guess my first question is, when it comes to cloning a linux system drive, is it possible to have a bad configuration that slows down a newer drive compared to the old? Would installing fresh change anything?
Any help or troubleshooting suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
1
Posted on 3/20/25 at 10:50 pm to notsince98
I did something not terribly dissimilar from that a year or three ago. Different distro and different drives, but I didn't have any issues with speed. Phenom 2 if I'm remembering correctly is a pretty old chipset, which could be part of your issues, or at least why you're getting slower speeds than what it's rated to do, but that's just a guess.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 7:57 am to LSshoe
From further research it does appear that the SB850 chipset was not a great SATA performer as it was the very first gen Sata 3.0 chipset. I know the SSD is fine so I'll just have to be OK with it.
The only thing that really irks me is that RND4k/Q32T1 on 12 year old SSD is like 2-3x faster than the 870 Evo and I know that should be flipped I dont know why a newer drive would make that worse. If I just want to really squeeze more out of this rig, I'll just get a PCIex4 SATA Controller card and that would easily max out the SSD. I think you can get one for like $15.
all in all, it isn't anything noticeable and this 15 year old system is doing fantastic.
The only thing that really irks me is that RND4k/Q32T1 on 12 year old SSD is like 2-3x faster than the 870 Evo and I know that should be flipped I dont know why a newer drive would make that worse. If I just want to really squeeze more out of this rig, I'll just get a PCIex4 SATA Controller card and that would easily max out the SSD. I think you can get one for like $15.
all in all, it isn't anything noticeable and this 15 year old system is doing fantastic.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News