MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

Kilobyte Kid

MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

I bought a 1TB  MX300 but appears it has only 512 bytes physical sectors. All other SSD and HDD I own are 4K or advancend format 512e, and not 512n.

In fact I haven't seen any 512n being sold since 2010. Why is this device being so old school? It isn't efficient for storage and also quite slow as it slows down the I/O with these small chunks. My other Crucial SSD's are all 512e so why this one not?

 

The benchmarks with this MX300 never passes over the 490 MB read/write in my DEll T7810 workstation on SATA III 6GB/s ports. I am afraid that this is due the small chunks the MX300 and system has to handle.

 

Maybe I should return this SSD to amazon and stop with buying Crucial when the goning back to 512n

10 Replies
JEDEC Jedi

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

[ Edited ]

I don't think any SSD has ever used 512 byte sectors?  I don't think they're even as low as 4k anymore either.  Looks like it's 16k: www.micron.com/~/media/documents/products/product-flyer/3d_nand_flyer.pdf

From memory, I think the C300 (way back in 2010) was the last Crucial 4k drive.

 

What it identifies itself to Windows as for backwards compatibility is another matter...

 

The max transfer speed of sata 3 after 8bit to 10 bit conversion and other overheads is ~520MB/sec so it's not far off it.

______________________________________

Did a user help you? Say thanks by giving Kudos!
How do I know what memory to buy?
Still need help? Contact Crucial Customer Service
Remember to regularly backup your important data!

Kilobyte Kid

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

this is wat diskpart is telling me in windows:

Physical sector size: 512 Bytes

Logical sector size: 512 Bytes

 

All other SSD (also Crucial) and HDD have a physical sector size of 4096 as shown in diskpart.

 

also the spec sheet of the MX300 says "Industry-standard, 512-byte sector size support" Yeah industry standard between in the eighties and nineties....

 

see specsheet:

http://www.websupplies.gr/download/datasheet/9682

 

 

JEDEC Jedi

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

[ Edited ]

How an SSD presents itself to the OS bears little relation to how it works internally.  The magic is all in the Flash Translation Layer.

The 3D NAND has 16k pages but 16k sectors aren't really a thing in Windows.  I guess if they figured the drive is going to lie about it's sector size for backwards compatibility, why not lie 512 rather than 4k for maximum compatibility?

 

The default partition alignment of 1MB will be fine as it's divisible by both 16K for the drive and 4K for NTFS.

 

 

[edit]

If you need anymore convincing... it's worth noting that bigger pages are the cheaper option for manufacturing high capacity drives - not smaller. Smiley Very Happy  You're currently accusing them of creating a more expensive product - not of cutting corners (which is what I think you were intending to imply?)

______________________________________

Did a user help you? Say thanks by giving Kudos!
How do I know what memory to buy?
Still need help? Contact Crucial Customer Service
Remember to regularly backup your important data!

Highlighted
JEDEC Jedi

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

Could you check what result would you get with this command line (run it in elevated mode, as an administrator):

 

fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:

______________________________________

FAQs and Top Forum Solutions
Did a user help you? Say thanks by giving Kudos!
How do I know what memory to buy?
Still need help? Contact Crucial Customer Service
Remember to regularly backup your important data!

Kilobyte Kid

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

[ Edited ]

C:\Windows\system32>fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo f:
NTFS Volume Serial Number :       *removed personal information*
NTFS Version   :                   3.1
LFS Version    :                   2.0
Number Sectors :                   0x000000007a3ec7ff
Total Clusters :                   0x0000000003d1f63f
Free Clusters  :                   0x0000000003499f21
Total Reserved :                   0x0000000000000000
Bytes Per Sector  :                512
Bytes Per Physical Sector :        512
Bytes Per Cluster :                16384
Bytes Per FileRecord Segment    :  1024
Clusters Per FileRecord Segment :  0
Mft Valid Data Length :            0x0000000000040000
Mft Start Lcn  :                   0x0000000000030000
Mft2 Start Lcn :                   0x0000000000000001
Mft Zone Start :                   0x0000000000030000
Mft Zone End   :                   0x0000000000033220
Max Device Trim Extent Count :     0
Max Device Trim Byte Count :       0x0
Max Volume Trim Extent Count :     62
Max Volume Trim Byte Count :       0x40000000

Megabyte Maverick

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

4k sectors were only intended for magnetic drives which have a higher rate of data inconsistency and cyclic redundancy checks,  on an SSD it doesn't matter a bit as error correction is performed in the controller prior to writing out to the nand, which is done so in parallel rather than sequential chunks.

JEDEC Jedi

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

Wouter1967, you are right, it seems that the drive reports 512 bytes per phisical sector. I don't think however it really uses such small phisical sectors. It may have something to do with the flash translation layers and how the drive's controller emulates the sectors for OS purposes. To be sure about that we would probably have to ask crucial or micron directly.

______________________________________

FAQs and Top Forum Solutions
Did a user help you? Say thanks by giving Kudos!
How do I know what memory to buy?
Still need help? Contact Crucial Customer Service
Remember to regularly backup your important data!

Kilobyte Kid

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

I contacted Crucial directly through phone and email, but they did not respond.

 

Even if the drive doesn't use these small physical sectors, the I/O still has to deal with the small chunks

JEDEC Jedi

Re: MX300 is NOT advanced format (4K or 512e), but 512n physical sectors

[ Edited ]

The addressing overhead would be negligible compared to actual physical IO performance.  The margin of error in a drive benchmark wouldn't come close to being able to measure it.

 

[edit]

And incidentally, this would be the same if it was 512e anyway.  Only a lacking in backwards compatibility 4k drive would avoid that.

______________________________________

Did a user help you? Say thanks by giving Kudos!
How do I know what memory to buy?
Still need help? Contact Crucial Customer Service
Remember to regularly backup your important data!