maybe bit "solved" too-early,
it seem the two SSD same/brand/ same denomination/size SA400S3 behave differently;

the earlier tested still show very slow performance with ext4 and "normal" speeds with ntfs.
the other SA400S3 show good write/speed with both ext4 AND ntfs -- on same computer, with same cables, on ssame sata sloet (sata3 speed capable).

so am wondering if the SSD is not somewat bit-defective or some other mystery involved.

The other elephant in the room is firmware behaviour.
Consumer SSDs have a minimum erase-block size and can suffer from free-space fragmentation issues. They usually don't have uniform write performance in general, relying on cache/host memory and a dedicated "fast" area to buffer writes until they can do a more efficient block allocation.

The upshot of all that is that SSDs do quite a lot of sneaky things in the background to appear faster than the flash memory actually is, they need regular "trimming" to release blocks and power-on-idle downtime so the firmware can do garbage collection, wear-leveling, and free-space defragmentation.
If any of that goes sideways (IME usually due to firmware bugs), performance will fall off a proverbial cliff.
Check both drives are running the same firmware revision (and update if any are available), check the wear-leveling counters in SMART, and try a full zero-fill wipe followed by a trim on the problematic drive.

Benchmarks or GTFO.

How strange they're still being manufactured in volume, and the technology (e.g. HAMR) is still under active development.

You were forced to think for yourself. Devuan can run any root filesystem supported by the kernel (as can most distros), the limitation is only in the installer. As for /home... That's utterly trivial to set up after install, with any filesystem you like.

2012 actually, don't hate, how many SSD's last 14 years?

I've one from 2013, still in use. It has all chances to live more than 14 years. This old laptop had 7200 Rpm HD but it was too slow
My other machine has 2 slots for HDs, so I use 1 SSD for root, for VMs and model to start them quickly and 1 HD for downloads and data storage.

it seems the ext4 and ntfs don't differ so much in speed after all;
must have been en error devil on the loose.

the only difference made this time with gparted was to create a new partition table from the start before formatting;
the ssd was linked under /media/user/5EA--etcet-etcet-etcet-etcet from the get-go for both format;
if i am not mistaken , the other ssd once showed up as /dev/something, but will have to test again to make sure there is not something else going on with that SSd.

EDIt:

maybe bit "solved" too-early,
it seem the two SSD same/brand/ same denomination/size SA400S3 behave differently;

the earlier tested still show very slow performance with ext4 and "normal" speeds with ntfs.
the other SA400S3 show good write/speed with both ext4 AND ntfs -- on same computer, with same cables, on ssame sata sloet (sata3 speed capable).

so am wondering if the SSD is not somewat bit-defective or some other mystery involved.

ext4 -speed screenshot for originally tested ssd
https://ibb.co/23RdpwvR
https://ibb.co/N2BhwwG2

nfts -speed screenshot
https://ibb.co/6JqDJGb6

I vaguely remember the size of first hdd drive i had (not the model) in late 1998 for an IBM desktop, I think it was a whopping 4GB.

I prefer ssd's nowdays though, much faster and so far ive not had any corruption yet, "touches wood".

IMO trying to gauge how many SSDs last 14 years is a bit silly at this point in time anyway, since most SSDs available back then have long been retired... Not because they failed, but because they were miserably small. A HDD from 2012 is probably a size that's still useful today, but an SSD from the same period is eclipsed by commodity SD cards and USB flash drives at a fraction of the cost.

375GB(ish) platters were state-of-the art in 2010, and 2 platters is about all you can do in a 2.5x3/8" laptop drive. These days areal density is a fair bit higher, so the multiples are different.

how many SSD's last 14 years?

IME, most of them. I still have the first SSD I bought (OCZ Agility 3), also from 2011, and it still works perfectly.
I have a couple of earlier models (2010 IIRC) I bought used, and they work perfectly as well. In fact, I've never actually had an SSD "wear out", the vast majority of failures are sudden and just outside the warranty period, much as with spinning-rust.

how many SSD's last 14 years?

I don't know how many, but my Transcend 32GB SLC SATA SSD from 2011 is still going strong, no errors, with an average erase count of 29315 right now, according to smartctl.
I paid around 100 Euros for it at the time.

If you think "I still boot from a single bargain-basement mechanical drive from 2009" is some kind of brag (outside the vintage scene, and half of that is using flash these days anyway), you do you.

2012 actually, don't hate, how many SSD's last 14 years?

I see all you need is to drop promotions for your "best" thing for no reason, just because you like to promote.

This thread had nothing to do with i/o schedulers, nobody asked which one is the best.
When told out of left-field that something is "The best" (without an "in my opinion"), asking for some proof isn't unreasonable.

You don`t want to get the idea:

I`M NOT A SELLER. You can use it or not, read the docs or not, test or not, I don`t care.

This thread had nothing to do with i/o schedulers, nobody asked which one is the best.
When told out of left-field that something is "The best" (without an "in my opinion"), asking for some proof isn't unreasonable.

ADIOS is just Adaptive Deadline I/O Scheduler. It means that it`s scheduler, just another (better) scheduler. Not default linux scheduler but new better one. It is designed to optimize I/O operations in Linux by providing low latency through adaptive latency control and dynamic deadline adjustments based on past performance. It also effectively prioritizes requests and groups.

You are not forced to use it, OK?

I share here some of my foundings that are good, interesting or better than default. You can just note that is not for you.

You can do it on your own.
I got the effect.

"Just take my word for it, it feels faster (totally not confirmation bias, trust me bro)".
FTFY.

Thanks, but no thanks. In my testing on low-latency RAID NVME the best i/o scheduler is consistently [none]. I run Gentoo not Arch, so my ricing is data-driven.