Printable View
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
640.57TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 21
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 5782
MD5 OK
34.02MiB/s on avg (~13 hours)
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 88/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 56 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 725327 (Raw writes) ->708TiB
F1 965294 (Host writes) ->943TiB
MD5 OK
106.87MiB/s on avg (~13 hours)
power on hours : 2756
Okay... Just got home. Somehow, the system went to sleep even though sleep was disabled. So I lost the past few days and its basically right where my last update was.
UPDATE
I power cycled the drive and got 14764 PE cycles, so that would be the number for the last update -- at least they had started updating in real time, but it was lagging behind.
Oh and POR RECOVERY COUNT is unsafe shutdown count. I just tested it.
Samsung 830 64GB Update, Day 43
FW:CXM02B1Q
TiB Written:
258.3029
GiB written:
264502.22
Avg MB/s
126.54
PE Cycles
14764
Reallocated Sectors
40960
20 Blocks, holding steady
1041 Hours
https://www.box.com/shared/static/s8...nbzycqc42j.png
https://www.box.com/shared/static/ye...sj5z7ji179.png
The drive essentially idled for 76 hours. The drive was powered on while the system was sleeping.
Annoyingly, the drive will no longer update Wear Leveling Count! Argh!
Host writes: 12,118 GiB
MWI: 43
P/E Cycles: 2,071
POH: 283
Relocated sectors: 4,096
MB/s: 6.31
**Enter a new challenger**
****OCZ Vertex Turbo 64****
Here is ASU and SSDLife.
https://www.box.com/shared/static/sd...8ofib8zpg2.jpg
https://www.box.com/shared/static/ge...slcmqsd1b6.png
I ran the NAND cleaner on it again, but I don't think the NAND cleaner does what I think it does.
Have fun and Good Luck :)
Thanks Bluestang!
But I should never have run the NAND cleaner. Speed is great at first, but slows down as it struggles with the marginal blocks which have to be re-flagged.
I was always under the impression that the cleaner would help identify bad blocks, not hide them. I guess if you have a drive with a lot of bad blocks, you may have a hard time destructive-flashing firmware. Which I did incidentally, even though it's a brand-new drive.
I found this in a Toshiba product spec sheet. It would have been a lot nicer if they included a scale, but its the only thing I have come across that shows the relationship between P/E cycles and data retention, so it’s a start at least.
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5...aretention.png
Hmmm, it seems like they are saying that data retention time is constant up to "X" erase cycles, then data retention time decreases geometrically (power law like C^-0.3) until 10X erase cycles are reached (data retention time having decreased to about half the initial value at 10X cycles), then then data retention time decreases at an even faster geometrical rate beyond 10X erase cycles.
I think they just made that up. I don't think they have any actual data to support that chart, except in the most abstract sense.
Maybe what the super-vague Toshiba chart is showing is 0 percent chance of losing data retention up PE cycles = rated, increasing chance up to 2x MWI, and a greater chance (greatly reduced retention time) between 2x and 3x rated PE cycles. Once a drive hits 3x rated PE cycles, the chance of retention failure is very high (and or the amount of time rapidly decreases)...
But I don't think it works like that. And the chart could be referring to SLC which is probably quite different from MLC in that respect.
Christopher
Could you fill in the details (I've posted a preliminary update on the drives in post #1) on the new drive?
I expect you did not physically verify NAND?
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
643.21TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 21
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 5806
MD5 OK
33.23MiB/s on avg (~37 hours)
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 82/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 54 (Wear range delta)
B6 1 (Erase Fail Count)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 731957 (Raw writes) ->715TiB
F1 974108 (Host writes) ->951TiB
MD5 OK
106.86MiB/s on avg (~37 hours)
power on hours : 2779
http://www.ssdaddict.com/ss/Endurance_cr_20120118.png
No, your interpretation makes no sense. It is clearly a log10 vs. log10 chart, with the decades clearly visible, which is why we are looking at X, 10X, 100X, and not X, 2X, and 3X as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
More importantly, data retention DOES decrease significantly before MWI is exhausted. Very roughly, data retention should be at least 10 years at 10% of MWI, 5 years at 50% of MWI, and 1 year at 100% of MWI.
I don't think it makes sense at all... That's my interpretation.
That graph can be found on 6 out of the 6 product datasheets I have aquaired for Toshiba drives. As content of a product datasheet I can’t imagine they made it up as any form of misleading claim would be problematic.
I found a Samsung datasheet that stated 10 years for data retention. I suspect 10 years from new and 1 year after the MWI has run out.
It would seem that you have a poor imagination! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
It is clearly made up. Real data does not look like that.
Maybe :D
Todays update.
Kingston V+100
338.6542 TiB
1939 hours
Avg speed 25.03 MiB/s
AD still 1.
168= 1 (SATA PHY Error Count)
P/E?
MD5 OK.
Reallocated sectors : 00
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=476293http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=476290
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
253,2724 TiB
20347 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=132 to 131
MD5 =OK
42.33 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=476292http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=476291
m4
262.4960 TiB
969 hours
Avg speed 79.73 MiB/s.
AD gone from 208 to 203.
P/E 4618.
MD5 OK.
Reallocated sectors : 00
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=476294http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=476289
The Kingston is back up runnung. Everything looks ok for now. I also did some maintenance in the Intel G1 after the screenshot to regain some write speed.
Samsung 830 64GB Update, Day 45
FW:CXM02B1Q
TiB Written:
268.6338
GiB written:
275081.03
Avg MB/s
126.54
PE Cycles
14881 <-- not the true count as it stopped realtime updates
Reallocated Sectors
40960
20 Blocks, holding steady
1066Hours
https://www.box.com/shared/static/51...87ib0gf4o6.png
https://www.box.com/shared/static/th...codh8s57g4.png
So there are still many questions about the SMART attributes, but at least POR recovery count is unsafe shutdown count, and wear leveling is PE cycles and MWI. But I'm puzzled at the lack of new bad blocks. That, and why PE cycles won't update now -- I think it should start in a couple of days.
OCZ Vertex Turbo 64 Update Day 0
TiB 3.4471
GiB 3529.87
Avg MB/s 82.50
Avg Erase Count
62 up from 1
MWI 97 down from 100
1 Program Fail
13 Erase Fail
0 Read Fail
12 Hours
https://www.box.com/shared/static/1t...bnhm60co3s.png
https://www.box.com/shared/static/iq...dm2fqbezeh.png
I've also decided to start testing one of the MTRON 16GB SLCs. I have the 3.5" 7000 PRO, and the MOBI 3000 should be here in a couple days. I think I'll test the MOBI since it's a 2.5" drive and will be easier to cram in the endurance rig.
Neither drive will have much SMARt info... but I don't really have a use for a 16GB drive without NCQ, TRIM, or much speed other than endurance testing. I think performance between the drives should be almost identical. They're not really good for much, and installing Win7 on the 7000 PRO took hours. Booting takes several times longer than it should, though it doesn't stutter and does have pretty high write speeds vs. capacity. I'll take the drive apart to verify how much and what kind of NAND is onboard - it's not clear whether the drives are using OP of any kind, but based on it's Korean origin I would assume Samsung SLC similar to what is in my Vertex EX.
Host writes: 12,632 GiB
MWI: 37
P/E Cycles: 2,283
POH: 306
Relocated sectors: 4,096
MB/s: 5.97
New firmware for Samsung 830 available today from Samsung: CXM03B1Q
Christopher
Did that VT64 come brand new, sealed with FW 1.7 already on it?
Also, if it came with 13 bad blocks out of the box, they should have been listed under "Initial Bad Block Count". No?
Bluestang,
As a matter of fact you are correct. But -- mine when unsealed had 18 initial bad blocks and 5 erase failures. I had a picture of this, but the earliest one I can find was after a few GB of writes from ASU and CDM.
It only had a couple KB of writes on it new out-of-the-box. But when combined with the runtime bad blocks is why MWI was at 97 out of the box. I've been trying to get some answers about this for quite some time over on the OCZ forums, but didn't get much in the way of help.
For instance, I didn't know that bad blocks factored into MWI -- but that's clearly what happened. I also didn't know that the purpose of the NAND cleaner was to mark bad blocks as good so that FW could be reflashed -- which makes me wonder if you could have gotten a couple more GB out of the M225 with a NAND cleaning and D-flash as at one point I couldn't dflash as there were too many bad blocks -- which doesn't make any sense. If they're marked as bad from the factory, it's like they never existed. If they're not and pop up in runtime, it does affect MWI.
Anyway, I screwed up last night and accidentally stopped the Vertex, so it's lost about 8 hours of running time. It's averaging about 82MBs. But after the NAND cleaning, it averages about 140MBs for a couple of loops.