I'll try to do an update a little later tonight.
Christopher, will PM you what you need for the running totals.
I thought I saw someone with a new drive yesterday?
Printable View
I'll try to do an update a little later tonight.
Christopher, will PM you what you need for the running totals.
I thought I saw someone with a new drive yesterday?
Anvil,
Yes. canthearu had a 64gb Patriot Torqx. He just picked the same weekend that the XS server died. Everything since the 15th is gone.
It was 64GB, Phison controlled, and was clocking around 18MB/s.
Any thoughts on the Plextor M3 64GB or 128GB? For testing?
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 12
187 95/95/81571929
Average MB/s: 55.17
A rough guess: 50327.24GB
Attachment 124171
I'll get around to re-adding my posts about the torqx sometime today.
Christopher
Double-click inside the TiB Written field (the blue one) and restart the app. (need to be idle when double-clicking)
canthearu
Welcome!
:clap: Would love to see any recent Plextor (or Corsair Performance Pro) tested! Keen to see the WA vs Samsung 830.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
Last entry, the one that disappeared.
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
721.56TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 23
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 6492
MD5 OK
34.54MiB/s on avg (~45 hours)
@Christopher
Still not stable, lets post some updates while we still can...
New entry
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
727.30TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 23
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 6543
MD5 OK
33.78MiB/s on avg (~95 hours)
Attachment 124172
Have you tried?Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
(and checked that the SMART attributes are telling something useful?)
The 64GB is sufficient imho. (unless the 128GB was/is almost as cheap as the 64GB or you wan't a drive that potentially lasts 2x the 64GB :))
I really think we should get a C300 in here to complement the existing controllers.
I think that MTRON will last a LONG time. Hehe.
Thanks for the help, Anvil.
My estimate was based on erase count numbers, and I was only off by about 300GB.
Actual count: 50,769GiB, 49.58TiB
:up: Go for it! Don't forget to post your results daily! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bulanula
Had a Crucial C300 256GB SSD that just died a week ago. Purchased back in March of 2011. Gave me a good 11 months.
Bought a Crucial M4 256GB SSD to take its place. So far, so good.
I assume you're going to RMA the C300?Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
I've read about some strange, isolated issues with the C300. Did you see any smart data before (within a few days) the drive died?
New drive being endurance tested. (Patriot Torqx 64gig)
Controller: Phison PS3105-S5
NAND: Toshiba 32nm (probably 5000 cycle rated)
Cache: 128meg DDR
Impressions: Drive has great difficulty maintaining high performance under heavy load. Either I am seeing huge write amplification during the endurance test, or (and probably more likely), the drive simply isn't erasing blocks in a timely manner. This drive may need a lot of idle time to perform decently.
Benchmarks after inital wear in: (4th run of crystaldiskmark or so)
Attachment 124179Attachment 124180
Day 0 SMART values:
Attachment 124181
I am pretty sure attribute AA represents bad block counts. I will keep people updated when that changes.
I am also fairly sure AD represents wear levelling. I'm not too sure what the numbers mean ... but the 2nd and 3rd raw numbers of this attribute increment individually.
DAY 3 images:
Attachment 124182
Attachment 124183
Drive seems to like that 16meg per second number.
Most future updates will be text-only from now to save time/sanity.
Drive hours: 126
GB written: 6897.82
Avg MB/s: 16.93
Bad blocks: 83
Wear cycle counters: 0/435/673 (100 normalized)
@canthearu
A few missing details,
Size of static data
OS and platform
Date started
Over-provisioning?
I was actually pretty surprised by the performance of the Torqx. The 3016 Phison is probably pretty similar to the 3105 in the Torqx, but I'm 99.4% the firmware of the 3016 uses block level mapping and not page level mapping. If you look at the 512K results in CDM, the 3016, when fully populated, is only gonna do like 12MB/s. The 3105 is just much, much better.
And it somewhat makes sense -- the Phison was surely a CF/SD/etc controller initially, optimized for taking pictures at least 1MB in size.
The Patriot PS-100 I have uses the 3016 with 32nm Toshiba, 32gbit devices. It does get TRIM, but not NCQ. And it sucks. A lot. You can't even complete a run of AS-SSD.
The MyDigitalSSD Bullet 128GB mSATA uses the Phison, and it's quite good. I just don't think it holds up well over time.
Static Data: 15gigQuote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
OS/Platform: Core duo 2 - 2160@3.0ghz - Windows 7 x64
Date Started: 16/2/2012
Over-Provisioning: None
Well, one thing I do notice with the Philson controller is that there is an enormous gap between factory and steady state performance ... however I'm unsure if the controller would eventually garbage collect and restore decent performance from steady state if left alone for a while. Post Secure-Erase, the drive is quite fast .... but very soon degenerates back to the slow steady state. I might turn off the endurance test for a night soon and see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
All I can see now is the huge gap between the Philson and the other SSDs I own. A sandforce drive will happily accept 60meg per sec or more (depending on drive/NAND) of writes for as long as you want without performance significantly falling away.
Edit: Yep, I do get your point about Philson controllers being generally for portable media .... my USB 3.0 memory stick uses a Philson controller, and for a USB stick, it is quite excellent (where write speeds can be as awful as 2-3 meg per second if you don't pay attention to what you buy)
Yeah, I wouldn't bother with seeing if the Phison is going to recover... Just keep testing it, unless it goes down to single digits. After a while it should find an equilibrium of sorts.
My 32GB Patriot PS 100 only manages 3 or 4 MB/s in the test.
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 13
GiB : 55929.81
TiB : 54.6190
MBs : 55.70
187 95/94/90129124
Attachment 124195
anyone else notice this: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/swanson...BleakFlash.pdf
Yes. It didn't really do much to change my opinion that depending on how you want to look at it, the best (quality) drives have already been made. Future drives may be faster -- but not necessarily better.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Who is really looking forward to a drive with TLC NAND? Not me.
Future drives won't be all bad ... eventually the increased density will lead to increased sizes, which will largely offset the reduction in erase cycle endurance. At the moment, most of the increased density is being used to reduce prices, but we can only go so far in that direction while maintaining performance/endurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
I certainly won't be buying a TLC NAND based drive (unless it is to murder in an endurance test :D ) Giving up way too much endurance for far too little space.