Printable View
Looking through the past, it seems that lack of a SATA 3 controller may be causing my Intel 520 to run slower then it can.
The best computer I have currently is an Intel i5-760 with only SATA 2 ports.
At some stage in the future, I'll have to try and get a benchmark run or 2 on my intel 520 using an intel sata 3 board, see if it makes a difference, in particular to the overall endurance MB/s.
I would guess moving to a SATA III port would increase speed, but only by a few MB/s avg.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
I've experimented with the Chronos D and Samsung 830 on SATA II ports, and you do lose a few MBs even though you're not constrained by 3gbps bandwidth.
If you wanted to, and I'm not saying you should, Apricorn makes a Velocity Solo PCIe x1 SATA III controller card (the SSD mounts to it). You wouldn't get max reads, but you'd get a modest increase in write speed. I was thinking about getting one for other purposes, but it could work for you (or something like it).
Yeah, not too thrilled about using Marvel SATA ports for SSDs.
I would just want to run a few benchmarks and to do a little bit of endurance testing to see the speed difference. It probably isn't a lot :)
ANOTHER DEAD MTRON
I powered down the rig to install a second SATA power lead and install the new Turbo. When I booted back up, the MTRON 7025 was keeping Windows from booting. It was being detected in the UEFI and the activity light is on, but it's basically dead. Sounds similar to B.A.T.'s MTRON.
I tried it in a USB enclosure and on several different systems, but to no avail. It's locked up or something, but it doesn't work.
And no, I didn't short it out!
So cross the MTRON of the list.
Wow, that is highly unexpected, considering the drive was only just starting to get worn in. I thought I'd never see the death of that drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
It's almost assuredly a firmware problem. I've asked if I can send it back to the factory to have the firmware updated.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
On the bright side, the new Turbo 1.7FW 64GB is up and running. Here is the SMART data straight out of the box:
https://www.box.com/shared/static/g1...75m2ipyfrz.png
And then after formatting, here are some benches:
https://www.box.com/shared/static/0q...3t7zf3qcgc.png
Torqx day 12
Drive hours: 286
GiB written: 15,201.03 (14.8452 TiB)
Avg MB/s: 16.91 MB/s
Bad blocks: 83
Wear cycle counter: 0/999/1509
Intel 520 - day 3
Drive hours: 94
Avg MB/s: 75.42 MB/s
Host GB written (F1): 21,005.375 GiB (20.51 TiB , 672172 raw)
NAND writes (F9): 14,860 GiB (14.51 TiB)
Reallocated sectors (05): 0
Failure count (AB, AC): 0 program, 0 erase
Media Wearout Indicator (E9): 98 (0 raw)
E9 has started to move.
Here is a comparison from my testing and that done by Vapor. Vapor had a modified OCZ V2 drive with LTT disabled and itwas using Hynix nand. Mine was a V3 using IMFT nand. SF drives stop at MWI 10, whilst it appears the threshold for the 520 is 0. Too early to be sure but it certainly looks like the 520 is able to write more before a drop in the MWI is recorded.
(I did not have a smart logger at the time so the values are not precise)
Attachment 124286
Attachment 124288
I've kept the MTRON, in case it returns?
Doesn't look like the MTRON's are up for this kind of "testing", weird!
Attachment 124289
The MTRON FW is probably not very rugged. The other Pro 7000 is the system drive in the endurance rig.
I'll give it a shot, but I'd say it's probably very dead.
UPDATE
It can be detected (sort of), but causes system instability and it never shows up in Explorer. Also, there are two LEDs on the PCB. One is the activity light (which isn't on) and the other is probably a fault LED (which is lit).
a
-------------------
And the new Turbo has been working for 14 hours now without popping a bad block, so it's doing better than the last one.
Typical controller failure.
Seems to be very common with SSDs of today ( especially SF drives ).
Maybe in the future SSDs will mature just like HDDs did ( they had problems in the early days too ) ???
With sandforce drives, I think it is less outright failure of the controller, but either:
a) NAND chip failure
b) Firmware data tracking failure (probably most common)
Causes the controller to go into a panic mode.
Intel 320 drives have a special panic mode that you can secure erase from to recover a usable drive, sandforce drives don't.
Ao1,
When my MWI indicator hits 90, I'll supply the smart log for my 520 so you can have relatively precise indicators for when the MWI changes.
I predict at least 250TB writes before MWI is exhausted on the 520 (but secretly hoping for 300TB odd or more)
Yeah, I don't think the controller is failed; the firmware just got lost somewhere on the way. You can have the fastest drive in the world, but if the FW is junk, so is the whole drive.
Oh and SF's RAISE is supposed to prevent failure from one NAND device, so if that is killing SFs, then it lends more credence to my "RAISE sucks" theory.
No, RAISE cannot protect against an entire NAND device breaking, only from an individual NAND chip. (each device can have multiple NAND chips stacked together) There isn't enough spare space for an entire NAND device to dieQuote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
I use the term "devices" frequently; Note, this is not the whole package, which may consist of many dice (at least the way I use it), but rather another name for a die. A 512GB Samsung 830 has eight 8-die packages, or 64 8GB (64gbit) "devices" total for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
Note -- I may just be using "device" wrong, but we were saying the same thing.
So in the case of a 120GB Toggle NAND equipped Mushkin Chronos Deluxe, it has 32gbit devices. So it could supposedly withstand the loss of one of those (4GB worth) through RAISE. Not a whole package, which might be several 4GB dies.
Sorry :) didn't mean to confuse -- we should create a master glossary of SSD terminology! Maybe I'll get started on that.
Vertex Turbo 64GB Day 1
7,793.97 GB
82.11 MB/s
0 Erase Failure
0 Program Failure
0 Write Failure
27 Hours
Attachment 124301Attachment 124302
The Vertex is using the same type and amount of static data as the old Turbo and 830.
Patriot Torqx-2 64GB - Day 13
Drive hours: 311
GiB written: 16,722.24 (16.3303 TiB)
Avg MB/s: 17.08 MB/s
Bad blocks: 83
Wear cycle counter: 0/1092/1646
Intel 520 60GB - Day 4
Drive hours: 119
Avg MB/s: 75.09 MB/s
Host GB written (F1): 27,686.93 GiB (27.04 TiB , 885982 raw)
NAND writes (F9): 19,585 GiB (19.13 TiB)
Reallocated sectors (05): 0
Failure count (AB, AC): 0 program, 0 erase
Media Wearout Indicator (E9): 96
Why am I having such bad luck with drives as of late? Hopefully, the new Turbo is the first in a new wave of more successful drives.
Because the drives don't have the name Intel in them :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
Well, the vertex turbo (barefoot) should be returned under warranty if you can and haven't already. Performed well below spec. Hopefully this one will give a good show. Unfortunately, the barefoot controller has always had a lot of weird and wonderful behaviours.
The 2nd MTRON drive was likely just bad luck or bad programming on the effort of the drive's creators.
If I was going to add a new drive to the burning, it would have to be an ocz petrol or a drive with 20nm NAND. A corsiar performance pro would also be a good drive, but they are only 128gig and the pricing is kinda scary for something that is going to be endurance tested to death.
Well, I email my way into some FW updates for the MTRONs. I'm hoping I can flash the PRO 7025 back into business.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
The Indilinxes are strange and wonderful sometimes, aren't they? The old one was finding at least one bad block every day, and after 40 hours the new one is still clean. That gives hope that the future is looking better for the new one. It is my hope that the Turbo can go where no 64GB has gone before, and perhaps I can learn something on the way.
UPDATE
They didn't send me the MTRON fw, just the flashers for the M-Classes. So that's a no go. If anyone knows where I can get MTRON firmware and how I can flash it, that would be helpful.
In theory, the Turbo using 51nm NAND should be able outclass all of more modern devices (at least in this endurance testing). The M255 went pretty well, but I was surprised it didn't hang in their a bit longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
However, I'm putting my money on my Intel 520. Intel NAND has always shown itself to be highly durable, and with a supposedly debugged controller, it could go a damn long way. Of course, realisticly, it is still limited by the 25nm process technology that ended up being the undoing of the brilliant run of the Intel 320 40gig.
I think the old turbo just had a bad batch of flash in it.
Vertex Turbo 64GB Day 2
12575.45 GB
82.26 MB/s
MWI 96
0 Erase Failure
0 Program Failure
0 Write Failure
Avg Erase Count
226
43 Hours
Attachment 124312
Attachment 124313
Patriot Torqx-2 64GB - Day 14
Drive hours: 336
GiB written: 18,153.33 (17.7281 TiB)
Avg MB/s: 16.87 MB/s
Bad blocks: 83
Wear cycle counter: 0/1180/1775
Intel 520 60GB - Day 5
Drive hours: 144
Avg MB/s: 75.21 MB/s
Host GB written (F1): 34,212.25 GiB (33.41 TiB , 1094792 raw)
NAND writes (F9): 24,199 GiB (23.63 TiB)
Reallocated sectors (05): 0
Failure count (AB, AC): 0 program, 0 erase
Media Wearout Indicator (E9): 95