Printable View
R.I.P Samsung 470. You did a good job. :clap:
I'll be home again tomorrow afternoon and bring you more update from the m4.
And finally the Kingston v+ 100 has arrived and will be put into the test after I figure out how to run anvil app on 2 drives at the same time. Any ideas how to do that?
I wish I had a spare SSD to donate to the cause :p:
Not without sacrificing the 40GB static file, I think you should use the file for periodic tests though.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
So, let it rest, it has performed admirably well.
My Samsungs have been promoted and are now running as boot drives ;)
I highly doubt the freeze trick will work ;), would be cool if it did though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
(as long as the data is readable it doesn't really matter vs HDDs)
The log can be recalculated I'm planning on making it an option.
;), I'm prepared for that outcome, it might wear out my pc though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I haven't decided on what drive to test next, was thinking on one with a somewhat larger capacity (80-120GB)
I'm awaiting what happens to SymbiosVyse's drive as I've got a hunch that they might not be using throttling.
It should have started to make an impact by now if it had that option enabled.
Why are you switching to 0-fill? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SynbiosVyse
As Ao1 said, that setting (8%, too) will mask any throttling and NAND write speeds will likely drop, delaying the onset of LTT. Though, each day that passes makes it seem more and more like LTT isn't present at all.
0-fill is also completely unrealistic as a workload, but that's a separate issue.
Nothing special needed. Just put the .exe on both drives and run them both...no need to change filename or anything like that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.T
Thank you :up:
I'll just do that then.
250.38TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 6
MD5 OK
C300 Update
240.143TiB host writes, 19 MWI, 4055 raw wear indicator, 2048/1 reallocations, 63.05MiB/sec (still creeping upward...), MD5 OK
SF-1200 nLTT Update
112.938TiB host writes, 76.469TiB NAND writes, 64 MWI, 1223.5 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3 (still), 56.5MiB/sec (still creeping upward...), MD5 OK
252.40TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 6
MD5 OK
34.78MiB/s on avg (~17 hours)
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
124.02 TiB
489.2 hours
MWI 35 (drops by 1 for every 50 raw wear)
3268 Raw Wear
110.54 MB/s avg for the last 63.28 hours (on W7 x64)
MD5 OK
C4-Erase Failure Block Count(Realloc Sectors) from 1 to 2 (Bank 6/Block 2406; Bank 3/Block 3925)
Attachment 119239
m4 update:
354.9926 TiB
1167 hours
Avg speed 89.60 MiB/s.
AD gone from 164 to 149.
P/E 6221.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 119246
The Kingston V+ 100 will be ready in about 2 hours. I just need to set it up first.
m4 is the 2nd drive past the 2:1 ratio (actual lifetime : MWI lifetime). :)
Still no reallocated sectors/blocks and it's using 'lesser' 25nm NAND. Very impressive.
And now:
The Kingston V+100 64GB
Attachment 119255
CDI
Attachment 119254
Some benchmark:
AS SSD
Attachment 119249
AnvilPro
Attachment 119250
ATTO
Attachment 119252
A picture of the nand inside
Attachment 119253
The Kingston is filled with the same content of the m4 (just copied from the M4)
Attachment 119251
Did any SMART values move after the benchmarking/static data writes? Doesn't look like there's many SMART attributes worth tracking with how they read in the first screenshot. :eh:
I haven't written more than 55 GB yet but I'll know soon.
:clap:
thanks for the Kingston! that is the value leader, so many will be interested in that one. you guys are awesome with your contributions!
poor vapor, his graphs are getting more complex and bigger!
I'm looking forward to seeing what the Kingston can do as well. Anand stated it had rock solid sequential performance, but overly aggressive garbage collection. Guess we will soon see.
That NAND part # is : TH58NVG6D7FBAK2 (?)
That nand part# looks right. The picture was a little blury.
I think the GC is messing up the seq speed. The avg at the moment is ~79 MiB/s
How can the M4 have so many Non 4K Aligned accesses and have such low write amplification?
Most of that would be writes anyway given the ratio of reads to writes.
I was trying to figure out the write amplification of my old Agility60 with 10000PE rated NAND -- I've only written ~1400GB to it, but it's down to 84% MWI with an average PE of ~1600. I started keeping track of it a month ago after seeing how low the WA was on the M225 > Vertex Turbo, even without trim.
AD went down from 200 to 199 after little over 0.65 TiBQuote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Attachment 119261Attachment 119260
Looks like AD is behaving similar-ish to MWI. If AD 199 = 99.5 MWI and your NAND is rated for 5000 cycles, then you've used 25+ cycles to write .7TiB (roughly accounting for static writes + benchmarks), then you're looking at ~138TiB MWI Endurance and a WA of ~2.25x. That all seems plausible, especially so early into the process :shrug: :)
C300 Update
246.07TiB host writes, 17 MWI, 4158 raw wear indicator, 2048/1 reallocations, 63.85MiB/sec (13hr average after a restart, IDK why it's suddenly so much higher than it was the rest of the test), MD5 OK
SF-1200 nLTT Update (from much earlier today...MWI has ticked down a notch in awhile)
115.813TiB host writes, 78.719TiB NAND writes, 63 MWI, 1259.5 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3 (still), 56.5MiB/sec, MD5 OK
C300 and m4 are just a few days from out-living the Samsung 470 in terms of days and have just 1 combined reallocation (and the C300 won't even have exhausted its MWI when it passes the 470).
m4 update:
357.7790 TiB
1177 hours
Avg speed 90.51 MiB/s.
AD gone from 149 to 147.
P/E 6270.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
The m4 was not running the for 2 hours when I made the Kingston ready.
Attachment 119271
Kingston V+100:
2.2175 TiB
9 hours
Avg speed 78.97 MiB/s.
AD gone from 199 to 194.
P/E ?
MD5 OK.
No reallocated sectors
Attachment 119272
But Samsung 470 is 20% faster than M4 in writing and got there first....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I was not expecting the Kingston V+100 to be slower than the Samsung 470, let alone also slower than the m4. That is disappointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.T
I agree with you. The Kingston V+100 can only sustain the adverticed speed in bursts (like AS SSD and ASU) but not under stress like the endurance test.
I'm surprised by the write speed. Anvil's app is mostly sequential. The Anantech review stated that even with a highly fragmenting work load write speeds would not drop. :confused:
"The SSDNow V+100 has wild swings in power consumption during our random write test ranging from 1.25W to 3.40W. The swings would happen several times in a window of a couple of seconds. The V+100 is aggressively tries to reorganize writes and recycle bad blocks, more aggressively than we've seen from any other SSD.
The benefit of this is you get peak performance out of the drive regardless of how much you use it, which is perfect for an OS without TRIM support - ahem, OS X. Now you can see why Apple chose this controller.
There is a downside however: write amplification. For every 4KB we randomly write to a location on the drive, the actual amount of data written is much, much greater. It's the cost of constantly cleaning/reorganizing the drive for performance."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4010/k...lus-100-review
EDIT: Power consumption would be an interesting way to evaluate NAND wear.
Is there any way to get CrystalDiskInfo or Intel's SSD Toolkit working with a single drive in RAID mode? The controller has an array as well, so the SSD has to be in RAID mode as well.
Another thing, what exactly is WA?
Loving the thread guys ;)
WA = Write Applification
Is it me or does it look like CrystalDiskInfo is seeing the Kingston V+100 like a regular spinner HDD?
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
130.0 TiB
503.6 hours
MWI 33 (drops by 1 for every 50 raw wear)
3383 Raw Wear
110.19 MB/s avg for the last 15.8 hours (on W7 x64)
MD5 OK
C4-Erase Failure Block Count(Realloc Sectors) at 2 (Bank 6/Block 2406; Bank 3/Block 3925)
Attachment 119284
It does appear to show that NCQ is not enabled. The AS SSD bench also seems to show that NCQ is disabled. Can't see how that would impact the sequential write speed though on Anvil's app. NCQ does help reduce WA however.
Not all SSD firmwares and controllers implement NCQ for writes, and for those that do, not all implement it well. The Samsung 470, the Kingston V+100, and the Intel 510 all perform relatively poorly for high QD writes. Interestingly, those are also the SSDs that have among the highest sequential write speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
You can say that again :)Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
I'm performing a few small tests on an WD SLC drive just to see how bad performance can get during the Endurance test.
It looks like a terrible performer when mixed block sizes are being continuously written to the drive, a small break brings speed back up again but it doesn't last for long.
Will post a few screenshots when I've gotten a few more sample rates.
Nice to see that a realistic scenario is being tested on the Indilinx drive. Also very eager to see if the Samsung 470 will retain that data for much longer without MD5 errors etc.Quote:
It's interesting to see the difference TRIM has made to bluestang. Significantly faster write speeds and reduced WA.
Just 2.25TiB (after static data, etc) into the test, Kingston V+100's WA is already up to an apparent 4.17x :eek:
For reference, after 8.59TiB host writes and with more precise measurement, the Samsung 470 only had an apparent WA of 3.53x...and it ended up at 5.11x.
The M225->Vertex Turbo also had its WA initially climb then stabilize. Basically, wouldn't be surprised to see the V+100's WA go even higher then stabilize over the next few days.
(it is entirely possible my normal method of deriving PE cycles from MWI depletion is also not applicable here)
Current expected MWI Exhaustion is just 74.3TiB host writes, 1276 normalized (64GB) writes, and 11.4 write days.
Preliminarily, it looks like we may have a drive similar to the Samsung 470 :)
The WD ended up being a total failure (in this regard) it works just fine for normal tasks.
The latest session ended up failing due to the SF2 controller issue, the Endurance app was still running :), everything else had shut down, I was unable to save the screenshot though.
So, 1 hour of writes ended up in an average throughput of 21MiB/s.
The drive is capable of about ~140MB/s during normal large block IO.
This is a screenshot from one of the other sessions, it is just not suitable for this test. (I wasn't planning on using it, just checking the performance)
Attachment 119304
So, compared to this B.A.T's Kingston is doing just fine.
m4 update:
362.0994 TiB
1191 hours
Avg speed 90.60 MiB/s.
AD gone from 147 to 145.
P/E 6345.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 119305
Kingston V+100:
5.9450 TiB
23 hours
Avg speed 78.50 MiB/s.
AD gone from 194 to 184.
P/E ?
MD5 OK.
Attachment 119306
256.29TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors 6
MD5 OK
Everything is normal.
I have another question, would a drive ever reach a stage where data starts to become corrupt?
NAND/SSD makers have said that even if a drive fails due to NAND failure, it should still be readable for a year. Nobody has had any read failures yet (that's what the MD5 checks are about), and even the Samsung 470 that had NAND failure was still readable, so we have no evidence of any data corruption yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
C300 Update
248.648TiB host writes, 16 MWI, 4202 raw wear indicator, 2048/1 reallocations, 62.8MiB/sec (finally back to normal-ish), MD5 OK
SF-1200 nLTT Update (from much earlier today, been awhile since MWI dropped)
118.125TiB host writes, 80.5TiB NAND writes, 62 MWI, 1288 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3, 56.25MiB/sec, MD5 OK
I had my endurance test system offline last night--was expecting a power outage this morning for electrical repairs for my neighborhood and didn't want to have another cropped C300 log--so have only had ~12 hours of endurance test progress since last update.
Wondering if the Samsung 470 will really retain the data for 1 year. Maybe it will retain it for even more than one year ?
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
136.14 TiB
518.2 hours
MWI 30 (drops by 1 for every 50 raw wear)
3500 Raw Wear
110.72 MB/s avg for the last 16.11 hours (on W7 x64)
MD5 OK
C4-Erase Failure Block Count(Realloc Sectors) at 2 (Bank 6/Block 2406; Bank 3/Block 3925)
Attachment 119333
258.91TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors 6
MD5 OK
34.0MiB/s on avg (~27.5 hours)
Wonder how the C300 will end up performing compared to the Intel or the Samsung. The no-LTT Sandforce is also very interesting as well.
339TB. 69 reallocations. MD5 OK. My SSD is actually speeding up by about 0.1mb/s per day. It is 0.4mb/s faster now than it was late last week.
m4 update:
369.8099 TiB
1215 hours
Avg speed 90.34 MiB/s.
AD gone from 145 to 140.
P/E 6481.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 119348
Kingston V+100:
12.5365 TiB
48 hours
Avg speed 77.15 MiB/s.
AD gone from 184 to 179.
P/E ?
MD5 OK.
Attachment 119347
Why's the Kingston so slow? It's rated at 145MB/s. If applicable, surely LTT wouldn't kick in at only 12.5TB?
Seems it's actually 180MB/s on writes
The Kingston doesn't have LTT because it uses a Toshiba controller, not Sandforce.
It might be a combination of things like a aggressive GC and little time for the controller to shuffle data.
I thought as much, hence saying "if applicable." Would GC really hurt so badly?Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.T
Well, it sure looks like it. I don't have any better explanations, maybe some of the others in the thread can help with some understanding.
Keep in mind that the 180MB/s is based on a rather large block size, the endurance test is writing a mix of block sizes and >50% is less than 128KB in size.
It looks like the controller struggles with this mix.
Kingston V+100's apparent WA gets weirder...after being exactly the same twice in a row (4.166666x), it's down to 2.61x overall. At this point I'd guess the SMART attribute that's declining isn't MWI as we know it (i.e., not a linear scaling--relative to P/E cycle--counter) and therefore my WA calculations are basically useless :p:
It was at 92 (equiv) after 6TiB and is at 89.5 (equiv) after 12.59TiB...so yeah, definitely not linear and seemingly not related to P/E cycles (unless recent WA has gone from ~4.17x to ~1.19x, which I suppose is possible).
There are a few more attributes that could start changing, nothing like a P/E counter though. (unless there is some trick to interpreting AD)
C300 Update
254.5TiB host writes, 14 MWI, 4300 raw wear indicator, 2048/1 reallocations, 63.0MiB/sec (going back up again...), MD5 OK
SF-1200 nLTT Update (from much earlier today--I seem to be out of sync with the MWI movement)
123.188TiB host writes, 84.47TiB NAND writes, 60 MWI, wear range delta 3, 1351.5 raw wear (equiv), 56.15MiB/sec, MD5 OK
The M4 is going quite far already but I bet the C300 will go even further because of 34nm NAND and same controller type.
260.63TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 6
MD5 OK
33.36MiB/s on avg (~43 hours)
m4 update:
375.405 TiB
1234 hours
Avg speed 90.34 MiB/s.
AD gone from 140 to 137.
P/E 6581.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 119358
Kingston V+100:
17.3295 TiB
66 hours
Avg speed 76.59 MiB/s.
AD gone from 179 to 177.
P/E ?
MD5 OK.
Attachment 119359
Well, in that case the M225 will go even farther with it's 51nm NAND (10k P/E).Quote:
Originally Posted by bulanula
SMART attribute AD is definitely not MWI-as-we-know it. If it were, WA would have been .65x over the past ~4.8TiB. This Kingston V+100 is a weird one :p:
The controller is not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
0-Fill
110.64 hours
103.1149 TiB written
139.78 MB/s
MD5 ok
05: 0
B1: 29
E9: 41984
EA/F1: 106048
F2: 128
I really don't understand why you're testing with 0-fill. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SynbiosVyse
Also, what's the MWI at?
MWI: 76%
I misunderstood Ao1's post, I thought he wanted to see the results if I changed to 0-fill.
I changed back to 46% compression and the speeds are still 57.06 MB/sec. Basically the same as what it was before at higher MWI levels. From my understanding LTT has not kicked in yet.
If LTT has not kicked in now I somehow doubt it's going to. Could you please confirm write speed if you switch to 100% (Incompressible)? This is a retail drive, yes?
100% incompressible is about 41.13 MB/sec
As far as i know, it is a standard retail drive.
I think from here on out, sticking with 100% incompressible (to mitigate the skew from 53TiB of 0-fill) might not be a bad idea....or at least until MWI zeros out. (then return to 46% or move to 67%)
^^ This only applies to the SF-based drives ??
Right :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
All other drives can use any setting they want, it won't make a difference.
Wheew!! (wiping browe)...thought I screwed up there for a second! :)
I have considered alternating the fill-value for each session, not that it makes much of a difference.
So, 110 hours to get to ~75% = 440 hours to 0% or 18 days. LLT cannot have been set on this particular drive, so is it a peculiarity on this particular drive or do Corsair have a different policy on LTT?
110 hours is just how long it's been since he changed to 0-fill setting. MWI only moved from 81 to 76 in that time...but NAND write speed was also very low (~18.9MiB/sec).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
With the 46% setting (had nearly the same NAND write speed as 100%), his drive was on pace to hit MWI=1 after a total of 41.5 days.
C300 Update
247.522TiB host writes, 13 MWI, 4351 raw wear, 2048/1 reallocations, 62.95MiB/sec, MD5 OK
SF-1200 nLTT Update
128TiB host writes, 88.28TiB NAND writes, 58 MWI, 1412.5 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3, 56.05MiB/sec, MD5 OK
m4 update:
380.0042 TiB
1248 hours
Avg speed 90.19 MiB/s.
AD gone from 137 to 134.
P/E 6661.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 119374
Kingston V+100:
21.1626 TiB
81 hours
Avg speed 76.51 MiB/s.
AD no change - 177.
P/E ?
MD5 OK.
Attachment 119375
The Kingston is a strange one.... No change on AD.....
I'll be gone for the weekend and the next update will be monday.
Not really because the Indilinx controller has a really high WA. Ideally, you would need NAND that is rated for many erase cycles like 50nm SLC in the Intel X25-E drive with a controller that is modern ( supports TRIM ) and has a really low WA like the Sandforce which uses compression and gets quite a low WA of around 0.6 or a controller like the Intel / Crucial ones with a WA of 1.1. Based on this theory, I would expect the C300 to outlast the M4 because the controller is almost the same between the M4 and the C300 while the C300 has better lasting 34nm NAND ( compared to the M4 with lesser 25nm NAND ).Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
145.27 TiB
540.5 hours
MWI 27 (drops by 1 for every 50 raw wear)
3678 Raw Wear
111.22 MB/s avg for the last 16.3 hours (on W7 x64)
MD5 OK
C4-Erase Failure Block Count(Realloc Sectors) at 2 (Bank 6/Block 2406; Bank 3/Block 3925)
Attachment 119381
Vapor: so you recommend I run it at 100% (incompressible) until MWI hits 0%?
I just changed it to 100% and the average write speed has dipped a little since yesterday. It's running at about 46.22 MB/sec with dips to 42.85 MB/sec or so. MWI is at 74% at the moment.
107.4214 TiB written according to app.
E7 normalized: 74%
05: 0
E9: 45376
EA/F1: 110528
B1: 31
MD5 still ok
@SynbiosVyse
There is no point in running 0Fill on the SF controller, 46% or more should be fine.
--
264.79TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 6
MD5 OK
33.25MiB/s on avg (28 hours)
C300 Update
264.1TiB host writes, 11 MWI, 4462 raw wear indicator, 2048/1 reallocations, 62.95MiB/sec, MD5 OK
SF-1200 nLTT Update
133.5TiB host writes, 92.594TiB NAND writes, 56 MWI, 1481.5 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3, 56MiB/sec, MD5 OK
It seems like the Indilinx drive is indeed going quite far. I would not have expected that because of its really high WA. Maybe you upgraded to the new firmware version that is supposed to drastically lower WA with better algorithms or maybe TRIM really does help ?
thank god! ive got 8 x 30GB vertex in RAID 0. I have been thinking they were close to dead for awhile! Obviously they should be fine :)Quote:
t seems like the Indilinx drive is indeed going quite far.
100% (Incompressible)
28.70 hours
111.4313 TiB written total
40.80 MB/s
MD5 ok
05: 0
B1: 35
E7: 70%
E9: 50304
EA/F1: 114624
F2: 128
I think both, TRIM definitely helps the WA and the newer firmawres (M225 v1916 and 2030/Vertex v1.5 and 1.6) have better wear algorithms. The problem with that is they also added support for 34nm NAND which caused them to change P/E to 5k from 10k. If I had stayed on 1819 (or maybe 1916) then my MWI would have ran out around ~400TB :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bulanula
Have you (or can they be) upgraded to Turbos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
there are 5 of them that i ordered the day they became publicly available. So im sure i cant upgrade those. the other 3 can be upgraded, but i keep them all as a matching set as it is a raid 0 volume. I havent used it in months tbh, it just sets there.
there will be a time that i get back to them though L:OL
they are all on the .6 firmware, so i think they should be fine as far as WA goes.
@ct
Wishful thinking?
I bet you won't be booting off that old array unless it's for sentimental reasons :p:
I've still got a few V1's and they are doing just fine! (fw 1.3 and 1.6)
--
271.52TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 6
MD5 OK
32.48MiB/s on avg (89 hours)
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
170.00 TiB
599.5 hours
MWI 17 (drops by 1 for every 50 raw wear)
4150 Raw Wear
110.77 MB/s avg for the last 65.03 hours (on W7 x64)
MD5 OK
C4-Erase Failure Block Count(Realloc Sectors) at 2 (Bank 6/Block 2406; Bank 3/Block 3925)
Attachment 119463
100% (Incompressible)
71.30 hours
117.4192 TiB written total
40.88 MB/s
MD5 ok
05: 0
B1: 40
E7: 66%
E9: 57664
EA/F1: 120768
F2: 128
71.3 hours?...that's not your total run time so far. Need to put total hours you have ran so far on ASU, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by SynbiosVyse
That's just the runtime since I changed the setting. Is there a total runtime somewhere? I don't remember seeing it.
Ever since Anvil implemented a running average MiB/sec, there's no need to report any hours...total or recent :)
I often report hours (mainly for historic reasons) as my SSD is slow and I need to run the SSD Toolbox from time to time.
So when it dips below 33MiB/s it's time to perform a manual TRIM. (1MiB/s makes quite a difference in my case :))
There will be an option for resetting avg MiB/s every 24 hours. (makes it easier to spot changes)
C300 Update
278.3TIB host writes, 6 MWI, 4700 raw wear, 2048/1 reallocations, 63.15MiB/sec, MD5 OK
SF-1200 nLTT Update
145.875TiB host writes, 102.344TiB NAND writes, 51 MWI, 1637.5 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3, 55.9MiB/sec, MD5 OK
Out of curiousity, for MD5 test what size file are you guys using?
The test files I'm using are only several megabytes. I also try to report the hours as much as possible for my own documentation. I would like to report as many SMART characteristics as possible as well, including the lifetime reads from host.
It helps me figure out when I changed a compression setting, too. More info is better than not enough, right?
Really anxious to see how long the Samsung will keep the data intact. Which drive has a higher WA, the Samsung or the Indilinx controller ?
m4 update:
406.8336 TiB
1344 hours
Avg speed 90.19 MiB/s.
AD gone from 134 to 119.
P/E 7135.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 119469
An unexpected turn for the Kingston. When I came back from my weekend trip the drive had dropped out and APU was non responsive.
I'll try a restart and see if that helps.
m4 question: Should I update to the latest firmware or should I wait?
And we are back again with the Kingston:
It dropped out 26 of aug.
Attachment 119470
status now is:
23.6833 TiB
92 hours
Avg speed 84.30 MiB/s.
AD gone from 177 to 175.
P/E ?.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 119471
Problem solved and now the correct number are posted.Quote:
Strange. ASU is missing around 14 TiB....
Anvil will help me with this.
In real life I would have updated the M4 and as the test is trying to be as close as possible to real life I'd definitely update the firmware.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.T
There is a new attribute on my M4 256GB (C2) that looks to be missing from your 64GB, not sure what it could be. (mine says Unknown, raw value 0)
(C2 it is most likely introduced in 0009)
I'll try updating tomorrow then. :up:
First reporting using SSDLife Professional.
Attachment 119472 Attachment 119474
Health is BAD is seems :)
(as expected)
SF-1200 nLTT Update
148TiB host writes, 104.063TiB NAND writes, 50 MWI, 1665 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3, 55.9MiB/sec, MD5 OK
SSDLife Pro predicts 25 days left on the MWI ticker, my tracking says 26.6 days left....not sure how SSDLife calculates it, but SSDLife Pro was started at least an hour after the SSD ticked down to 51MWI and the data so far is very limited, so app's extrapolation is pretty good so far.
Attachment 119484