Vertex Turbo 64 Day 20
155590.84GiB
83.92MB/s
2789 Average Erase Count
45 MWI
529 hours
0/0/0 Program/Erase/Read Failures
----------------------------------
The Samsung wrote 25TB in 24 hours(!).
Printable View
Vertex Turbo 64 Day 20
155590.84GiB
83.92MB/s
2789 Average Erase Count
45 MWI
529 hours
0/0/0 Program/Erase/Read Failures
----------------------------------
The Samsung wrote 25TB in 24 hours(!).
That's pretty awesome Christopher
25TB per day on the Samsung, should be about 42 days (-1 day) until 1PB is reached, if it can maintain the speed.
I think it may be really proactive about swapping the static data around, because for a couple loops I'll get a straight 330MB/s. Then, for a couple loops, it just drops substantially for the last ~80GB.
Coincidence? Maybe. The 64GB did something similar. I've read that one of the cores does reads, another does writes, and the third does houskeeping. I think the drop in speed is because the controller is doing something else. And looking at the temp graph, it seems like it's using significantly more or less power throughout the loop.
It does seem to be updating attribute 177 correctly.
Attachment 124751
And then, out of the blue, I get one loop that happens at 360MB/s. I stopped the test for 8 minutes last night to run some quick benches to check for degradation, and I was actually getting 415MB/s seq. writes with CDM, or 17MB/s better than I could manage out of the box. Reads and randoms were fine.
How much did the SD Extreme 120 cost you? They're $120 shipped on the egg right now, which isn't bad at all. I'd love to see one of those tested, I currently have two in RAID0 in my notebook. They do the job well, and hopefully should be reliable.
Do you plan on trying to get some more definite data on the MTRON's? I dropped a 7000 in a fileserver and it definitely improved OS performance dramatically over the 7200RPM 3TB, especially when the boot drive is nearly full. I'd hope an SLC SSD would be more reliable for 24/7 mostly read only use than a mech variant, but its only 16GB...
Well, I didn't end up buying the SanDisk, but they were on a Shell Shocker deal at the 'Egg last week.
Did you get the FW updated on the MTRON? I tried endurance testing two MTRONs (MOBI 3000 and PRO 7000), which didn't work out so well (I shorted one, the PRO broke). I'm using a third (a 3.5" 7000 16GB) as a boot drive in my endurance rig.
I don't know what the difference between 17 and 18 FW is, but it's not doing anything for the abysmal 4K RW.
My MTRON says it has 0.19R1H2 on it. What version is the one you sent me?
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7256/7...2de2f6ac_b.jpg
I've been slacking at doing anything about it, since that box has no VGA/input devices/optical drive.
Version .18! Geez. That's annoying -- I was able to get in touch with Imation to get the FW. It took a while, but they found it.
I mean, it's not like MTRON is still around to hand this stuff out. It will work on non-Imation branded MTRONS I think.
Somehow, your drive has .19, a FW Imation was not able to provide.
@canthearu // I don't know about ZOMGVTEK, but I got mine really cheap. I put it in the endurance rig just because it's the only good use I could find for a 16GB SLC SSD. The E-rig doesn't do all that much and only takes up about 11.2GB. I happen to think they're interesting.
Ever since the existence of the Battleship MTRON, I wanted an MTRON drive. When I noticed them super cheap on eBay, I had to snag one. SLC and its age makes it interesting.
I just decided to actually put it to use as a boot in a machine thats been running 24/7 for 4 years. The Windows install started to get really questionable and the thing would BSOD daily. It's been running for a few days now without issues, looks like it should be fine for years to come.
It's too bad the second one I tried to endurance test died -- it was plugging along, full steam ahead, and one day it didn't survive a system power cycle. It powers on, and I was able to update the FW, but it is otherwise trashed.
Of course, like a moron, I shorted the first one out a few days in.
FYI, for the uninitiated: http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleship/
Yeah, the drive will likely outlive the computer by a factor of 10 :)
Vertex Turbo 64GB Day 20
162346.92 GiB
83.92MB/s
2911 Average Erase Count
42 MWI
552 hours
0/0/0 Program/Erase/Read Failures
----------------------------------
Samsung 830 256GB Day 2
48706.84 GiB (in 48.00 hours)
282.58MB/s
232 Wear Leveling Count
93 MWI
123 hours
0/0 Program/Erase Failures
----------------------------------
Lol, about 25 days to blast through the drive's 650TiB life. It kinda embarrasses all the other drives tested here.
However, it certainly does look like your 830 is performing more normally then the previous 830 tested. 600TiB is my conservative estimate for the drive life of a 256gig drive with 3000 cycle NAND, and your 830 is going a bit beyond that.
I see Ao1 wants to run an octane or petrol drive here.
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...nce-Technology
Christopher has beaten me to it as he has already ordered one for testing.
It will be an interesting test. Someone over at OCZ reported a MWI of 59 after 6 weeks use. Was that due to relocated sectors or P/E cycles? If it was the later then the drives don’t have LTT. If it was the former that is a new capability as drives tested so far seem to only respond to P/E cycle counts.
All will soon be revealed. Kudos to Christopher. :up:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...y-dissapointed
Patriot Torqx-2 64GB - Day 35
Drive hours: 839
GiB written: 53,232.00 GiB (51.98 TiB)
Avg MB/s: 19.88 MB/s
Bad blocks: 2/0/83
Wear cycle counter: 0/3327/5053
Intel 520 60GB - Day 26
Drive hours: 640
Avg MB/s: 91.66 MB/s
Host GB written (F1): 194,095.94 GiB (189.55 TiB, 6211070 raw)
NAND writes (F9): 137,455 GiB (134.23 TiB)
Reallocated sectors (05): 0
Failure count (AB, AC): 0 program, 0 erase
Media Wearout Indicator (E9): 57
Hmmmm..........
Attachment 124781Attachment 124782
Attachment 124783Attachment 124784
Hmmm.
You know, the Plextor has less-but-faster cache (256MB vs 512MB on the Octane). And faster NAND (166MT 32gbit 24nm Toshiba Toggle). Both have abysmal SMART data.
The drive the Octane really reminds me of is the Marvell-powered Intel 510, not the Marvellized Corsair Performance/Plextor Ms.
Attachment 124785Attachment 124783
510 on the left, Octane on the right
Just sayin'.
Coincidence? I think not.
Perhaps more questions will be answered when I start testing of the Octane
The Marvell 9174 controller has been used by Micron (C400), Corsair (Performance Series 3) and Intel (510) Oh and one other vendor that prefers to remain anonymous.
Each vendor has used customised firmware, although there are close similarities in the SMART values if you look carefully. Although the controller is the same each vendor uses different hardware configurations. The Intel for example has only 128MB Hynix DDR3-1333 SDRAM. Different NAND geometries & specification etc.
Performance of the 510 is however very similar to the Octane. The Smart values for the Performance Series 3 are also quite similar to the Octane. Strange.
Attachment 124786
Considering the difference between the Octane and Intel 510, it's pretty much remarkable how they perform so similarly. I am basically certain that if the two drives were to mate, their offspring would be pretty messed up. Their family tree doesn't seem to fork so much.
The Performance 3 is very similar, but I do not have one. However, the P3 makes up for it's lack of speed with FW that just won't quit when pounded and absent TRIM.
The Octane is like a 510 with slightly better high QD random performance and 25nm flash. And worse SMART attributes.
Anybody has an idea why current SSD controllers are pretty bad at staying alive ?
Especially with the SF drives they cause BSOD, not detecting by BIOS or simply die. It seems that the controller is at risk of dying much more than the NAND.
Maybe this is because no controller uses heatsinks and they get quite hot and electromigration takes its toll or something ?
I disagree with your assertion that SSD controllers are bad at staying alive. Some people do have problems with SSDs, but most do not (me included). In particular, it seems the Crucial M4 and other drives based on the Marvell controller are showing a very good history of reliability. Same with all of Intel drives.
In testing here, all drives have exceeded their design write life except for one old vertex turbo. (which was a dud drive) Some have exceeded their design write life by a huge margin.
Just like hard drives though, some drives are just duds, some people see multiple failures.
As for SF drives, their problems were mostly fixed by the last firmware release. The reason the sandforce controller used to cause frequent bluescreens was that the firmware had a bug somewhere in its SATA power transition logic. Fixing this bug fixed most of the bluescreens people were getting.
The other main failure mode of sandforce drives is panic locking. This occurs when the metadata for the LBA and NAND allocation tables on the SSD becomes corrupt, or some other internal error occurs. This is why we see some pretty weird behaviour on the old indilinx barefoot drives, but very rarely on the sandforce drives, because the controller detects it and locks the SSD down. The controller typically isn't actually dead.
Have you actually installed an SSD yourself? Or just reading what is appearing on threads?
So the Samsung nearly gave me a aneurysm today... I spent some time watching it spin the odometer, and I noticed that the avg. was dropping precipitously. It did take a few hours, but it seemed to have finished doing whatever the hell it was doing to cause such a massive drop in speed.
I expect it was just doing some truly extensive housekeeping.
So, I thought I'd toss in some temp data for the first 40 hours.
Attachment 124791
UPDATE:
I was able to hit 72,400+GiB in 72.01 hours, even with the slowness today.