6 more days at this rate for the big 1PB! I am so waiting for next Wed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
Printable View
6 more days at this rate for the big 1PB! I am so waiting for next Wed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
Mostly likely more than that...I don't think I'll run it over the weekend while I'm not here at work.
There is a Windows version, that's it!Quote:
Originally Posted by devsk
(If there was 48hours in a day I'd do a Linux version as well but currently I'm spending all available time on the Windows version,
it looks like OS X could be next (as I've got a Mac) and on top of that I need to get up to speed with Linux)
Will it stay connected or are you doing a short retention test?Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
My drive quickly drops in speed as well but it helps restarting the test every few days. (or once a week)Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Connected, but idle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
We have a new contender...
Samsung 830 64GB will be up for testing sometime early next week (I think - I mean, as soon as it gets here it's getting trashed).
The 64GBs do come with Norton Ghost and Batman: Arkham City (which I won't play because [A] it isn't Skyrim and [B] uses GFWL).
It's a good deal, and sequential writes are rated at 160MBs.
I expect the 64GB version to average around 110MB/s under endurance testing, but I can't wait to find out if I'm wrong. With practically no 64GB model reviews, I'm just guessing.
Here's hoping it will last a little longer than the Mushkin.
Been following from Day 1. Looking to buy SSD soon, but data so far doesn't translate to buy this, stay away from that.
Think it's about time to finalize charts and reach some type of consensus?
There is so much data and with new SSD lines coming out. I'm afraid all this hard work will get lost in the deluge of information already obtained.
Sincerely,
ET
We can put the 64GB 830 and BATs new M4 head to head (should he choose to test the one waiting for him). On paper, the 830 and M4 fw 0009 stack up pretty well.
Good choice! I was going to do one (or 60GB Intel 520), but you beat me to it. So I guess I'm waiting for 2012 to get an Intel 520.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
It should be possible to write code that would only need minimal changes to run under OS-X or linux, if you choose a GUI library that is available for both OSs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
Nice! Wonder what the WA will be on the 830 compared to the 470 :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
I was waiting for 520 as well (but who isn't?). November came and went with nary a whiff of a new Intel drive, and Octane launched but only in > 128GB varieties. Either one of those drives in a smaller capacity would have been great for testing. It's really disappointing that Intel couldn't manage a late December 520 launch (I'm sure someone will get me a SSD for Christmas, and sadly it won't be Cherryville). For less than $100 you get the Samsung 830 and Norton Ghost (which I haven't used since 2004), plus a new AAA game title (if you're in to that sort of thing). It's a pretty good deal overall for that 0.00006 percent of the population who are considering buying Ghost, a Batman game, and a SSD.
I for one think ASU on Linux wouldn't be a horrible idea for endurance testing. After all, you could run the installation from a USB drive or Live CD and mitigate the need for a system drive.
Great!Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
We should agree on some standard way of reporting from now on. (like Ao1 suggested some time ago)
(before you both start testing the new drives)
Nothing is lost, looking at the big picture we can already tell that all drives will endure way beyond MWI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternalightwith
There will be a summary in post#1 within reasonable time but the test is ongoing and I'm expecting that some of the drives will last way into 2012.
I'm not sure that you should expect that there is a winner here, they are all winners imho, they just work differently and the way they work leads to how long they will last. (e.g. in particular the Samsung 470)
Next is to find what data retention does for the drives when MWI is at "0" and we have already started doing some tests on this and all is a result of what has happened so far in the thread.
If you are looking for an SSD in the near future you can safely select any of the modern drives used in this test.
So in general, the drive to go for depends a bit on your usage, if you do a lot of incompressible data then you should go for a drive without compression.
Yepp, both a GUI and a general purpose library is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
(haven't started looking for anything yet)
The drive won't be here for several days, so there will be time to re-establish new testing parameters. What should be done differently from day one? I was taking screen shots of smart data every day with the Mushkin, aside from retention testing later in the drive's life, I'm not sure what else to do.
I suggest we plot the data into an Excel worksheet, nothing fancy just keeping a log on the important values/attributes.
I'll make a template we can discuss over the next few days.
You could make a spreadsheet in google docs and everyone could enter their data into it themselves...I think...I've never tried to make a google docs spreadsheet with lots of people entering data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
Google could work!
I've tried it but have not checked for concurrent users/if it detects that someone is already having a write lock on the document.
Microsoft's SkyDrive is also an option. I think it may be more geared toward what we are trying to do. Plus, you get real Excel in your browser and integration with the desktop version.
It supports multiple users editing the same document. I'm trying to post a picture for others to see who are not familiar with it.
I'm sure most have some familiarity with it, and Google Docs is good too, though I've not used it in quite some time.
https://www.box.com/shared/static/13...du4t19eabt.jpg
[QUOTE=Anvil;5006827]Great!
We should agree on some standard way of reporting from now on. (like Ao1 suggested some time ago)
(before you both start testing the new drives)
Next is to find what data retention does for the drives when MWI is at "0" and we have already started doing some tests on this and all is a result of what has happened so far in the thread.
If you are looking for an SSD in the near future you can safely select any of the modern drives used in this test.
So in general, the drive to go for depends a bit on your usage, if you do a lot of incompressible data then you should go for a drive without compression."
As a scientist I love this stuff, but as a consumer I'm still left with questions.
Windows Skydrive excel would be great.
I guess for me, I want to use a drive with Intel's SRT. I want to get two drives one for OS install and one for caching my 5900 drives. I don't want it so small as Intel's 30gb drive, but OCZ Synapse Cache is not up my alley either.
So I guess if I took a stab at the graph, with shear number of writes (1Petabyte)and data retention, that Crucial M225 looks like the ticket. I like the M4 the best but it just up and dying like that has me cringing, "N" of 1 yeah I know, probably an isolated case.
Are you planning on writing more than 500TB to your SSD? Because if not, the m4's death is hardly relevant to your case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternalightwith
I would guess that the m4's failure is NOT an isolated case for m4s that have had 500+ TB written to them. If you write past the specified MWI for the SSD, way past it in this case, then you really need to expect that the unpowered data retention time is liable to be very short.
But it IS a rare occurrence for normal usage, or even for extreme usage that people would put the SSD through when they are not intentionally trying to write enough to the SSD to make it fail. I doubt one person out of 1000 who uses that SSD for real work (or play) is going to write more than 100TB over the lifetime of the SSD.
Is there any utility which could log SMART values at certain intervals and then be exported to a CSV?
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
864.40 TiB (950.42 TB) total :up:
~2215 hrs (Torture), 3183 hrs (Power-On)
16816 Raw Wear
117.27 MB/s avg for the last 20.28 hours (on W7 x64)
MD5 every 20 loops on 1.59GB file = OK
C4-Erase Failure Block Count (Realloc Sectors) from 21 to 24.
C5-Read Failure Block Count (uncorrectable bit errors) from 6 to 7.
1=Bnk 6/Blk 2406 - Erase Failure C4
2=Bnk 3/Blk 3925 - Erase Failure C4
3=Bnk 0/Blk 1766 - Erase Failure C4
4=Bnk 0/Blk 829 - Erase Failure C4
5=Bnk 4/Blk 3191 - Erase Failure C4
6=Bnk 7/Blk 937 - Erase Failure C4
7=Bnk 7/Blk 1980 - Erase Failure C4
8=Bnk 7/Blk 442 - Erase Failure C4
9=Bnk 7/Blk 700 - Erase Failure C4
10=Bnk 2/Blk 1066 - Erase Failure C4
11=Bnk 7/Blck 85 - Erase Failure C4
12=Bnk 4/Blk 3192 - Erase Failure C4
13=Bnk 7/Blk 280 - Erase Failure C4
14=Bnk 3/Blk 2375 - Erase Failure C4
15=Bnk 7/Blk 768 - Erase Failure C4
16=Bnk 7/Blk 765 - Erase Failure C4
17=Bnk 7/Blk 182 - Erase Failure C4
18=Bnk 5/Blk 939 - Read Failure C5
19=Bnk 5/Blk 1115 - Read Failure C5
20=Bnk 5/Blk 1011 - Read Failure C5
21=Bnk 7/Blk 3549 - Read Failure C5
22=Bnk 7/Blk 3556 - Read Failure C5
23=Bnk 4/Blk 1961 - Erase Failure C4
24=Bnk 7/Blk 1862 - Erase Failure C4
25=Bnk 7/Blk 111 - Erase Failure C4
26=Bnk 5/Blk 902 - Read Failure C5
27=Bnk 7/Blk 560 - Erase Failure C4
28=Bnk 7/Blk 827 - Erase Failure C4
29=Bnk 6/Blk 482 - Erase Failure C4
30=Bnk 5/Blk 167 - Read Failure C5
31=Bnk 7/Blk 1771 - Erase Failure C4
So a total (B8+C3+C4+C5) of 41 Bad Blocks out of 32768.
Skydrive would work great. Personally I think each person testing should input data into the excel file and one person should be responsible to create a master set of graphs from the input data. Only those testing should be able to modify the excel file. (I think it is possible to set permission with Skydrive) It would be great however if the file could be downloaded by anyone so they can play with the data and maybe spot something of interest.
A standard will be difficult to achieve when all drives use different SMART stats, but I guess a standard could be developed for each controller.
I think we are missing out by not capturing key metrics, so I hope this can soon be rectified.
With the Mushkin, I took a screen shot every day of the smart data. I could easily go back and insert the daily smart data into whatever new reporting metric is chosen. I say we should come up with with a new system within the next few days, even if its just logging smart attributes into a spreadsheet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
...but I vote for SkyDive.
FYI...I've requested Vapor's files to see if we can try and continue his enormous efforts of tracking the data.
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
521.79TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 14
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
MD5 OK
33.02MiB/s on avg (~54 hours)
* reallocated sectors increased by 1 again, it's the second movement in just a few days.
--
The Corsair is back up again after being disconnected for ~54 hours.
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 120/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 54 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 463344 (Raw writes) ->452TiB
F1 618039 (Host writes) ->604TiB
MD5 n/a
---.--MiB/s on avg (~- hours)
power on hours : 1775
I'm restarting the test in a few minutes.
Todays update:
Kingston V+100
276.4895 TiB
1206 hours
Avg speed 25.29 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=470220http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470221
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
87,6873 TiB
19324 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=89 to 79
MD5 =OK
45.24 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470217http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470218
The Kingston is back. I'd to disconnect the power to it to get it back up and now it runs ok. The speed has been very low for some time now but I don't know why.
I also got my m4 in the mail. Of course I'm all out of SATA cables so I need to get one tomorrow before we start. You guys have been discussing changes to the test. Anyting special we should agree on before I start?
Why jump out of a perfectly good airplane? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
Man, I've been on a couple of commercial flights where jumping out of the airplane seemed the only course of action.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
Of course, the problem was being stuck on the tarmac for hours on end, so the fall would have only maimed and not killed.
The Samsung 830 will be here on Monday, barring any freak blizzards.
I'll run some benchmarks on it, then put it to work.
For now, I think I'll continue to take a screen shot of SMART attributes. Then, I'll put each day's values in an Excel spreadsheet. I figure that approach will leave me covered until we can devise a new plan.
I was thinking that for a while we could utilize SkyD(r)ive, but just dump each drives' values into it's own sheet in the workbook.
A truly fantastic addition to something like SSDlife would be a way for it to dump SMART values into a CSV text file so you could easily automate the process... but for now we'll just have to do it the old fashioned way.
For the record, I'm expecting the 830 to perform very similarly to a 64GB M4, with possibly the exception of some higher sequential writes. I'm just guessing, but I'd say that it will sustain about 8TB a day in ASU.
Even more similar to the Samsung 470. For writes, the two SSDs should be quite close, I think. Unless they changed the write amplification and wear leveling algorithms in the firmware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
I believe that if you're using a SATA II only motherboard or laptop, the 470 is actually faster than the 830 [on SATA II].
The 470 is fantastic, and I wish I had bought one when they were still using 3xnm NAND (I believe Samsung switched out 3xnm for 2xnm in the 470s and gave them new SKUs).
From the reviews I read it appears that the 830 gives up random performance over the 470, uses more power, and comes in 7mm sizes so that you need a spacer for 9.5mm Z-height applications. If you're using SATA III then it's great compared to it's predecessor, but it doesn't appear to be a warmed over 470 with 6gbps tacked on. Perhaps they've made some concessions for enhanced WA and wear leveling at the expense of random performance for the OEM crowd?
Anyway, I'll post some benchmarks from ASU, CDM, and possibly AS-SSD when the drive arrives. It's difficult to find the most basic of benchmarks for 64GB drives these days, and most review samples are either 256GB or 512GB sizes for newer drives. Two 830 64GBs in RAID 0 might be a pretty good setup... if you're into that sort of thing :up:
The computer froze last night, about 5 hours after restarting the test.
Looking at the available data the F3 is the guilty part, there were 0 files in the test folder and so it happened while TRIMming the deleted files.
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
522.31TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 14
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
MD5 OK
--.--MiB/s on avg (~- hours)
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 94/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 54 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 465410 (Raw writes) ->455TiB
F1 619460 (Host writes) ->605TiB
MD5 n/a
---.--MiB/s on avg (~- hours)
power on hours : 1780
I'll restart again in a few minutes.
--
I'll create the template today, should be ready for discussion within a few hours.
Gathering info pt1
First I'd like to get an overview of the drives used in the test, so can we agree on something like this.
(do comment if more info is needed)
http://www.ssdaddict.com/ss/ss_overview.PNG
The main point is to get an overview of what was tested and when the test started/ended, what comes in between will follow.
Anvil,
That's a good of a place to start as any.
How should we enter the information?
Just PM (or e-mail) me the info and I'll enter the data and make it part of post #1.
(This part does not have to be updated on a frequent basis)
I'll post the other spreadsheet a little later, still playing with the template.
I haven't seen that. From the reviews I have seen on the 830, the performance looks similar to the 470 for writes. The 830 is probably faster for writes in the 128GB model (and larger), but probably about the same in the 64GB model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
johnw,
You might have your opportunity to pick up a Cherryville 60 sooner than we had previously believed.
http://thessdreview.com/latest-buzz/...aid-all-along/
If this is to be believed, it's release is imminent, sometime in the next 3 weeks probably. (I'll believe it when I see it though.)
Intel, you know I'm going to buy one -- even if it's just an over-priced SF2281 with 25nm IMFT. You know, just like the ones that have been around since May.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the 470 vs. 830, here is what Anand Lal Shrimpi wrote in his 512GB 830 review
I have no frame of reference, since I don't own a 470. The comparison becomes more clouded since the 830 review samples were all 256/512.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnandTech
I don't believe the 520 will be seen this side of New Year, latest I've seen was Q1 2012.
If it was to be released shortly there would have been some references to "it" when searching for part# and there is next to nothing to find on those part#.
I did find it interesting that there is a 180GB edition, the gap between 120 and 240 always was a bit on the large side.
No, Intel 520 is delayed until 2012Q1. thessdreview is a source that consistently demonstrates terrible journalism. It was several days ago that an Intel slide was leaked showing the 520 series coming out in 2012Q1. Several sites picked that up. But still that guy makes the comment about it coming out by New Year's. Never take anything you see on thessdreview without a huge grain of salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
Ao1 even posted it here a couple days ago.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5006751
You do know there are other threads on xtremesystems than just this one, right? ;)
That is random READ. I was talking about writes. And anyway, all the 2Xnm flash has a slightly lower 4KiB random read than the 3Xnm flash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
I've posted a preliminary summary in post #1, it is still in the works and I still need some input from all contestants.
(Most info can be found but it would be quicker if you all PM'd me the "missing" info)
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
523.83TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 14
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
MD5 OK
35.03MiB/s on avg (~13 hours)
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 75/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 53 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 468976 (Raw writes) ->458TiB
F1 624203 (Host writes) ->610TiB
MD5 OK
106.34MiB/s on avg (~13 hours)
power on hours : 1793
I dont see any specific dates, just guesses. If you are reading that literally, then you are reading too much into it.Quote:
If this is to be believed, it's release is imminent, sometime in the next 3 weeks probably. (I'll believe it when I see it though.)
much outside of three weeks, and you are in Q1 2012 anyway. with specs and Product Information Sheets coming out, it isnt long.
Many also decried the very same source when he claimed that the new intel was going to be SF. Quite the show in these very forums of bashing the same source for contending that it would be an SF many many months ago, when no one else had a clue. How many yelled "no way! BS!"
How hard it was not to just let it fly! Of course it turned out to be true, its called 'insider info'.
there's even more interesting things in the future, believe it or not. MUCH more interesting.
....but there is a difference between what people know, and what they can say :) (at least directly)
and fyi anyone who buys into roadmaps when they arent released directly from Intel, be it Xbit or anyone else who publishes them, needs to have their head examined. Yeah, they are sometimes right, and make good conversation. LOL how many fake roadmaps have you seen? if you've been following tech for a few years, probably only a few thousand.
you need to look at this line in that article..
are we going to decry Xbit for shoddy journalism now, as well?:cool:Quote:
Intel did not comment on the news-story as the plans are not made public.
Todays update:
Kingston V+100
279.2182 TiB
1238 hours
Avg speed 26.04 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=470459http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470458
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
92,6313 TiB
19357 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=79 to 71
MD5 =OK
42.10 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470460http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470457
Sadly my local tech dealer didn't have sata cables in stock so I have to take look elsewhere tomorrow.
(1) You did not disclose that you are a biased source on the subject of thessdreview, as a responsible journalist wouldQuote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
(2) My main complaint with the original article, as I stated here previously, was that the author apparently had a confidential source for the information, but rather than stating in the article that "this information comes from a confidential source who we vetted and have reason to believe is genuine" as a responsible journalist would, the author made no statement of the kind but rather listed a couple very flimsy pieces of evidence.
Internet tech journalism has never been very good, but thessdreview stands out as the worst of the worst in this regard.
^^ Sometimes I think you just like to argue with people. It gets old sometimes!
Are you trying to start an argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
Nope, but you just proved my point. So I will move on back to testing now.
Here is some information from my notes on the Samsung 470 that should help you fill in some blanks for that column.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
On 2011-08-20, the 64GB Samsung 470 SSD died with the error:
NexusDB: nxEnduranceTbl: INTERNAL: Error when reading from file
[E:\DATA\Endurance.nx1, error 21, The device is not ready]
[$2401/9217].
Also, the ASU error log was full of entries like:
08/20/11 3:01:15PM - Write error 5
Screenshots at xtremesystems.org post #1385:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4932126
It wrote a total of 525.607 TB before it died.
I tested it on a Core i5-2400 machine running Win7 x64
No overprovisioning
42GB static data (41992617078B)
2011-06-29 Started testing
2011-07-05 MWI exhausted at 59.35TiB, sa177 reached normalized 1 - raw 5017
2011-08-20 ended testing at 478.04TiB
113MiB/s average write speed during test
I guess the flash is rated for 5000 P/E cycles since sa177 (~MWI) raw value was 5017 when the normalized value reached 1
FINAL REPORT:
478.037 TiB, 1300 hours, sa177: 1/1/39078, sa178: 2/2/996, sa235: 99/99/2, 3.59 MB/s
Write errors continuously logged, ASU mostly unresponsive (waiting for writes to complete that rarely do?)
storagereview.com has some pictures of the circuit board of a 256GB Samsung 470 SSD. The controller is
Samsung, S3C29MAX01-Y340, NZG0C1, S1017 ARM
and the 256GB model has 16 16GiB flash modules labeled:
Samsung 022, K9HDG08U5M, HCK0, FPA026D2
No, I did not prove your point. Clearly you were trying to start an argument, since such a post could serve no other purpose. Pot, kettle, black.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
(Now I proved your point, but of course I also proved my point that you were just trying to start an argument)
:D you really like to be the one who has the last word, don't you? Good for you! It will help you in many ways, as long as you control and balance it well!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
Hey BAT,
I'd volunteer to overnight you some sata cables, but apparently overnighting packages to Norway isn't exactly "cost effective" from America...
I'm pretty sure it would be about as expensive as over-nighting a package within Norway, overnight prices here are insane.
@johnw
Thanks!, I've found most of your notes in the thread, will find out about the NAND but I'm pretty sure it's 32nm DDR NAND
If BAT can scrounge up a SATA cable by tomorrow afternoon, we can start testing the new M4 and the 830 at the same time. That's an interesting head-to-head match-up.
Mail in Norway are insanely expensive, so I'll fix it and save you a fortune :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
I'm going to Lillehammer tomorrow and I'll pass several computershops so you are on :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
In this corner, weighing in at .14 pounds, it's the Samsung 830 64GB!
And in this corner, weighing, in at 75 gram it's the blue menace, Crucial M4 64GB :)
Now that is a fight worth watching!
The Dark Avenger should be here in 18hrs from now. It took a day to actually ship out, but only takes one business day to deliver. I'll be in the lobby waiting for the UPS man to brings us the precious.
I'll run Anvil, CDM, and then maybe some other random bench. Then it goes in the torture chamber.
I'll try to synchronize the start with the M4.
Hopefully I'll be home and ready to start around 20:00 GMT+1. If that is to early I can wait a couple of hours.
That should be perfect. This is going to be awesome.
I'm shaking down the test rig right now. I've put the components into a Lian Li PC V351 Black aluminum uATX enclosure.
For the record, this system includeds the following components:
Biostar TH67+ H67 1155 uATX motherboard.
Intel Celeron G530 2.4Ghz dual core 1155 cpu
2x2GB GEiL CAS7 DDR3
OCZ ModXstream Pro 500W semi-modular PSU
Win7 x64 on a Hitatchi Travelstar 40GB 2.5" HDD (on a SATA II port)
Intel RST drivers.
Scythe Shuriken Rev B. CPU HSF
All crammed into the Lian Li V351
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/...22-S01?$S300W$
Should be great fun!
I almost envy you :D but don't worry, I'll find something to test sooner or later...
I ran Anvil's Storage Utilities for 6 hours on one of my Crucial M4 512GB with 0002 firmware. The wear leveling count was increased from 2 to 8. (Not sure how M4's MWI works)
I'll see if I can find a spare SSD to join this thread :)
Wow, I bet the 512 was haulin' in writes. I'm guessing somewhere near 300MBs.Quote:
Originally Posted by minpayne
EDIT
I found a bunch of cheap Patriot refurbs. I'm trying to figure out what is what as they're de labeled and the specs are wrong or non-existant, and they have special refurbished part numbers. I think one is a SF 1200, one is an Indilinx, and the others are a mystery.
But they're cheap, and I don't see why I couldn't throw another SSD in the Chamber of Doom with the Samsung. But no J.Microns are allowed, so I have to do some research. I was thinking maybe the Indilinx was 5xnm Samsung, and I could do it Bluestang style.
the people who need to know, do. I didnt think that i was making any statements that would require such disclosure though.Quote:
(1) You did not disclose that you are a biased source on the subject of thessdreview, as a responsible journalist would
He made a statement, it was right. i merely pointed that fact out. When something is a known, proven fact, not sure that bias matters.
Today is December 4th, 2011.
Now, do i need to disclose that I read that fact off of a calendar that i also wrote on?
i once submitted an opinion article to a newspaper, and they published it. so do i need to disclose that each and every time i discuss that newspaper?
if it will assuage your tender feelings for being PC, then yes, everyone, i have posted evaluations on that site.
I also do consulting and independent analysis for several companies. Did i need to tell you that? I actually make money at those though....
Your opinion. I also hold that opinion about several sites.Quote:
Internet tech journalism has never been very good, but thessdreview stands out as the worst of the worst in this regard.
However the site in question is very successful, and growing very fast. there are plenty of other sites for you to go read im sure. and there are plenty of people who enjoy reading thessdreview site.
it is interesting that you tell people to read it with a grain of salt, when the info presented is correct.
I dont recall you saying such. I think that you said it wasn't true/impossible? shoddy journalism as it was unsubstantiated in your opinion, even though it was clearly speculative. Or that might have been someone else tbh i dont care enough to go look, but i think that was more along the lines....Quote:
(2) My main complaint with the original article, as I stated here previously, was that the author apparently had a confidential source for the information, but rather than stating in the article that "this information comes from a confidential source who we vetted and have reason to believe is genuine" as a responsible journalist would, the author made no statement of the kind but rather listed a couple very flimsy pieces of evidence.
You are assuming that he did have a confidential source. I surely cannot answer to that. Asking the wrong guy...but i point you to his latest article that brings up this whole issue, where he names his source. so i assume if there were a direct source it would have been named, as he did with the latest intel spec sheets/etc.
if you are in 'circles' though I will say this, lots of information does fly around, none of it official, and alot of it rumors. If you were to hear a rumor from someone in the buisness, and looked at the published specs, yeah it might make sense. simple as that.
Wiki on journalism would nail a situation like that closer to a "lead", but i assure you I have no desire to talk journalism.
A confidential source would be something entirely different *in my opinion*. That would be like someone actually in that organization leaking specs or info.
if only that were so....Quote:
as long as you control and balance it well!
very interesting thread, i'm reading from post #1 but i joined a few days ago,
thanks for the great job :cool:
luke
I hope you don't want to use this computer without a SSD :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
619TB. No other changes. MD5 OK.
One day it will throw in the towel.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
A resistor or some minor part will give way.
Until then the tortoise continues the race while the hares keep falling by the wayside. :up:
That's a good catch. I'm waiting for the UPS man to bring me my new testing drive. BAT and I are going to be locked in mortal combat in an SSD cage-match from hell. It's all very exciting.Quote:
Originally Posted by kensiko
Don't knock the Chamber of Doom. The Celeron G530 is a thoroughly decent CPU when paired with an H67 board. It sips power, has good-enough SB graphics, and has enough zip to do what I need it to do and then some. The single core Celeron might be enough for running the endurance test and remote desktop apps, but the single core doesn't clock down. It actually uses more power overall and costs almost the same amount of money. Actually, the G530 is pretty much good enough for most everything. It's probably almost as fast as a Core i3 5xx 1156 processor.
Also, the black aluminum Lian Li case will probably co-ordinate rather well with the svelt 7mm Samsung 830 chassis...
https://www.box.com/shared/static/cf...okrk2111uz.jpg
I don't know what's going on with the QD4/32 write results. Me like.
I'm starting testing on the drive in about 30 mins, which I believe is 20:00 for B.A.T.
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
Soooo, I started the test back up this morning after letting it sit idle over the weekend...It ran for 104 loops/3.63 hrs at 117.61 MB/s and C5 jumped from 7 to 15 in that time. MD5 in ASU still showed OK. Stopped test as I needed to reboot after an update and afterwards drive was unresponsive, but still showed up in BIOS and OS. Mulitiple attempts of unplugging/powering off did not help this time. So, I was forced to do a full format and lost ~2 TiB of logging from ASU (I have ASU data from Friday though). I now have to re-copy static data over and start test back up, but here is a minor update...
868.82 TiB (955.28 TB) total.
~2224 hrs (Torture), 3257 hrs (Power-On).
16896 Raw Wear.
117.61 MB/s avg for the last 3.63 hours (on W7 x64).
MD5 every 20 loops on 1.59GB file = OK.
C4-Erase Failure Block Count (Realloc Sectors) at 24.
C5-Read Failure Block Count (uncorrectable bit errors) from 7 to 15. :eek:
1=Bnk 6/Blk 2406 - Erase Failure C4
2=Bnk 3/Blk 3925 - Erase Failure C4
3=Bnk 0/Blk 1766 - Erase Failure C4
4=Bnk 0/Blk 829 - Erase Failure C4
5=Bnk 4/Blk 3191 - Erase Failure C4
6=Bnk 7/Blk 937 - Erase Failure C4
7=Bnk 7/Blk 1980 - Erase Failure C4
8=Bnk 7/Blk 442 - Erase Failure C4
9=Bnk 7/Blk 700 - Erase Failure C4
10=Bnk 2/Blk 1066 - Erase Failure C4
11=Bnk 7/Blck 85 - Erase Failure C4
12=Bnk 4/Blk 3192 - Erase Failure C4
13=Bnk 7/Blk 280 - Erase Failure C4
14=Bnk 3/Blk 2375 - Erase Failure C4
15=Bnk 7/Blk 768 - Erase Failure C4
16=Bnk 7/Blk 765 - Erase Failure C4
17=Bnk 7/Blk 182 - Erase Failure C4
18=Bnk 5/Blk 939 - Read Failure C5
19=Bnk 5/Blk 1115 - Read Failure C5
20=Bnk 5/Blk 1011 - Read Failure C5
21=Bnk 7/Blk 3549 - Read Failure C5
22=Bnk 7/Blk 3556 - Read Failure C5
23=Bnk 4/Blk 1961 - Erase Failure C4
24=Bnk 7/Blk 1862 - Erase Failure C4
25=Bnk 7/Blk 111 - Erase Failure C4
26=Bnk 5/Blk 902 - Read Failure C5
27=Bnk 7/Blk 560 - Erase Failure C4
28=Bnk 7/Blk 827 - Erase Failure C4
29=Bnk 6/Blk 482 - Erase Failure C4
30=Bnk 5/Blk 167 - Read Failure C5
31=Bnk 7/Blk 1771 - Erase Failure C4
32=Bnk 5/Blk 956 - Read Failure C5
33=Bnk 5/Blk 1242 - Read Failure C5
34=Bnk 5/Blk 1461 - Read Failure C5
35=Bnk 5/Blk 1800 - Read Failure C5
36=Bnk 5/Blk 1030 - Read Failure C5
37=Bnk 5/Blk 1074 - Read Failure C5
38=Bnk 5/Blk 1128 - Read Failure C5
39=Bnk 5/Blk 1427 - Read Failure C5
So a total (B8+C3+C4+C5) of 49 Bad Blocks out of 32768.
I'm ready if you are Christopher. I'll post rest of the info in 10 min. :up:
I think I'm ready. I'll wait for you to post back before starting.
Todays update:
Kingston V+100
280.3839 TiB
1252 hours
Avg speed 36.55 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=470631http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470630
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
97,2018 TiB
19386 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=71 to 71
MD5 =OK
44.45 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470633http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470629
And here is Crucial m4 64GB take II
Some smartinfo:
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470638http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470637
After I filled it with static data:
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470635
And ASU benchmark
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470636
Alright then? Ready?
Are you really using 39.3GB of static data (or are you running ASU)? The Samsung is using 18.5GB with 41.0GB free space. I ran some benches and copied 18.5GB of static data to the drive, so before testing started I had 23GB shown in smart data.
EDIT
whoops, that would be the temp sensor. Most of the attributes are Vendor Specific of Unknown in CMI.
This thing is very, very fast (for the first couple of loops, but then it hits a wall). Faster than the Mushkin when running 46 percent data...
I may need to change the end of loop delay back up to 10 seconds.
I'have been using 39,3 static on both the Kingston and m4. Ready, set, go!!
Edit:
btw how is the speed in ASU? Here is mine
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470652
Does anyone know what is going on here?
https://www.box.com/shared/static/1q...zt8h84y4f6.jpg
https://www.box.com/shared/static/di...ve61ds670b.jpg
B.A.T.
The beginning of the loop starts at 153MiB/s, and at the end drops to 125MiB/s. After 11 loops the Avg MB/s is 114.44
FYI...
CrystalDiskInfo 4.1.4 (12/04/2011) is out.
SSD-Life 2.2.39 (11/29/2011) is out.
I just tried multiplying the F1 SMART value by 512 then dividing by 1024^3, and I think it's a write sector count. I'll keep watching it.
527GiB written in ASU + copying static data, etc =
542.83 if I multiply F1 * 512 then divide by 1024^3. That works out pretty well to what I wrote to the drive before I started testing.
----------------------------------------
Maybe this is common knowledge? You would think the Samsung Magician software would have the ability to show SMART attributes in a useful way, but alas, it does not.
I couldn't find anyone make mention of this, but it looks like an Indilinx write sector count, and lo and behold! it's pretty close.
I'm using the latest portable installation of SSDlife I could find, and you can see it in a screen shot above. CDI doesn't know what the hell is going on either.
The Samsung Magician software is pretty damn slick. It has everything BUT SMART viewing, including built in benchmarks and Intel like optimization of the drive and system SSD tuning, intergration with Norton Ghost for cloning and backup, FW updates, and some other random stuff.
-----------------------------------------
The chassis design is very classy, and the retail package is quite nice as well. Someone spent a lot of time designing the whole package. It kinda felt like opening the world's most interesting Christmas present.
With those speed this match is soon over. You got over 40 MiB/s faster avg writespeed than me.
The Samsung 830 looks like a very good ssd :up:
Wonder what the WA will be?
It's... fast. Really fast in a straight line. Not sure how well it does in the corners.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.T
I agree, the match could be over soon... but only because this thing writes too fast and dies in a fiery explosion.
We'll have to see whether it can maintain this pace or not. The 64GB Samsung is roughly as fast as two Intel X25-M 80s in RAID0. That's actually pretty impressive.
It seems to have stopped doing the random section... random writes have not increased in an hour.
Mine did that on occasion. Would hit so many loops and then stop RW's. Has been fine for about 3 wks now though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
I can't find any info about attribute F1/241 on the Samsung, but if it's not a write counter I don't know what is.
Since starting the endurance test I've logged 1345.22GiB.
The F1 value now equals 2876986359.
( 2876986359 * 512 ) / 1024^3 = 1371.84GiB.
I wrote 18.5GB of static data to the drive, and ran two quick benchmarks.
Voila! Write counter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest version of SSDlife was supposed to have support for the 830s (you can see the shot above). I'm making inquiries.
Too bad there is no C300 in this test anymore. I was really curious as to how it would perform. I think it would have thrashed the M4 and maybe even the Turbo drive. Good to hear all is OK.
@Christopher
I'll dig up what I found when testing my 830's but you got F1 right, not sure if/what else I found.
Great to see that it's as speedy as expected :)
The Samsung's really are something special!
--
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
529.33TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 14
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
MD5 OK
33.28MiB/s on avg (~61 hours)
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 92/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 49 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 482647 (Raw writes) ->471TiB
F1 642402 (Host writes) ->627TiB
MD5 OK
106.34MiB/s on avg (~61 hours)
power on hours : 1841
As long as SMART is working and you've got the total there really is no problem, let's hope that it doesn't happen again :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
Just logged in to my work PC and checked on it... 958 TB and going!Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
Bad block counts haven't moved since last update...Let's hope I didn't just jinx it!!
Just about 2000 GiB in 5 hrs isn't too slow for a 64GB drive without deduplication, especially one built on 25nm NAND.
The only annoying thing about the Samsung is the Magician software suite does everything -- except the arguably more important stuff, like giving you comprehensible SMART info.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have another drive in the mail. I'd love to tell you what it is, but I actually have no idea myself. It's a Patriot of some kind.
I might have just violated rule number #273: Don't buy a J.Micron controlled SSD.
If it's not the worst drive in the world, we could have another addition.
EDIT...
I think it's a Phison PS3016-S3
The next one I'll test will most likely be one of the drives already tested but with extra over-provisioning.
There's not much to find on the NAND Samsung has put into the new series, could be 27nm (or 22nm or 24nm), I can't find any sources but the processor is triple core ARM9, model# S4LJ204X01
I think I found out why the 830 has such great sequential writes.... it's totally lazy on the garbage collection side of things.
My speeds were continuously excellent until I fixed the random writes (I added an extra second to ensure the 100MB randoms were always written.) After I did that, speeds plunged down into the 78MB/s range after after a dozen or so loops. I'm trying to tweak some settings to preserve speed and random writes too.
The Samsung user initiated GC/optimization can be scheduled like Intel's Toolbox, but takes 4 to 5 minutes to run. Maybe I can find a series of settings that can keep speeds more constant like the Mushkin's were.
-----------------
The first of the 24nm Toshiba toggle NAND products are out (the Plextor 3 series). Given the relationship between Toshiba and Samsung, they may be using similar stuff 24nm processes. I've read people who say that the 830's nand is 27nm, 25nm, and 24nm. I don't really care... I like it.
A faulty M4 512GB I'm trying to RMA:
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3160/capture1ni.jpg
Only Anvil's Storage Utilities Endurance testing and WinHex fill disk sectors can reliably force the disk to go offline like this and reproduce the problem. I know that something is definitely wrong with some nand flash, as the 05 SMART says 413k+ reallocated sector count.
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
Drive dropped out last night, looked like during file delete. Came in this morning to see ASU write errors. A quick unplug and re-plug of the drive and back online. C5 jumped again, up by 6...Don't know how much more of this the M225 will take.
873.85 TiB (960.80 TB) total.
~2232 hrs (Torture), 3273 hrs (Power-On).
16992 Raw Wear.
??? MB/s avg for the last ??? hours (on W7 x64).
MD5 every 20 loops on 1.59GB file = OK.
C4-Erase Failure Block Count (Realloc Sectors) at 24.
C5-Read Failure Block Count (uncorrectable bit errors) from 15 to 21. :eek: again
1=Bnk 6/Blk 2406 - Erase Failure C4
2=Bnk 3/Blk 3925 - Erase Failure C4
3=Bnk 0/Blk 1766 - Erase Failure C4
4=Bnk 0/Blk 829 - Erase Failure C4
5=Bnk 4/Blk 3191 - Erase Failure C4
6=Bnk 7/Blk 937 - Erase Failure C4
7=Bnk 7/Blk 1980 - Erase Failure C4
8=Bnk 7/Blk 442 - Erase Failure C4
9=Bnk 7/Blk 700 - Erase Failure C4
10=Bnk 2/Blk 1066 - Erase Failure C4
11=Bnk 7/Blck 85 - Erase Failure C4
12=Bnk 4/Blk 3192 - Erase Failure C4
13=Bnk 7/Blk 280 - Erase Failure C4
14=Bnk 3/Blk 2375 - Erase Failure C4
15=Bnk 7/Blk 768 - Erase Failure C4
16=Bnk 7/Blk 765 - Erase Failure C4
17=Bnk 7/Blk 182 - Erase Failure C4
18=Bnk 5/Blk 939 - Read Failure C5
19=Bnk 5/Blk 1115 - Read Failure C5
20=Bnk 5/Blk 1011 - Read Failure C5
21=Bnk 7/Blk 3549 - Read Failure C5
22=Bnk 7/Blk 3556 - Read Failure C5
23=Bnk 4/Blk 1961 - Erase Failure C4
24=Bnk 7/Blk 1862 - Erase Failure C4
25=Bnk 7/Blk 111 - Erase Failure C4
26=Bnk 5/Blk 902 - Read Failure C5
27=Bnk 7/Blk 560 - Erase Failure C4
28=Bnk 7/Blk 827 - Erase Failure C4
29=Bnk 6/Blk 482 - Erase Failure C4
30=Bnk 5/Blk 167 - Read Failure C5
31=Bnk 7/Blk 1771 - Erase Failure C4
32=Bnk 5/Blk 956 - Read Failure C5
33=Bnk 5/Blk 1242 - Read Failure C5
34=Bnk 5/Blk 1461 - Read Failure C5
35=Bnk 5/Blk 1800 - Read Failure C5
36=Bnk 5/Blk 1030 - Read Failure C5
37=Bnk 5/Blk 1074 - Read Failure C5
38=Bnk 5/Blk 1128 - Read Failure C5
39=Bnk 5/Blk 1427 - Read Failure C5
40=Bnk 0/Blk 1674 - Read Failure C5
41=Bnk 5/Blk 756 - Read Failure C5
42=Bnk 5/Blk 788 - Read Failure C5
43=Bnk 5/Blk 909 - Read Failure C5
44=Bnk 5/Blk 407 - Read Failure C5
45=Bnk 5/Blk 1294 - Read Failure C5
So a total (B8+C3+C4+C5) of 55 Bad Blocks
Edit: Drive has slowed down some also to around 112 MB/s.
Lets see if it can manage another 40TB, should go past 1PB in less than a week if it doesn't slow down too much.
I'm giving it my all...and so is the M225! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
wow unbelievable, getting to that magic number! 1 PB that is just crazy...
I love that M225 "Turbo".
I can't help but feel like it's on it's last legs though... please, prove me wrong.
And I still have another M225 sitting in a notebook doing nothing :(
Who knows, maybe I'll flash that to FW 1.7 (I heard there is better WA/endurance with it) ;)
is there a 1.7 for the indys? is that arrowana or ?? dont know i lost track on that whole deal. I actually fired up my vertexes yesterday, was thinking firmwares...
1.7 is not Arowana.
I thought this was a real Turbo, you mean you counterfeited the drive? :p: ;)