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.
Yesterdays update:
Kingston V+100
And it dropped out again.....
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
359,6176 TiB
21097 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=103 to 102
MD5 =OK
43.62 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480137http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480141
m4
446.3624 TiB
1761 hours
Avg speed 72.43 MiB/s.
AD gone from 106 to 100.
P/E 7699.
MD5 OK.
Reallocated sectors : 00
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480142http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480136
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 14
GiB : 59720.72
TiB : 58.3210
MBs : 55.84
187 95/94/96438169
Attachment 124202
I honestly don't know why I even bother. One update per lunar cycle is probably sufficient.
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
732.83TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 23
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 6591
MD5 OK
33.53MiB/s on avg (~143 hours)
Quite interested as to how that C300 256 GB died, UrbanSmooth.
Yeah, I saw the bleak NAND news. I have been saying this all along. You can only scale NAND to a certain level but we need a different storage technology to replace it pretty soon in the next few years, I think.
TLC NAND ? No, thank you !
People get too worried about a SSD wear.
Even with only 1000 write cycles (some mythical smaller NAND MLC, say 12nm, 2 generations ahead of current tech), a 1TB SSD would still be fairly midrangish and still handle almost 1 PB of writes before reaching end of NAND life.
Anvil,
How important is the composition of the static data? Should we try to standardize the amount of static data per capacity? Could ASU be modified to generate the static files automatically based on a scale?
That's not a bad idea.
#1 should always be OS files as in a copying i.e windows files as using real files is more fair vs compressing controllers
#2 could be generated to a fixed % of the total capacity and can be a mix of "compression levels"
Well, I was thinking OS files could be simulated with ASU in the endurance or settings tabs... it could just fill x amount of capacity with "OS like" files in terms of size, number, and compressibility with the press of a button. And it would just do a standard percentage (by default, other % options too, maybe) of the drive's capacity. For example, the 16GB MTRON would have 1/4 the simulated OS files of the 64GB Samsung. Since ASU can already generate files of various compression levels and sizes, I was thinking it might not be that difficult to implement... but I'm not really qualified to answer that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
In that way, all new drives could get on a standard static data regimen.
Drive hours: 173
GB written: 9488.36 (9.2662 TB)
Avg MB/s: 16.42
Bad blocks: 83
Wear cycle counter: 0/596/911
Nice read here for anyone that is interested : http://www.anandtech.com/show/5067/u...nding-tlc-nand
I’ve got some specs for Samsung TLC over in the SSD NAND data base. 8K page/ 1.5MB block. Random read = 300. Page programme = 2,700 and erase = 1.5ms. Both the random read and page programme times are well in excess or 2xn/ 3xn NAND.
The price of NAND sucks.
You know, I actually think cheaper NAND is going to be destructive. I'm sure companies like Intel can always charge more, but the margins will get so low [for everyone else] that people are just going to be making junk just to survive. Maybe not this year or next, but someday... but sooner than you'd hope. When the price gets much lower/GB, they're gonna become commodities. So be careful what you wish for. By the time they're dirt-cheap as you'd like, you're not gonna want one anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
well, it was kinda obvious with 34nm to 25nm move :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 15
GiB : 65215.26
TiB : 63.6874
MBs : 56.45
187 94/93/105544458
The little MTRON just keeps getting faster. I'm actually quite impressed by it's performance (and that of the 3.5" 7035, which is now the system drive in the Endurance Rig)
Hmmm, my torqx is going to take a very long time to kill (if write amplification isn't terrible). To fill the time, I'll also be endurance testing an Intel 520 - 60gig SSD.
I'm interested in:
a) The failure mode. A lot of the previous Sandforce drives failed very suddenly and unexpectedly ... like wheel bearings in a car failing and the car veering off the road and crashing into a tree (then bursting into flames) ... I'm curious if Intel's QA has improved that at all.
b) The overall number of writes the drive can handle. Given intel are using 5000 cycle NAND rather then the more common 3000 cycle NAND, it will be interesting to see how long it can hold out. However, apparently intel's NAND is exactly the same as the Micron 3000 cycle NAND, so it might not make any difference at all.
c) Interested in long term steady state performance. It should be pretty good, but maybe a touch below the Toggle NAND drives.
Anyway, benchmarks and stuff a little bit later after I compile them!
^ great, I'm looking forward to this one :)
@canthearu -- are you familiar with the 60GB Mushkin Chronos Deluxe I tested?
I think the big difference with the the 520 will actually be the lack of RAISE and added overprovisioning. It's still going to act like the other SF drives in other respects, but I do believe Intel when they say that their drives have the good stuff inside. Someone has to get all the schwag IMFT stuff left over, and I'd guess that stuff goes inside SF drives frequently.
In terms of testing drives, right now the cupboard is kinda bare. I'm still not giving up on running a 64GB Vertex Turbo -- I'm gonna find one that doesn't suck. The MTRON should be sticking around for a while, and I have a "mystery drive" I hope to start testing shortly.
@Christopher -- yep, I have read at least most of this entire thread! I was refering to your Mushkin Chronos Deluxe when talking about the toggle NAND drives being slightly faster.
To be honest, I'm a bit of a fan of the sandforce drives .... I like their approach to reducing write amplification and the ability to run without a DRAM cache. Now, that isn't to say that other drives are bad, or that there is nothing to fault sandforce with. (as the crucial m4 and intel 320 drives are quite excellent, and the sandforce drives have certainly had their fair share of problems) I guess the main attraction was that they were the first company outside of intel to really work on a drive design that didn't suck (like the jmicron and barefoot based drives did)
I had never owned a SF drive until I got the Chronos Deluxe 60 for testing. Since then, I've picked up a couple to play with and I do quite like them (despite their flaws and some of my skepticism of SF's claims concerning performance and longevity).Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
The 120GB Chronos Deluxe is pretty excellent, and I also like the SF1500 Vertex LE 100 too, but I've hardly used either to date. I just began using the 120 ChDx full time only two weeks ago, on hardware that was problematic with the original 60GB testing drive. I've not yet had any issues, but I can't rule out the odd future BSoD. Also in the Mushkin's favor, the 240GB version was selling for insanely low prices recently (less than a 240GB Agility 3, around $278), but I missed out on the deal.
The OWCs, Patiots, and Mushkins are all assembled in America, which is a nice bonus. But the Wildfire and OWC Mercury Extreme 6g are substantially more expensive than the Deluxe.
Then you better get a Crucial M225 and do what I did ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
Zing!Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
Check back on Monday and see the next great hope for humanity... another new 64GB Vertex Turbo. Cross your fingers, say a prayer, and sacrifice a chicken -- then hope for the best.
For the 520 NAND writes (249) = 1iGB increments. For host writes (241) a value of 1 = 32GiB, so in the example below 2,656 = 83GiB for host writes vs 80GiB nand writes.
The threshold for the media wear out indicator is 0, unlike non Intel SF drives, which have a threshold of 10.
Attachment 124224
For the SF2xxx NAND writes (233) = 1GiB increments. For host writes (241) a value of 1 = 1GiB
Attachment 124223
For the SF1xxx NAND writes (233) = 1GiB increments. For host writes (241) a value of 1 = 1GiB
Attachment 124222
For the X25-M NAND writes are unknown
Attachment 124220
For the Samsung 830 host writes (241) 1 raw increment = ( 1 * 512 ) / 1073741824 = GiB.
Medial Wear Out Indictor =
Wear Levelling Count (177)
Raw value /5,000 *100 = x ( 100- x) = % remaining life
10/5000*100 = 0.2 (100-0.2) = 99.8%
Attachment 124221
If I'm honest, 530 sounds much more awesome than 520.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
The fact that two different reporting standards are used for host and raw writes is irritating. It would actually be handy if both were in 32MiB increments, but anything is better than 64GB chunks.
Hah well spotted and the values for the Intel drives are GiB (even though the Intel manual reports them as GB). Better change that before John gives me a bollocking :D
Anyway with your 830 did you record 199 when your read/ write speeds were messed up?
(199) UltraDMA CRC Error Count
This is generally the literal count of how many times the controller encountered an error while processing an ATA command in UDMA mode. It also counts how many times a CRC checksum has mismatched during operations. Usually, this indicates a problem with the cabling or drive electronics. These errors can also be triggered by incorrect IDE device chaining or simply a faulty IDE or SATA cable, or when device firmware bug match some chipset detection problem (SATA II at 3.0Gb/s drive misdetecting SATA I at 1.5Gb/s bus controller).
:D I saw it already, but I did not complain because it is Intel's mistake, not yours!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
Last available SMART data from from the 830 was:
https://www.box.com/shared/static/e2...ik610rca6c.jpg
199 never incremented. It was never an issue of anything 199-related.
Oh well. Did you ever get to the bottom of it?
Not yet. I'm working on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
Anyone here have a Larson Creek Intel 311 drive to test ?
I think it would be interesting due to small NAND size but SLC specification.
Ok, I got sidetracked for a while there when my body decided it was time to sleep rather then post on the internet!
Thoughts on the Intel 520: Somewhat faster then my Patriot Pyro 60gig, though not enough to change my mind that the 120gig sandforce drives with cheaper async NAND offer the best price/performance. And for those looking for just an easy 60gig drive, the intel price is a bit hard to swallow. I am only paying for the intel by giving up my entertainment budget for a couple of weeks. But the proof of the pudding will show in the coming months.
Anyway, here is some benchmarks for the intel 520 (I made sure it was not running fresh by endurance testing it for about 80gig or so)
Attachment 124225
Attachment 124230
Attachment 124227
Crystaldiskinfo also reveals a lot of juicy details for this drive.
Attachment 124349
Does anyone know a program that correctly decode the Power on Hours?
I will try and report daily on progress with this drive. I'll report on the erase fail/program fail count, the host and claimed drive writes, reallocation count, and the wearout indicator.
I got one. I tested it out with some endurance loop and it did fantastic. But at the time (several months ago), it didn't seem like there was any point. Hopefully, the MTRON could have fairly high WA to shorten the process, but that 311 was seriously going to take three or four years. Assuming it would ever die, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by bulanula
Well, I have started the torture.
Attachment 124229
This drive is cracking along reasonably quickly. I am using the following settings:
Static Data:12 gig static data (copy of windows install + a few gig of incompressable data)
OS/Platform: Core duo 2 - 2160@3.0ghz - Windows 7 x64
Date Started: 25/2/2012
Over-Provisioning: None
Drive details (for the record, though everyone should know it off by heart!)
Controller: SF-2281
NAND: Intel 25nm Synchronous - 5000 cycles.
Given that the MLC NAND can often handle 2-3 times the specified write cycle count before actually dieing, and SLC is 10/20 times more durable and ton more forgiving of wear, it may be that the 311 (or even the MTRON) simply never dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
According to the manual:Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
The raw value reports two values: the first 4 bytes report the cumulative number of power-on hours over the life of the device,
the remaining bytes report the number of milliseconds since the last hour increment.
That does not seem to mean anything however.
If you run this command with smartctl you will see the true power on hours under the device statistics
smartctl -q noserial -i -l devstat,0 -l devstat /dev/sda
The last letter is a reference to the sata port so you will need to change the value depending on which sata port you are on. The command will only work with the 520& 710. (No other drives support device statistics).
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 16
GiB : 70779.94
TiB : 69.1210
MBs : 56.66
187 93/93/114768131
Attachment 124231
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 17
GiB : 74906.19
TiB : 73.1519
MBs : 56.77
187 93/92/121666447
Attachment 124234
Torqx day 10
Drive hours: 238
GB written: 12334.66 (12.0457 TB)
Avg MB/s: 17.54
Bad blocks: 83
Wear cycle counter: 0/824/1251
Intel 520 - day 1
Drive hours: ?
ASU Count GB written: 4395.34 (4.2924TB)
Smart GB written: 8287.53 (8.09TB , 265201 raw)
Avg MG/s: 75.89 MB/s
Reallocated sectors (05): 0
Failure count (AB, AC): 0 program, 0 erase
Media Wearout Indicator (E9): 100 (0 raw)
NAND writes (F9): 5861GB
Notes
I had some problems with ASU losing count due to power outages.
The 09 value reported in the Intel tool box gives you the power on hours, but the counter starts from 894800 so you have to deduct that amount to get the power on hours. If you want to double check try smartmon tools and the command I gave earlier. You will need to deduct 6 hours from the value reported by device statistics to make allowance for the factory test period.
canthearu ,
Thank you for making this thread even more interesting by adding the Intel 520 :) Fingers crossed it amazes us all!
Maybe something interesting will happen to the 520! All I know is, running an SLC drive is worse than watching paint dry... I mean, it only takes 24 hours for paint to dry. I'm not sure it's possible to kill an SLC drive outside of firmware failures.
Really, when was the last time you heard an antecdote about someone wearing out an SLC drive?
Todays update:
Kingston V+100
And it dropped out again.....And because I'm not home until next friday I can't take a cold reboot.
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
374,4503 TiB
21226 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=102 to 98
MD5 =OK
33.55 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480615http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480612
m4
477.7978 TiB
1890 hours
Avg speed 70.73 MiB/s.
AD gone from 100 to 85.
P/E 8400.
MD5 OK.
Reallocated sectors : 00
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480614http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=480613
Cool, that makes it easy ... I'll report power on hours, and reorganise the stats a bit for my next report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
You could create another fireworks display? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
That is almost guaranteed to happen. Especially since at some point I'm going to measure drive power consumption un endurance testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopalong X
Dragging out the old Tesla coil this time I hope. :up: :rofl:
An interesting drive to test would be my A-RAM 100gig sandforce drive with 34nm NAND.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
Given the force 3 was able to sniff the 1PB limit with 128gig of 25nm NAND, my desktop drive would probably smash that with it's 34nm NAND.
But alas, I can't part with it right now :)
What? No, I was gonna use a Taser... why? Is that bad?? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopalong X
@canthearu
I've never ever heard of A-Ram (where are you located in the world?) I've heard of another Hong Kong brand, ASA (that uses SF). And the Chronos Deluxe 60 obviously used 32nm Toshiba, but didn't fare all that well either.
Australia. A-RAM isn't a big brand here either, but one of the online stores here had stock of the sandforce 1 drives and was a bit cheaper then the OCZ drive, so I went with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
The Chronos Deluxe 60 might not have faired that well at the end, but hell, it was quick getting there ..... much quicker then my Intel 520 is proving to be!
Well that makes sense. The Samsung 830 64GB was ripping off 11,000GB a day for a while. It's on hiatus for a while, but it should have some good times still ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
The Chronos Deluxe 60 is a beast, but suffers from the SF problem -- it's write speeds are nowhere near peak (for a couple reasons, but if you've ever seen a graph of SF writes you'll understand why). My CD60 was putting in 10,000GB a day host writes, but only 7300GB NAND writes. Hopefully I'll have some drives that beat the doors off it shortly. I got a new Vertex Turbo on the way (which won't be that fast), but who knows what surprises tomorrow may hold? I've been sitting on a few candidates for a while, but I can only run so many drives at once, and the Vertex Turbo and the MTRON (and the 64GB Samsung 830 eventually) are already gonna take up some spots in the endurance rig.
To be fair, I think people get a bit too upset about compressible vs incompressible performance. All 60gig drives are designed fairly cheap, to use as few chips as possible without utterly crippling the controller, so you shouldn't be expecting 256gig drive performance out of a 64gig drive. It doesn't help that virtually drive makers post extremely over the top sequential write values in their specs ... For example, my torqx 64gig manual says 230meg per second sequential writes ... fat chance, it does 18meg or so a second sustained and that is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
It isn't really fair to criticise a sandforce drive for slow incompressible writes when it is paired with 64gig of Async NAND, As the Chronos Deluxe show, pair it up with some nice Toggle Mode NAND, and the sandforce controller can do incompressible about as well as any other drive.
That isn't to say the sandforce drives can't go faster when doing incompressible data .... would be nice to see a bit of a boost in this area when the sandforce 3 comes out :)
I just mean for the purposes of this testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
Haha, I was just ranting in general!Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 18
GiB : 80 002.81
TiB : 78.1277
MBs : 56.90
187 92/92/130169283
Attachment 124243
Snooze!
It keeps getting a little faster, but that's about it. In two more days MWI should hit 90, making 20 days to MWI 90, or right around 200 days to MWI 0.
And that is only what the MWI counts ... Who knows how long this SSD will last beyond it's specified rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
I would guess maybe 3 years --BUT-- I'm not sure it's even possible, given the conditions and speed of the writes. I don't think anyone knows for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
I'm seriously thinking that absent firmware c0ckup, the drive lasts indefinitely from an endurance perspective.
first of all, thanks for this thread. it's very interesting and informative!
...but just out of curiosity: do you guys really buy all these drives just to send them straight to hell? :D or do you get these for cheap from supporters/sponsors?
keep it up! ;)
Unfortunately I have no-one to sponsor me, so I have to buy the drives myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
There certainly is an opening if you are interested.
Edit: I don't view it as sending the drives to hell, although the troqx belongs there. I view it as a sacrifice in the process of learning how SSDs live and die. How can I preach the longevity of SSDs if it is never tested.
Yeah, I'd be happy to test anything a manufacturer wants to send me (but no one has taken me up on my offer), but like canthearu, I don't think of it as just sending a drive to Hell. You get to see all sorts of behavior you'd not otherwise ever get to see. And since it's usually easier to "get a result" on a less expensive, lower capacity drive, it lowers the barrier of entry. If you could only use 512GB drives there wouldn't be many SSDs in the test since A)they are expensive and B) it would take a long damn time. I was able to get some BNIB MTRONs pretty cheap for example, and if you shop around there are some really good deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
It's not just an endurance test in the strictest sense, it's a variety of things all rolled into one.
EDIT
But yeah, canthearu, that Torqx suqx something fierce.
My Patriot with the 3016 suqx worse though:
https://www.box.com/shared/static/p2...oq3lqxgz1a.jpg
No sponsors. But the smallest capacities is'n too expencive and some of them are used SSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
unfortunately i'm not in the position to offer any sponsorship, i'm sorry ;)
i really had to argue with myself whether to buy a SSD or not. now i'm a proud owner of a crucial m4 128gb and to think about putting it under such an endurance test raises my hackles :D
so it's even more creditable that you guys do this kind of research and share your results!
now that i'm already here in this thread: is there a way to monitor the amount of data written to a SSD? the tool SSD Life seems to offer exactly that, unfortunately it says my M4 doesn't provide any statistical data about data writes. so there's no chance?
Download SSDLife or Crystal Disk Info. Look at line 173/AD just like my last result post at page 147.
Take the P/E number and multiply with the total capacity of your ssd and you got how much it's been written to.
My m4 got 8400 P/E used.
8400*64020803584 byte = 489,1032859683037 TiB.
The smart values have a media wear count, that raw value documents the average wear cycles for your drive. Multiply that value by the drives size for rough estimate for the amount written.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
Torqx day 11
Drive hours: 262
GiB written: 13,796.90 (13.4739 TiB)
Avg MB/s: 17.22
Bad blocks: 83
Wear cycle counter: 0/913/1379
Intel 520 - day 2
Drive hours: 70
Avg MG/s: 74.92 MB/s
Host GB written (F1): 14,653.4 GiB (14.31 TiB , 468909 raw)
NAND writes (F9): 10,374 GiB (10.13 TiB)
Reallocated sectors (05): 0
Failure count (AB, AC): 0 program, 0 erase
Media Wearout Indicator (E9): 100 (0 raw)
As B.A.T. said, the only way to measure the total writes to the M4 is through the wear leveling attribute. Multiplying it by 128 would give you a really rough idea of the total writes. In this testing you'll get a more accurate count that way as the writes are mostly sequential which creates less write amplification. In daily use you would see a little more. But a rough estimate is the best you can do (with the M4).
Welcome canthearu, I will follow the 520 closely :)
What happened to the XS forum, was there an update ? I didn't receive my weekly update showing me the link to the new posts.
So it looks like the 520 also has an initial "credit" period.Quote:
Originally Posted by canthearu
thanks for the tip.
however, the raw value just shows 0's:
Attachment 124255
hum... :p:
RaZz!
you just haven't written that much yet... Less than 128GB host writes I'd guess.
aight. i already thought it'd be smth like that.
i just wanted to make sure as i left the windows temp folder as well as the browser cache on my ssd. so i'll check these values from time to time. most SSD guides recommend moving all this stuff off the SSD, but if the writes aren't excessively high, it doesn't make any sense to do that. why buy a fast SSD when you move everything to a slower HDD? :)
I agree. I just move large stuff off SSD's to save space. Games/Docs/Videos ect.
I read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I'm not worried at all, a lot of companies are looking for alternatives to flash. I think the memristor is a good one, there is even a website for it: http://www.memristor.org/
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
746.43TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 25 up 2 from last update (4 days ago)
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 6710
MD5 OK
33.31MiB/s on avg (~262 hours)
--
Will update the chart and listings tomorrow. (had a few days off :))
Heh, E9 has gone down to 99 over the night. Obviously I've finished burning this "credit" period already :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
Of course, by the time most 60gig SSDs reach 10TB NAND writes, people have seen that shiny new 256gig SSD on the shelf, and exiled the old 60giger to the secondary machine they hardly use :)
Okay, the new Turbo arrived today.
It's SMART data is much more promising than the last one. Here it is straight out of the box.
https://www.box.com/shared/static/g1...75m2ipyfrz.png
MTRON 7000 PRO 16GB SLC, Day 19
GiB : 80 002.81
TiB : 78.1277
MBs : 56.90
187 92/91/138218085
Attachment 124262
It gets faster yet. Interesting.