If the 64GB is less than twice as fast as the 32GB it should last more than twice as long :shocked:
Printable View
Def. looks like your X25-E was used in an enterprise environment probably as a ZFS cache disk or for database work.
Looks like he won't budge. Why so serious :D ?
m4 update:
532.2283 TiB
1731 hours
Avg speed 91.09 MiB/s.
AD gone from 49 to 46.
P/E 9326.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors
Attachment 120132Attachment 120133
Kingston V+100
Still not startet the test again. I'll continue to find whats wrong.
Never mind, I'm using teamviewer and will still update every day (after tip from Anvil :up:)Quote:
Next update will be 26 Sept. I'm going away on a job trip. If the drive fails when i'm away I'll get a timestamp from ASU when it happened.
No. If it writes "less than twice as fast" while being double the capacity, it should last LESS than twice as long...assuming it writes faster than the lower capacity model. If both models write at the same speed, then double the capacity should be about double the longevity (although free space and overprovisioning can make a difference).
C300 Update
367.1TiB host writes, 1 MWI, 6190 raw wear indicator, 2048/1 reallocations, 63.05MiB/sec, MD5 OK
Attachment 120137
SF-1200 nLTT Update
225.75TiB host writes, 164.688TiB NAND writes, 20 MWI, 2635 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3, 56.2MiB/sec, MD5 OK
Attachment 120138
I think the M4 will die soonish now.
That M4 isnt going anywhere for a long time.
Maybe upgrade the FW to be as realistic as possible on the M4 ?
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
310.11 TiB (340.97 TB) total
914.08 hours
6730 Raw Wear
112.70 MB/s avg for the last 16.50 hours (on W7 x64)
MD5 OK
C4-Erase Failure Block Count (Realloc Sectors) at 4
(Bank 6/Block 2406; Bank 3/Block 3925; Bank 0/Block 1766; Bank 0/Block 829)
Attachment 120154
I noticed he tried but maybe try again. I think the controller is very dodgy if new attributes come up without flashing new FW just by trying to flash it etc. and also why can you not go from 0009 to 0002 etc. and downgrade etc. Seems very strange to me.
Sorry to leave you guys hanging - that was kind mean of me, but I figured I'd get the shipping notice on my trip. I went on a trip to the Smokey Mountains for a few days, and just got back. But I did get shipping confirmation today that my testing drive shipped.
It's a Sandforce 2281 controlled Mushkin Chronos Deluxe, but in the super spiffy 60GB capacity (it just came out this week I guess, because it wasn't even listed in the 60GB capacity at Mushkin). It's equipped with 32nm Toshiba Syncronous toggle NAND and should be pretty fast. While I was gone, it showed up on the Mushkin website, which also sells direct. I was afraid that some of the sites were incorrect about the product listing or the availibility, because I wasn't aware that anyone was making these.
http://mushkin.com/Digital-Storage/S...CR60GB-DX.aspx
Mine shipped, but won't be here until Tuesday. I was hoping I'd have it on my door step when I got back, but my 3G cellular modem doesn't work way up there.
I wouldn't have even known to look for it, but I stumbled upon a website called FutureStorage.co.uk which sells and possibly rebrands/orders drives to their spec. I saw that they had distribution and manufacturing in North America, from a factory in Texas. I believe this factory also makes the Mushkin drives as well, so I looked to see if they made a Toggle nand SF in the 60GB capacity like FutureStorage does (which they did,). I thought a Toshiba equipped Sandforce drive would stand up really well with the drop down to 60GB.
Here's hoping it doesn't have LTT.
I tried this but no matter what I trick I used it just didn't want to update to 0009.
More bad news from me. AVG forced a restart of the rig today and now I can't reach it with teamviewer so we all need to wait for an update until 26th.
It's just the worst kind of luck that the update came the day after I'm gone for 10 days.....:shakes:
Because the rig was restartet ASU is not running so we will continue from my last results I guess.
I've noticed that one of my Intel drives jumped from 200 power on hours to 400... in about 3 hours. Luckily, the X25-E I got on Ebay only had 288GB of host writes... not that it matters. 600TB is really only like 2% of what an the drive could probably write if you look at Intel's spec vs. reality. I think my X25-Vs will last for 700,000GB of host writes, vs whatever Intel rated them for. I really, really think Intel low-balls PE cycles for all of their drives. For instance, I read a short article about Intel's forthcoming HET-MLCs...
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21644
This is laughable. The author (I respect this site by the way) states that Intel claims a 320 series, 300GB drive is capable of writing a massive... 30TB in its lifetime? And that with 30x the endurance, 710 series 300GB drives should be capable of writing 1.1PB...
It's good for a laugh.
think of what the 710 could really do...jesus 30X (projected) of the results we have seen with the 320 would be simply insane...not to mention that the 320 is still running.
very thought provoking that they could achieve this type of performance/endurance with no over-provisioning dedicated to spare area, only as XOR.Quote:
Although Intel doesn't set aside any flash capacity as spare area to start, the 100GB drive does have more than 100GB worth of NAND chips onboard. The extra NAND capacity (Intel won't say exactly how much) is dedicated to a RAID-like redundancy scheme that calculates parity bits to protect against data loss due to unexpected flash failures.
also no mention of 25nm SLC anywhere even this "late" in the 25nm game...
Also at the same site, in a different article, is a discussion of Larsson Creek's successor which utilizes 25nm SLC.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21652
Ask and ye shall receive (some random PowerPoint slides from IDC).
What I found funny about the HET-MLC article was actually the fact that Intel states the write span of a 300GB 320 as only 30TB -- only 100 times it's capacity. That's like saying an X25-V can only write 4TB over it's life span. Talk about under-promising and over-delivering.
I can't wait to tear into this Mushkin. I'm not sure what SF does with 32nm toggle nand as far as sacrificing one whole die... I thought they were doing something different for the 60GB capacities. Maybe RAISE isn't enabled for the 60GBs? If it works as well as Intel's system (and is enabled on the Chronos Deluxe 60, then it could last...... a lot further than this "premium Toshiba Toggle NAND's" PE cycles would indicate. Not to mention, if your workload is at all dedupe friendly, you get sub 1 WA.
The Chronos Deluxe will be my first SandForce drive (all of my drives are Intel, Indilinx, or Micron controlled), but honestly, I'm pretty impressed with the new Vertex Turbo that came while I was away. I played with it today and it's pretty damn fast for a two year old drive with 50nm Samsung NAND, but the SF2281 controller could be a whole other level, even on the Intel 510, in terms of both performance and longevity with 32nm flash. It's assembled in the USA like OWC's Mercury Pro's. I've already set up my desktop for silent running and ran ASU on one of the Agilities for 8hs in preparation.
I can't wait.
wow! first mention of 25nm SLC ive seen yet :) havent had time to dig through IDF slides yet, guess i should give that a whirl :)Quote:
Ask and ye shall receive
That was the only one.
The next iteration of Larson will probably be around the same size with the same specs cause I don't see Intel making it cheaper than $120. I don't see them making it much more expensive though considering its supposed to be paired with SRT. They'll somehow manage to make it unattractive in relation to capacity and specs as to not steal their higher margin enterprise market share. If they could make it like the 32gb Es for $120, no one would buy anything else. I don't really believe in the HET stuff anyway, so at least a couple people would think an inexpensive SLC with TRIM is a good option. So that's my rational for not getting too excited about the next generation of 'Creeks. Hopefully they'll prove me wrong.
Those specs from Intel are most likely based on 4K random, full span, which is an entirely different scenario to what is being tested here.
@ Anvil: how about a version of the endurance test that runs 4K random, full span, just to give a comparison to what is being tested here? I’d be up for testing another SSD in that scenario.
Regarding the 710; spending $6.50/per GB when the only notable benefit is endurance is going to be a tough call regardless of application. Something that lasts that long, at that price, when SSD technology is still evolving doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. :confused: