Morning update:
111.2420 TiB
377 hours
Avg speed 89.43 MiB/s.
AD gone from 38 to 36.
P/E 1938.
MD5 OK.
Attachment 117772
Printable View
Morning update:
111.2420 TiB
377 hours
Avg speed 89.43 MiB/s.
AD gone from 38 to 36.
P/E 1938.
MD5 OK.
Attachment 117772
Strange the M4 is already at MWI 36. Wonder what this value really means and how the C300 will behave while in the same stage!
Nice work, thanks for sacrificing your SSDs in the name of science.
Its reassuring to know that they might have the stamina for things like Intels Smart Response without having to spend the $$$ on something like Larson Creek
Eveningupdate:
115.3564 TiB
390 hours
Avg speed 89.23 MiB/s.
AD gone from 36 to 34.
P/E 2010.
MD5 OK.
Attachment 117785
Heh, but I still would not bet on the Samsung to write more than either Intel before failure. Even though the Samsung has 64GiB of flash on board and the Intels have only 40GiB and 48GiB, I suspect the Samsung has a much higher write amplification, which is a significant handicap. But I am not certain about the WA, so I could be wrong about that. We will see!
Has anyone heard from One Hertz? It has been a few days since he posted or I missed something.
The Intel 320 40GB has 48GiB of NAND? Hmmm, that would put its WA at like 1.2x, which I find odd (being worse than the X25-V). Could that have been as a trade for speed compared to the X25-V? Does it really need 28.8% (37.27GiB usable on 48GiB NAND) spare area?
Either way, 48GiB of NAND changes the charts.
C300 Update:
62.53TiB, 79 MWI, 1052 raw wear indicator, 61.85MiB/sec, MD5 OK
Attachment 117799
I'm not sure about the NAND on the 320 40GB, I'm sure One_Hertz can find out, I'll check mine as well as soon as I can get that torx screwdriver. (will try tomorrow)
I'll make my next report in about 8-9 hours, been away for the weekend and the rig has been powered off.
No, no, no! ;)
The 40GB 320 does indeed have 48GiB of flash on its circuit board, that is a fact (no need for anyone to double-check unless you really want to), but you need to read what I wrote! Only 40GiB of the flash is used for normal operation. The extra 8GiB is used for XOR parity data. So WA should be calculated assuming 40GiB of flash.
That is similar to Sandforce SSDs where, for example, a 120GB Sandforce drive usually has 128GiB of flash on-board, but only 120GiB of the flash is used for normal operation (data storage and reserved space), while the extra 8GiB is used for so-called RAISE, which is Sandforce's name for RAID-4 like parity. Although I am less certain with Sandforce (as compared to Intel 320) how they actually implement RAISE. It could be RAID-5 like, as far as I know. But I'd guess RAID-4 like.
217TiB. 24 Reallocated sectors. Anvil - I am trying to determine if I can locate that hidden smart variable. I got the output from your app and will start tracking it to see changes.
They don't specify on their current slides for RAISE, but their older ones that they provided to Anandtech said "like RAID-5." They wouldn't go into detail about it, however.
It is amazing to me that they could dedicate such resources to parity on these devices. I wonder at the sophistication of the parity scheme. For instance, if you look at many raid controllers, etc (same concept essentially as ssd with its controller and nand) running a parity raid set can really cripple write speed in many scenarios. And these full blown raid controllers are with chips that are immeasurably faster than the low wattage chips present on an SSD.
I knew the 160GB and larger versions had parity, kind of figured it was dropped from the smaller sizes for $$$$ reasons. I never knew this about the smaller 320s, very interesting. Went and read more on the 320, seems the parity was introduced to make up for 25nm deficiencies (inline with what SandForce/vendors did when going to 25nm, just doing the opposite of taking away usable space and calling it the same size on the label).
Frankly, I would prefer to calculate WA based on total onboard NAND regardless of its designed usage (WA inflated from parity doesn't seem so bad as long as it's explained...after all, for every 1 byte sent, ~1.2 bytes do get written). But we don't know exactly how much parity data is being written so I won't (not sure it's a safe assumption that the full 8GiB of the sixth die is used for parity). I'll continue backwards calculating WA using wear indicators multiplied by total non-parity NAND (not that WA is fluctuating for any of the drives). And with the Sandforces, no need to backwards calculate WA because of SMART 233.
As for normalized writes, it's probably easiest to base it on IDEMA capacity. This means everything, relative to the other drives, is unchanged except the 40GB V2, which I had based on 48GiB and will now base on 40GB. This means 55GB for the '60GB' 25nm SF-1200 drive (not sure what SF-2200 has for capacity of their 25nm 60GB SSDs). (aside, I realize normalized writes don't quite work if OP proportions varies within a product line, sigh)
Out of curiosity, how much NAND do the 80GB and 120GB 320s have?
With the new (to me) knowledge that the 320 40GB has a parity scheme...I don't see the 320 40GB dying for quite awhile.
CLEARnand does have the integrated controller on the nand itself, offloading the proc of ECC functions.
Right, we do not know. Intel calls it "XOR parity" which is fairly vague (obviously for single parity there is an XOR function, so XOR does not really add any info) and has reportedly described it as "RAID-4 like", but not exactly RAID-4, which makes sense because if it were exactly RAID-4, the parity flash would wear out much sooner than the other flash because RAID-4 parity has to be re-written every time any of the other flash chips are written. So Intel must be using some tricks to avoid wearing out the parity flash too quickly, so we cannot make any assumptions about how much parity data is written. Regardless, I suspect that the block-erases for the parity flash are not included in the SMART attributes.
As for how much flash is on-board 80GB and 120GB Intel 320 SSDs, I am not certain. I don't have any of those models, and I have been unable to find a circuit-board picture for those anywhere on the Internet. The ones I know for certain are 40GB/48GiB, 160GB/176GiB, 300GB/320GiB, 600GB/640GiB. I'd guess the 80GB and 120GB models have either 8GiB or 16GiB extra (one or two 8GiB packages).
Morningupdate:
117.8156 TiB
399 hours
Avg speed 89.10 MiB/s.
AD gone from 34 to 32.
P/E 2053.
MD5 OK.
Attachment 117811
Here is a circuit-board picture of the intel 320 80GB
Link