Yes, some more SF and the SF2 series in particular and some sort of HDD would be interesting as well :)
Printable View
Yes, some more SF and the SF2 series in particular and some sort of HDD would be interesting as well :)
The SF2xxx drives are also lifetime write throttled. It will not allow PE cycles to exceed the warranty life time.
The only way to run an accelerated wear out test on a SF drive is to find one that has not had the throttling option set by a vendor.
^^ Come on Zads...I know you can help out here! :D
Really need a way to remove throttling on SF first. If only I knew the parameters to specify for their FORMAT command.
183TB. 5%. 18 reallocated sectors.
SMART attribute 181 (B5)
Below is some clarification on non aligned reads/ writes:
"The NAND page size is handled in firmware, before the SMART calculation is performed. Firmware has internal counters for total unaligned writes and total unaligned reads (regardless of page size). These counters are added together, divided by 60,000 to get the raw value.
It should be noted that this number is not related to sector size, but rather to NAND page size (though I suppose that depends on how you define “sector”). The counters are incremented in one of two cases: 1) the write starts somewhere besides a page boundary, or 2) the write from the ATA command is not the length of the physical page (be it 4k or 8k). The math is the same, regardless of page size. This is because for the 8k NAND on the 256GB and 512GB, we simply take 2 4k chunks from the host at a time, and write them to the 8k page. If they are misaligned for 4k, they’ll be misaligned to the same degree for 8k."
On the Intel 320 you can track what appears to be a reverse MWI if someone knows how to access these logs listed in the Snip.
I have no idea if this can be done on the X25.
Just something I ran across.
Attachment 117369
151 hours, 43,9010 TiB, Wear Leveling Count and Percentage of the rated lifetime used has gone from 77 to 75.
Avg speed for all 151 hours is roughly 84,7 MiB
There're no indication of the speed decreasing. The M4 looks very good so far and with 3/4 of the journey left there is no sign of reallocated sectors.
Attachment 117371
Attachment 117372
This thread kind of confirms what I have been saying all along :
-avoid Samsung and Sandforce if you can get Intel or Crucial at the same price
-avoid 25nm if you can get 34nm at same price
Really eager to see a dead SSD folks !
None of those SSD's are limiting normal users, in any way :)
I'm not saying that just because I've got a few of both of those two you mentioned :D
This thread does not confirm anything of the kind. Where do you come up with this crazy stuff?
Well that is my personal opinion on this kind of stuff so I though I would share it here.
So far, the Samsung is seemingly less endurant than the Intel and the Sandforce is getting warranty throttled.
Also with the same controller and same firmware 25nm NAND will never be better than 34nm NAND ( it's just physics ).
I can understand the first statement - that SF and Samsung is not on the same level as Intel or Crucial. Either because the endurance is pretty low (Samsung) or for other reasons (Sandforce). However, the endurance of the Samsung drive is still very high and should not be a problem for most of the users. Although I will never support SandForce while they throttle their devices and advertise unachievable performance, it's still not a problem for most of the users as you really have to stress your drive for a long period of time.
And the second statement may be true in theory, but how on earth do you conclude such a thing from this thread? The tests (so far) clearly show that the 25nm Intel 320 has roughly the same endurance as the 34nm G2. Yes, it's not the same drive, but I still don't quite understand how you come to this conclusion...
If it is your personal opinion, then why not state it as your personal opinion rather than claiming the data in this thread confirms it?
Since the Samsung has not failed yet, there is no data in this thread to confirm that the Samsung is "less endurant".
And for the same controller and firmware, 25nm flash COULD be better than 34nm flash. It is not just physics. There is engineering and manufacturing involved, too. The 25nm chips could simply be higher quality (for various reasons) than the 34nm chips. We don't know. Once the SSDs start failing, then we will have some data.
Updated charts :)
C300 isn't in the MWI Exhaustion graphs because it's just too soon...MWI is down to just 97, very hard to extrapolate with accuracy off of that.
Host Writes So Far
Attachment 117383
(bars with a border = testing stopped/completed)
Raw data graphs
Writes vs. Wear:
Attachment 117384
MWI Exhaustion:
Attachment 117385
Normalized data graphs
The SSDs are not all the same size, these charts normalize for 25GiB of onboard NAND.
Writes vs. Wear:
Attachment 117386
MWI Exhaustion:
Attachment 117387
Write-days data graphs
Not all SSDs write at the same speed, these charts factor out write speeds and look at endurance as a function of time.
Writes vs. Wear:
Attachment 117388
MWI Exhaustion:
Attachment 117389
vapor:
One graph I'd like to see would be average block erase count vs. TiB written. For the Samsung, I think we agree that attribute 177 is probably the average block erase count. For Micron, 0xAD is the "average erase count of all good blocks". On the Intel 320, I think 0xE9 attribute raw value may be the average block erase count ("the number of cycles the NAND media has undergone").
I can do that :)
Will be tough to back track on the Intel 320, unless One_Hertz has that info handy. I have been logging it for your Samsung and the two Crucial SSDs, which is good.
One caution with the graph, however....it will just be an upside-down MWI vs. TiB graph. The C300 and your Samsung move the MWI in increments of 50raw (though the Samsung doesn't really stick to it perfectly) and the m4's moves in increments of 30raw. Still, it will be useful for post-MWI Exhaustion wear tracking :)
Samsung seems capable of nearly 10x the cycle usage speed of C300...which had me thinking. Considering one of the values will always be dwarfed on the chart (at least until the Samsung dies), logarithmic or linear axis scale?
Attachment 117390
Attachment 117391
EDIT: theoretically, these values are available on SandForce via SMART attribute 233, just divide by NAND size. At least one new SandForce will be entering in the coming weeks :)
EDIT2: a lack of early-life Samsung data is why it's 'better' than the Crucials early in life on the logarithmic chart...Excel isent to brite :p: If logarithmic scale axis is the choice--should I add interpolated data?
i hate to:horse: but i have to jump in here as well. there is NO correlation between this statement and any results contained in this thread thus far. simply not true, or if it is, that result hasnt been borne out yet.Quote:
-avoid 25nm if you can get 34nm at same price
CMON guys, first to 1/2 PB is the winner :)
Hi John, when you were waiting for the MDF5 update did you leave the drive on idle? Maybe that period allowed static data rotation to revitalise the NAND reserve? Seems a bit strange that it is still going strong 9TB after getting to MWI 1. Even if the NAND specs are based on minimum PE cycles, that still seems quite a lot of data :shrug:
I don't think the OCZ data should be extrapolated the way it is presented in the graphs. The testing stopped because it was completely throttled. In the eyes of the users on this forum, that would be considered a failure.
I think you should remove the dotted trendline from OCZ data.