:rolleyes:
Printable View
The saga of the M225 Turbo starts in the Turbo thread in the Indilinx forums.
We're all so very proud of Bluestang's initiative.
I bought a new Vertex Turbo 128 (there were a couple floating around for a short time a couple months ago). It's great, but I think the WA with smaller writes is pretty high.
Samsung 830 64GB Update Day 1
GiB written :
9116.33
Avg MB/s :
108.25
Time Elapsed:
24hrs
https://www.box.com/shared/static/yz...qgts1uofvb.jpg
I'm not really sure what else to put in the updates at the moment.
Todays update:
Kingston V+100
280.9583 TiB
1259 hours
Avg speed 28.83 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=470803http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470800
The Kingston has disconnected 3 times during the 3 last nights... Something is not right with this one. Same ting with the low write speed.
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
100,7683 TiB
19410 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=71 to 70
MD5 =OK
51.88 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470805http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470799
m4
6.6668 TiB
24 hours
Avg speed 80.19 MiB/s.
AD gone from 100 to 97.
P/E 110.
MD5 OK.
Reallocated sectors : 00
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470801http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=470802
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
876.17 TiB (963.36 TB) total.
~2239 hrs (Torture), 3280 hrs (Power-On).
17036 Raw Wear.
111.00 MB/s avg for the last 6.05 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 21 to 24.
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
46=Bnk 5/Blk 562 - Read Failure C5
47=Bnk 5/Blk 256 - Read Failure C5
48=Bnk 5/Blk 943 - Read Failure C5
So a total (B8+C3+C4+C5) of 58 Bad Blocks.
Stopping test for the night, will pick up tomorrow morning when I can babysit my little M225.
I'm catching up on the summary and I just noticed that the attachments stopped working October the 27th, it's been over 1 month, we deserve an explanation!
Shouldn't we put in TRIM and fw ver?
We could but there are just 2 drives that have been running w/o TRIM and one of them lacked TRIM due to running off XP so it's really just the X25-M G1 that lacks TRIM.
FW would be OK, although I (and Christopher) have changed fw several times during the test :) so we'd have to list all fw's used.
I listed the FW version for the Mushkin in the updates after I switched from 3.2.0
The first month of Chronos testing was done with 320fw. Then I went to 3.3.0 for one day, then 3.3.2 was released, so I used it for the remainder.
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
532.07TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 14
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
MD5 OK
33.16MiB/s on avg (~85 hours)
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 94/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 47 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 489474 (Raw writes) ->478TiB
F1 651488 (Host writes) ->636TiB
MD5 OK
106.38MiB/s on avg (~85 hours)
power on hours : 1866
--
@B.A.T and Christopher
Make sure to make/save screenshots of SMART on the new drives, if you haven't done so already :)
I have pre testing SMART pics and made one corresponding to the first update. I can include them if you want when I post the updates, I just don't know how much bandwidth I have from my box.com account which I use for posting pictures since the forum is broken still.
When your really fancy Toggle NAND drive only lasts for 50 days, it helps to keep the number of screenshots down.
I hope the Samsung doesn't last forever.... I only have 50GB of space on my file sharing serivce.........
I bought one of those HP TouchPads when they were being sold for for $99 instead of $500 and you got a free box.net account upgraded to 50GB of storage with it. You get statistical stuff and the ability to direct link downloads and larger files/speeds/etc. You can get the 50GB free now with an Apple device but the extra stuff is, well, extra. I really wish they'd fix the attachments for this thread alone though. It made everything a lot easier.
You dont have to post/upload the SMART screenshots, just keep a private/local copy until the spredsheet is ready.
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
533.36TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 14
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
MD5 OK
36.48MiB/s on avg (~10 hours) ssdtoolbox cleaning + restarted last night as avg was getting low
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 88/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 47 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 492378 (Raw writes) ->481TiB
F1 655353 (Host writes) ->640TiB
MD5 OK
106.40MiB/s on avg (~95 hours)
power on hours : 1876
I'm pretty sure the Samsung 830 uses 27nm Toggle NAND, 32Gbit dies. So the 64GB has eight packages, dual 32Gbit dies.
Toshiba has 24nm Toggle NAND already shipping in production drives, but they're probably not really the same stuff.
I'm not quite following up with this thread. Is there any impact by using non-compressible data to fill the SSD? (i.e. would certain controllers "cheat" with 0-fill and increase endurance?) What standard (settings) is used to join this thread?
The compressibility of data only matters for SandForce drives. They're the only controllers that can compress data/deduplicate data (there may be an enterprise controller made by some other company that does so as well, but I'm not sure. I'm mostly concerned with consumer drives.)
For the SandForce drives we've been using the 46 percent compressibility, but it's pretty much irrelevant for other drives/controllers. In terms of endurance gained by 0-fill for SandForce drives, I think it's six-of-one, half-dozen-the-other. Since the work never ends, you just end up with faster writes of more compressed stuff...
For example, the Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 60GB I had tested would write 90MBs - 100MBs with random data, and around 290MBs with 0-fill (with the endurance testing in ASU). If it's writing 290MBs with 0 fill, the actual writes to NAND are 100MBs. SandForce drives have a SMART value for host writes and a value for raw writes. If you divide the raw writes by host writes you can see the average compression ratio for all the data written to the drive. So a SandForce drive can't cheat in that sense -- you always know how much data is actually written to the NAND after the data has been compressed. At the 46 percent compression ratio in ASU I ended up with about 77 percent of host writes actually being written to NAND. It wouldn't be realistic to only use incompressible data as much of the data being written to the drive is compressible to one extent or another (but nowhere near 0 fill compressible). As a result, you end up with much lower than 1 write amplification, but modern drives are pretty good when it comes to WA.
I tested the Mushkin Chronos Deluxe SF2281 and it died pretty quick. I'm now testing a Samsung 830 64GB, but I just started it about 37 hours ago. If you're serious about testing a drive, I recommend testing a smaller-capacity drive. The two Intel 40GB drives started 7 months ago, and they're still going and going and going. My SF2281 made it 50 days, but that was kinda anomalous. There's no way to say how long a drive will last in advance, but I'd plan on the test lasting several months. I built a low power Sandy Bridge system that I can tuck out of the way in my apartment. I use a remote desktop application for my tablet to use as a monitor. The testing system will need to run 24/7, so having a quiet system is mandatory for me. But ASU doesn't require a lot of resources to endurance test, so if you're a folder you could probably use a folding rig. You could also use a laptop and just close the lid (disable close lid = sleep, never sleep) and stick it under your couch. I tried that for a while. Windows 7 isn't required, but TRIM helps a lot with average speed.
Samsung 830 64GB Update, Day 2
FW:CXM01B1Q
GiB written:
18185.44
Avg MB/s
107.92
Per-day average:
9092.92
https://www.box.com/shared/static/5u...fhclp2j3sd.jpg
The Samsung starts the loop quite fast, but seems continually drop after the first several seconds, so that at the end of the loop it's only managing 120MBs, and if I let it, it would plunge down into the 100MBs range. It can hit max sequential speeds of 520 read and 160 write which makes it as fast as a 128GB OCZ Octane. I'm not certain that there is a compelling reason to get the 470 instead of the 830. It's just an impressive drive.
Toggle NAND must be made of pixie dust and unicorn glitter.
@Christopher...your running 46% compression...I didn't think the Samsung's had compression technology in them?
Staying at 46% does not make a difference for the non compressing drives but it won't hurt either, it should not make a difference for speed and so he might just keep it at some none 0-Fill option.
I might go for a different option with the next drive, even if it doesn't do compression.
Interesting that the Samsung settles at about the same speed as I get on the 120GB Force 3, it has double the capacity and still the Samsung is faster.
The Synchronous version of the Force 3 (the GT or Vertex 3, equivalent) would most likely place itself closer to the Mushkin.
Are you sure that you have disabled anti-virus real-time scanning on the folder where the data is put?
(I forgot a few times myself when moving the F3 around during the bug period)
Johnw's Samsung 470 averaged ~113MiB/s so the 830 is doing fine but looks to be a little bit slower for this work-load.
M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:
879.17 TiB (966.66 TB) total.
~2245 hrs (Torture), 3304 hrs (Power-On).
17092 Raw Wear.
109.89 MB/s avg for the last 7.90 hours (on W7 x64).
MD5 every 20 loops on 1.59GB file = OK.
C4-Erase Failure Block Count (Reallocations) 24 to 25.
C5-Read Failure Block Count (uncorrectable bit errors) from 24 to 27.
C4 and C5 list getting to long to show.
So a total (B8+C3+C4+C5) of 62 Bad Blocks.
May let it run overnight.
Edit: I'm over 65000 loops according to the ASU log.
Anvil,
The endurance testing system is as clean as a system can be, no AV scanning, indexing, or any of that stuff. I did some experimentation the first 24hrs as some combination of setup was causing the speed to drop into the 78MBs range. It's now averaging 108MBs and instantaneous estimated MiB start at 154, then slowly drops to 125. With 6 second pauses and 6 second randoms, it averages 108MBs. The less free space there is, the less the speed. It's pretty linear.
At first, it was super fast for the first few loops. Then, speed rapidly decreased. Somewhere along the line the drive stopped writing randoms and that greatly increased speed. Once I tweaked the loop parameters by increasing random write duration and the pause, I found a happy medium that preserves randoms and a respectable average speed.
I use the 46 percent compression level because I just don't like the idea of writing 0 fill to the drive. It shouldn't really matter with the 830, but most data that gets written in every day useage is somewhat compressible. Also, I have the same set-up that was run on the Mushkin, though I'm considering adding 39.3GB of static data like B.A.T.'s drives.
This might be a dumb question, but is the amount of voltage needed to write and hold 00s in a cell less than some other combination of bits in MLC?
Todays update:
Kingston V+100
283.1335 TiB
1284 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=471011http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=471008
No disconnect the last 24 hours, but it's still crawling away at very low speed.
Intel X25-M G1 80GB
105,0538 TiB
19435 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=70 to 64
MD5 =OK
49.27 MiB/s on avg
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=471010http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=471009
m4
13.7037 TiB
50 hours
Avg speed 81.46 MiB/s.
AD gone from 97 to 93.
P/E 234.
MD5 OK.
Reallocated sectors : 00
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=471012http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?ap...tach_id=471007
So a few weeks ago, when the Mushkin died, I also had another SSD failure -- the Agility 60. After a lot of work, I was able to get the drive d-flashed. It just died again, and I can't seem to get it to detect with the jumper (though I had problems last time with this, and after a few hours I could detect it -- but it took about 8 flashes to work). I was running 1.7fw, d-flashed it with 1.7 a few weeks ago, and I think that could (possibly)be the problem.
So Bluestang, if you decided to Turbotize your other M225... maybe stick with 1.6FW. I've never had a problem with 1.5 or 1.6 on any of the Indys.