Swiftech
Page 33 of 220 FirstFirst ... 23303132333435364383133 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 825 of 5491

Thread: SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

  1. #801
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    211
    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 !

  2. #802
    Moderator Anvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    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
    -
    Hardware:

  3. #803
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    This thread does not confirm anything of the kind. Where do you come up with this crazy stuff?

  4. #804
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    211
    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 ).

  5. #805
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    23
    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...
    Last edited by Eggcake; 07-07-2011 at 02:56 PM.

  6. #806
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by bulanula View Post
    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 ).
    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.

  7. #807
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    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

    Jul7HostBar.png
    (bars with a border = testing stopped/completed)


    Raw data graphs

    Writes vs. Wear:
    Jul7Host.png

    MWI Exhaustion:
    Jul7MWIE.png


    Normalized data graphs
    The SSDs are not all the same size, these charts normalize for 25GiB of onboard NAND.

    Writes vs. Wear:
    Jul7NormHost.png

    MWI Exhaustion:
    Jul7NormMWIE.png


    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:
    Jul7WDHost.png

    MWI Exhaustion:
    Jul7WDMWIE.png

  8. #808
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    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").

  9. #809
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    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

  10. #810
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    Still, it will be useful for post-MWI Exhaustion wear tracking
    Exactly. That's why I requested it!

    Although I'm not sure it is even available on the Intels. I just checked some of my Intel SSDs (very low writes) and the raw value of the wear parameter is 0 on all of them. The writes are not THAT low!
    Last edited by johnw; 07-07-2011 at 04:35 PM.

  11. #811
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    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?

    LinRaw.png

    LogRaw.png

    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 If logarithmic scale axis is the choice--should I add interpolated data?
    Last edited by Vapor; 07-07-2011 at 04:43 PM. Reason: edit2

  12. #812
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    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?
    I prefer the linear scale graph, since the relationship is expected to be linear. Also, we would be able to see, visually, if the ~WA changes, by observing a change in the slope of the graph.

  13. #813
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    At least one new SandForce will be entering in the coming weeks
    Can somebody say "unthrottled SF2 drive" ???

  14. #814
    Uber Raid King Computurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, Ks
    Posts
    3,881
    -avoid 25nm if you can get 34nm at same price
    i hate to 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.



    CMON guys, first to 1/2 PB is the winner
    "Lurking" Since 1977


    Jesus Saves, God Backs-Up
    *I come to the news section to ban people, not read complaints.*-[XC]Gomeler
    Don't believe Squish, his hardware does control him!

  15. #815
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    65.521 TiB, 189 hours, sa177: 1/1/5483
    74.641 TiB, 214 hours, sa177: 1/1/6237

    The other two unknown SMART attributes, 178 and 235, are still at 72/72/276 and 99/99/2, just as they were when the SSD was fresh out of the box.

  16. #816
    Xtreme Mentor Ao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597
    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

  17. #817
    Xtreme Member dr_sharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    235
    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.
    | Intel 2500K @ 5GHz | Noctua NH-D14 | Asus P67 Sabertooth | Samsung 2x4GB DDR3 @ 2133 MHz | Crucial M4 256GB | Asus GTX 770 OC | OCZ Fatal1ty 750W | Qnix QX2710

    History: AXP-2400M, AXP-2500M, Core2 E6600 - all minimum 50% overclock

  18. #818
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    609
    And there was the first week of testing over. To sum it up so far:
    • The M4 have written 49,0105 TiB.

    • (AD)Wear leveling count has gone from 100 to 72.

    • Avg speed 84.97 MiB/s

    • 168 hours finished


    Otherwise everything looks normal, the speed is good and there has not been any reallocated sectors yet.

    M4-CT064 M4SSD2 SATA Disk Device_1GB-20110708-1357.png

    M4-CT064 M4SSD2 SATA Disk Device_1GB-20110708-1358.PNG
    1: AMD FX-8150-Sabertooth 990FX-8GB Corsair XMS3-C300 256GB-Gainward GTX 570-HX-750
    2: Phenom II X6 1100T-Asus M4A89TD Pro/usb3-8GB Corsair Dominator-Gainward GTX 460SE/-X25-V 40GB-(Crucial m4 64GB /Intel X25-M G1 80GB/X25-E 64GB/Mtron 7025/Vertex 1 donated to endurance testing)
    3: Asus U31JG - X25-M G2 160GB

  19. #819
    SLC One_Hertz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    186.5TiB. 3%. Reallocated sectors up to 19.

  20. #820
    Moderator Anvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sharp View Post
    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.
    It managed to write more than most people are likely to write during 3 years of rather heavy usage, (8TiB per year is way above normal usage)
    The dotted line shows interesting data as it shows what could have been, if it wasn't for the throttling.
    So, yes, it failed to complete the Endurance test, it did not fail as a drive though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ao1 View Post
    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
    I'd say it might go on for a few more weeks depending on how wear leveling is implemented.
    3000 P/E cycles is about 190TB. (best case)

    --

    141.55TB Host writes
    MWI 22 (early)
    Reallocated sectors, still at 6.

    During the last 24.5 hours it managed an average of 32.13MiB/s writes + 9 rounds of MD5 testing a ~1.7GB file.
    -
    Hardware:

  21. #821
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    211
    So far what SSD would you guys say is the "best" and what would you recommend people buy ???

  22. #822
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sharp View Post
    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.
    Wear vs. TiB might still stick to that line, even with LTT (and my guess is that it would stick pretty closely to that line). The tester chose to stop testing but the drive was still functioning as intended, even if it were not functioning as desired.

    Wear vs. Write-days extrapolation would change dramatically (for the 'better') as the drive would now be forced to last 1000+ days rather than the 55-60 it could wear itself down in without LTT. If anything, I feel I should add another line indicating actual life expectancy in days...but that would mess up the visibility of the charted data from every other drive

    That said, I expect to remove the data from the Vertex 2 40GB when a SF-1200 drive without LTT enters testing (partially because testing on the V2-40GB is permanently incomplete and partially because of the initial 0-fill numbers complicating things), but until then it'll be on the chart because there is no alternative/better SF-1200 data.


    C300 Update:

    15.0234TiB, 95MWI, 251raw, 0 reallocated, 62.12MiB/s, 42/0 with MD5 checks (1.65GiB file)

    15_0234t.PNG

  23. #823
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    Updated charts

    First time the C300 is in the MWIE charts...MWI reached 95 with a raw of 251, so it was early in the cycle and is, hopefully, good for extrapolating.

    Host Writes So Far

    Jul8BarHost.png
    (bars with a border = testing stopped/completed)


    Raw data graphs

    Writes vs. Wear:
    Jul8Host.png

    MWI Exhaustion:
    Jul8MWIE.png

    Writes vs. NAND Cycles:
    Jul8NAND.png


    Normalized data graphs
    The SSDs are not all the same size, these charts normalize for 25GiB of onboard NAND.

    Writes vs. Wear:
    Jul8NormHost.png

    MWI Exhaustion:
    Jul8NormMWIE.png


    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:
    Jul8WDHost.png

    MWI Exhaustion:
    Jul8WDMWIE.png

  24. #824
    Moderator Anvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    Finally some figures for the C300

    So, 300TiB, should be great fun!
    -
    Hardware:

  25. #825
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    211
    On another note, according to the "formula", a 128GB C300 with 34nm NAND should last ( 5000 * 128 ) or 640 000 GB of writes or 640 TB of writes ! The 64GB version of the C300 should last about half of that so about 320 TB etc. ???

    Also you guys might wanna include secure erase endurance testing here as well. How many times can a SSD be secure erased ??? Might be a good point of investigation.

Page 33 of 220 FirstFirst ... 23303132333435364383133 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •