Page 39 of 220 FirstFirst ... 29363738394041424989139 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 975 of 5493

Thread: SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

  1. #951
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by devsk View Post
    Samsung looks like the seabiscuit of this race.... it refuses to give up!
    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!
    Last edited by johnw; 07-17-2011 at 02:52 PM.

  2. #952
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by B.A.T View Post
    1000TB is a lot, but maybe the intel 320 will go so far. It's got 16GB extra nand compared to the rest to handle less P/E .
    A 40GB Intel 320 has six 8GiB flash packages on its circuit board. I think that five of them are used normally (five channels of the controller), and the sixth is used for the RAID-4 like XOR parity. So that would be 8GiB extra flash.

  3. #953
    Registered User Hopalong X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    87
    Has anyone heard from One Hertz? It has been a few days since he posted or I missed something.

  4. #954
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    A 40GB Intel 320 has six 8GiB flash packages on its circuit board. I think that five of them are used normally (five channels of the controller), and the sixth is used for the RAID-4 like XOR parity. So that would be 8GiB extra flash.
    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

    62_53t.PNG

  5. #955
    Moderator Anvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    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.
    -
    Hardware:

  6. #956
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    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?
    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.
    Last edited by johnw; 07-17-2011 at 05:23 PM.

  7. #957
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Anvil View Post
    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)
    Your SSD has Torx screws? All of my Intel SSDs use phillips-head screws. Anyway, a 40GB Intel G2 SSD has five flash packages on-board, 64Gibit each. The 40GB Intel 320 has six.
    Last edited by johnw; 07-17-2011 at 08:14 PM.

  8. #958
    SLC One_Hertz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    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.

  9. #959
    Registered User Dragoonseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    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.
    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.
    Lilim
    Intel Core i7 920 @4.2GHz
    EVGA x58 Micro - HAF 932 - Noctua NH-D14
    Dual SLI Nvidia GTX 480s - 6GB DDR3 1600MHz
    3x Intel X25-M G2 (80GB) SSD in RAID0

  10. #960
    Uber Raid King Computurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, Ks
    Posts
    3,887
    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.
    "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!

  11. #961
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    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.

  12. #962
    Uber Raid King Computurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, Ks
    Posts
    3,887
    CLEARnand does have the integrated controller on the nand itself, offloading the proc of ECC functions.
    "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!

  13. #963
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    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).
    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).
    Last edited by johnw; 07-17-2011 at 08:34 PM.

  14. #964
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    A 40GB Intel 320 has six 8GiB flash packages on its circuit board. I think that five of them are used normally (five channels of the controller), and the sixth is used for the RAID-4 like XOR parity. So that would be 8GiB extra flash.
    My bad. I read an review of the 320 but it might have been the 160GB edition and that one had 16GB for extra sparearea.
    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

  15. #965
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    609
    Morningupdate:

    117.8156 TiB
    399 hours
    Avg speed 89.10 MiB/s.
    AD gone from 34 to 32.
    P/E 2053.
    MD5 OK.

    M4-CT064 M4SSD2 SATA Disk Device_1GB-20110718-0721.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

  16. #966
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    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).
    Here is a circuit-board picture of the intel 320 80GB
    Link
    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

  17. #967
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by B.A.T View Post
    Here is a circuit-board picture of the intel 320 80GB
    Link
    EDIT:

    I had written a bunch of words about how I could not believe that was a production unit since it only had 80GiB of flash.

    Then I looked again. The tenth flash chip, in the lower right corner, is 16GiB

    29F16B08CCME1

    So the 80GB model has 88GiB of flash (nine 8GiB and one 16GiB)

    (insert clip of Christopher Lloyd yelling "88 gibibytes!")

    intel_flash_partnum.png

    I also see that the 120GB model apparently has six 16GiB and 4 8GiB packages for a total of 128GiB (the link says the gross capacity is 128 MiB, oops!), according to the table on this page:

    http://translate.google.com/translat...20_Series_SSDs
    Last edited by johnw; 07-17-2011 at 11:53 PM.

  18. #968
    omgFiRE
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    Out of curiosity, how much NAND do the 80GB and 120GB 320s have?
    Here is a photo of my Intel SSD 320 Series 120Gb (SSDSA2CW120G3): top, bottom (sorry, interface of image hosting site is in russian language). As you can see it has 6x16GiByte + 4x64GiBit = 128GiByte.
    Last edited by omgFiRE; 07-18-2011 at 01:47 AM.

  19. #969
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by omgFiRE View Post
    Here is a photo of my Intel SSD 320 Series 120Gb (SSDSA2CW120G3): top, bottom (sorry, interface of image hosting site is in russian language). As you can see it has 6x16GiByte + 4x64GiBit = 128GiByte.
    Nice! Thanks for posting the pictures.

    So, 40GB, 80GB, and 120GB Intel 320 models all have 8GiB of flash for parity. The 160GB model has 16GiB, 300GB has 20GiB, 600GB has 40GiB for parity.

    It is also interesting that the only 320 models that have flash on the back of the circuit board are the 160GB and 600GB models.

  20. #970
    Moderator Anvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    164.98TB Host writes
    MWI 10
    Reallocated sectors, glued at 6.

    MD5 OK, 33.06MiB/s on avg for the last 16.5 hours.

    edit:

    @One_Hertz

    Lets hope there are some interesting figures showing up.
    Last edited by Anvil; 07-18-2011 at 04:03 AM.
    -
    Hardware:

  21. #971
    Registered User Hopalong X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    87
    johnw and omgFire

    Thanks for the info and pictures.
    That fills in a lot of info for me on my Intel 320 120GB.

  22. #972
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    Very interesting on the 320s' various spare area sizes.

    C300 Update

    65.644TiB, 78MWI, 1105 raw wear indicator, no reallocated sectors, MD5 OK, 61.85MiB/sec.

  23. #973
    Xtreme Member zads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by Computurd View Post
    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.
    Well the other way you could say it is,

    They (Sandforce, Intel, etc) take a type of performance hit (or price hit, depending on how you look at it) to improve error correction capability by more than many many orders of magnitude..
    They need to guarantee data integrity better than hard drives for their serviceable lifetime..
    "Red Dwarf", SFF gaming PC
    Winner of the ASUS Xtreme Design Competition
    Sponsors...ASUS, Swiftech, Intel, Samsung, G.Skill, Antec, Razer
    Hardware..[Maximus III GENE, Core i7-860 @ 4.1Ghz, 4GB DDR3-2200, HD5870, 256GB SSD]
    Water.......[Apogee XT CPU, MCW60-R2 GPU, 2x 240mm radiators, MCP350 pump]

  24. #974
    Uber Raid King Computurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, Ks
    Posts
    3,887
    oh yes the gains are definitely worth it, i wish we had more data on the exact parity scheme used, and whether or not it is handled by the controller. amazing they pull it off with such low wattage devices, i wonder what kind of performance could be had if you used an apparently low-overhead parity set, such as these used, on a full powered raid card.
    "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!

  25. #975
    Xtreme Mentor Ao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by omgFiRE View Post
    Here is a photo of my Intel SSD 320 Series 120Gb (SSDSA2CW120G3): top, bottom (sorry, interface of image hosting site is in russian language). As you can see it has 6x16GiByte + 4x64GiBit = 128GiByte.
    According to post # 783 an Intel 25nm 64Gb Logical Unit = 69,120Mb or 67.5Gb
    64Gb LU = 69,120Mb / 8.4375GiB
    128Gb LU = 13,8240Mb / 16.875GiB
    6 x 16.875 + 4 x 8.4375 = 101.25 + 33.75 = 135GiB
    Of the 8,640 page size 448 byes are for ECC.
    Total NAND Capacity = 135GiB
    Total NAND excluding ECC = 128GiB
    Format Capacity = 111.70GiB?

Page 39 of 220 FirstFirst ... 29363738394041424989139 ... 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
  •