SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

[bluestang]

NO M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB update till Monday

Lost my connection to my Work PC from my home while stopping app and running wiper and screenshots

Can't get it to reconnecto and won't be able to get it back up and running till then

[Anvil]

@Vapor



I like the custom drivename

One of the weakest 4K QD1 results I've seen on a SF1 series drive, I've got one that hovers around 14MB/s, must be 25nm.

Did you check what NAND and the number of dies?

[Vapor]

Hynix 32nm

16 of the little buggers.

[Anvil]

NO M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB update till Monday

Lost my connection to my Work PC from my home while stopping app and running wiper and screenshots

Can't get it to reconnecto and won't be able to get it back up and running till then

I might be able to add the wiper process to the loop, maybe an option to let it run every n loops.

You should let it run for a day or two just to see how bad it gets.

[Anvil]

Hynix 32nm
16 of the little buggers.

I find that quite interesting, this will be the first Hynix NAND to be tested, 32nm could go both ways.

--

199.82TB Host writes
Reallocated sector count : 6

[Vapor]

I find it interesting too, I just don't think highly of Hynix NAND. Slow, rated for 3000 P/E cycles despite being 34nm-class, very inexpensive...when I think of Hynix NAND, I just don't think of quality.

While I have a hunch the Intel 320 and SF-1200/2200 will be the strongest for endurance (both have parity, SF also can achieve <1.00x WA and SF also has LTT, helping it last longer in terms of days at the expense of performance), but I wouldn't be surprised if this drive were the fastest to die. Maybe further down the road I'll enter an nLTT F60A (IMFT 25nm) or even find an F60 (IMFT 34nm) to enter, but only after one of the two drives I'm running dies (essentially out of SATA ports on the system used for this).

[johnw]

265.419 TiB, 726 hours, sa177: 1/1/21827

MOVEMENT in attribute 178 raw!!!! Changed from 276 to 282. Now adding it to my reporting list:

284.151 TiB, 776 hours, sa177: 1/1/23345, sa178: 72/72/282

Average speed reported by Anvil's app has been steady at about 112MB/s.

The other unknown SMART attribute 235 is still at 99/99/2, just as it was when the SSD was fresh out of the box.

64GB Samsung 470

I wonder if SA178 is reallocated block count? Maybe the SSD shipped with a number of reallocated blocks (from Samsung internal burn-in test?) and only now have there been any new reallocated blocks? I don't know, just guessing.

Right after the above data, I upgraded to the latest version of ASU, Beta4. Before restarting endurance testing, I ran Samsung's SSD Optimization software (Magician), and also ran ASU SSD benchmark and AS-SSD.

[Vapor]

Oooo

Now is that 6 blocks (equiv) or 1 block (equiv)? Both are multiples of six, it moved by a chunk of six, and the first movement was by a chunk of six, so I'm guessing it's 1 block (equiv) and for some reason the raw value moves in steps of six. Good thing I've been keeping track of SA178 this whole time, don't need to add anything

[bluestang]

I might be able to add the wiper process to the loop, maybe an option to let it run every n loops.

You should let it run for a day or two just to see how bad it gets.

Now that would be pretty cool!

Also, back online sooner than expected

M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:

5.71TiB, MWI 96, 238 Raw Wear, 37.54MiB/s

[Ao1]

Hynix 32nm

16 of the little buggers.

Do you know the NAND part number?

[Vapor]

do you know the nand part number?

h27ubg8t2atr

[johnw]

284.151 TiB, 776 hours, sa177: 1/1/23345, sa178: 72/72/282

294.054 TiB, 802 hours, sa177: 1/1/24157, sa178: 71/71/290

Average speed reported by Anvil's app has been steady at about 112MB/s.

The other unknown SMART attribute 235 is still at 99/99/2, just as it was when the SSD was fresh out of the box.

64GB Samsung 470

sa178 continues to increase (raw value) and the normalized value went from 72 to 71. Interesting, maybe the flash is finally starting to wear out?

[Vapor]

SA178 having a reading of 290 answers the 6 vs. 1 question...it looks like 6 blocks lost and now 14 blocks lost

Do you know when it ticked over to 71 normalized? If it happened at 285, then it could be an indication of how the normalized value is calculated and how much NAND failure is 'acceptable' (with an allocation of 1000 blocks to fail and every 10 blocks it moves 1 step).

[johnw]

No, I have only been checking it once a day, so I don't know any more details. Maybe later this week I will try recording the SMART attributes several times in one day, if I get a chance.

[B.A.T]

m4 update:

194.0943 TiB
648hours
Avg speed 88.70 MiB/s.
AD gone from 251 to 243.
P/E 3394.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors

[Vapor]

C300 Update

133.72TiB, 55MWI, 2260 raw wear, speed is down to 61.6MiB/sec (likely due to the SF-1200's introduction), reallocations still at 2048/1, MD5 OK

SF-1200 nLTT Update

9.688TiB host writes, 3.781TiB NAND writes, 100 MWI, 60.5 raw wear, 62.35MiB/sec @ 46% setting, no reallocations, haven't started MD5 testing yet.

[bulanula]

Very good with the no LTT drive. Can the end user modify the firmware and remove LTT is my question ?

[Ao1]

h27ubg8t2atr

I can't find data to match the last two letters, but other than that here are the specs:

Page size: 8,640 bytes (8,192 + 448)
Block size: 256 pages (2M+112 bytes
Plane size: 1,024 blocks
P/E: 3,000

I'm really looking to see what happens without throttling getting in the way

[Anvil]

204.43TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors 6
MD5 OK

33.00MiB/s on avg for the last 51.7 hours.

[bluestang]

M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:

10.31TiB, MWI 92, 421 Raw Wear, 45.30MiB/s for the last 22.1 hours (<-stopped, ran wiper, then restarted)
No MD5 Testing yet.

Also, noticed change in C3 from 0 to 1 and CE from 1 to 214.

[B.A.T]

m4 update:
New milestone passed 200TiB with no reallocated sectors

200.3614 TiB
668hours
Avg speed 88.71 MiB/s.
AD gone from 243 to 240.
P/E 3505.
MD5 OK.
Still no reallocated sectors

[Vapor]

Very impressive

Also of note, your WA has been creeping upward for a long time now. At 20TiB, it was 1.0626x; at 40TiB, it was 1.0727x; at 91TiB, it was 1.078x; at 130TiB, it was 1.089x; at 200TiB, it's 1.0933x. Before 20TiB (when calculation is less precise), it climbed from 1.028x to 1.0626x pretty smoothly and quickly....it's been a very smooth climb the entire time actually.

[johnw]

294.054 TiB, 802 hours, sa177: 1/1/24157, sa178: 71/71/290

302.868 TiB, 826 hours, sa177: 1/1/24873, sa178: 71/71/290

Average speed reported by Anvil's app has been steady at about 113MB/s.

The other unknown SMART attribute 235 is still at 99/99/2, just as it was when the SSD was fresh out of the box.

64GB Samsung 470

[Vapor]

300TiB broken

[sergiu]

Very impressive

Also of note, your WA has been creeping upward for a long time now. At 20TiB, it was 1.0626x; at 40TiB, it was 1.0727x; at 91TiB, it was 1.078x; at 130TiB, it was 1.089x; at 200TiB, it's 1.0933x. Before 20TiB (when calculation is less precise), it climbed from 1.028x to 1.0626x pretty smoothly and quickly....it's been a very smooth climb the entire time actually.

Interesting observations! Maybe SSD is trying to leverage the wear more aggressively thus doing more static data rotation and increasing writes?