Page 52 of 220 FirstFirst ... 2424950515253545562102152 ... LastLast
Results 1,276 to 1,300 of 5494

Thread: SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

  1. #1276
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    You can do whatever you want with Win7 vs. XP

    Just found it interesting that TRIM makes such an impact on WA (and it obviously has with speed, too).

    I don't use NAND spec for calculating WA. I take SMART attribute C7 and divide by attribute D0 (and adjust units).

  2. #1277
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    SF-1200 nLTT Update

    69.5TiB host writes, 42.78TiB NAND writes, 81 MWI, 684.5 raw wear (equiv), wear range delta 3, 56MiB/sec, MD5 OK

  3. #1278
    SynbiosVyse
    Guest
    9,968.87 GiB
    42.58 hours
    66.48 MB/s average

    Stopping now and changing settings to:
    46% Compression
    MD5 checking enabled
    Min GiB free to 1 (since I don't really want to add more static data)

    I want to write a ton of data to this drive. The faster I can get it to LTT the better.

  4. #1279
    Xtreme Addict bluestang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    You can do whatever you want with Win7 vs. XP

    Just found it interesting that TRIM makes such an impact on WA (and it obviously has with speed, too).
    Just broke 50 TiB mark

    I think I'll let it run on Win7 over the weekend...gotta love the speed so far...

    Anvil M225-Vertex Turbo 64GB 08.12.2011.png
    Home PC -- Cruncher #1
    GA-P67A-UD4-B3 BIOS F8 modded, i7-2600k (L051B138) @ 4.5 GHz, 1.260v full load, HT Enabled, Corsair H70 exhausted @ 1600rpm
    Samsung Green 2x4GB @2133 C10, Gigabyte 7950 @1200/1250, Vertex 4 128GB, 2x3TB WD Red, F4EG 2TB, BR Burner, Win7 Ult x64, CM690, HX750

    Work PC -- Cruncher #2 ... Crucial M225 64GB SSD Donated to Endurance Testing (Died at 968 TB of writes...no that is not a typo!)
    GA-EP45T-UD3LR BIOS F10 modded, Q6600 G0 VID 1.212 (L731B536), 3.6 GHz 9x400 @ 1.312v full load, Zerotherm Zen FZ120
    OCZ 2x2GB DDR3-1600MHz C7, Sapphire 6970 @955/1475, Vertex 2 60GB, 2x500GB Hitachi R1, Win7 Ent x64, Centurion 590, XFX PRO650W

    Music System
    SB Server->SB Touch w/Android Tablet as a remote->S/PDIF->Kenwood Sovereign VR-4090B->JBL Studio Series Floorstanding Speakers

    BTC: 1K91nTPceMcap66AhDBgMx8t87TomgAABH LTC: LNqbVqebzpMwuZHq95qRTfP73kR2FRZWS4

  5. #1280
    Moderator Anvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    That is a huge improvement bluestang

    Why not keep it running off W7 24/7

    --

    232.58TB Host writes
    Reallocated sectors : 6
    MD5 OK

    35.28MiB/s on avg (~22 hours)
    -
    Hardware:

  6. #1281
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    398.182 TiB, 1079 hours, sa177: 1/1/32603, sa178: 64/64/366
    406.012 TiB, 1100 hours, sa177: 1/1/33228, sa178: 62/62/380

    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

    Unless the decay in sa178 normalized accelerates, it looks like 30 to 60 days until it reaches 1. I wonder what happens at that point. Of course, I would not be surprised if the decay DOES accelerate, and there is less than 30 days left to reach 1.

  7. #1282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by One_Hertz View Post
    Just remember that the WA calculation is our guess rather than a fact. WA of 5.14 would mean that the NAND on the Samsung is actually writing at 580MB/s which is rather doubtful.
    I agree that we do not know for certain that the WA is 5.

    However, I disagree that WA=5 implies that the Samsung is writing to flash at 580MB/s. I think it implies that the Samsung is erasing flash blocks at 580MB/s. Not exactly the same thing as writing data to flash at 580MB/s.

  8. #1283
    Uber Raid King Computurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, Ks
    Posts
    3,887
    what if it is doing them half and half? writing 290 MB/s and then erasing 290 MB/s?
    "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!

  9. #1284
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    198
    I would also agree that erasing must be done at 580MB/s. On the other hand, writing could be anywhere between 113MB and 580MB because it might need to rewrite some pages from the erased block. Because it can keep a constant speed of 112-113MB, I would say that internally is indeed writing much less than 580MB/s and it has not reached the theoretical max write speed.

  10. #1285
    SynbiosVyse
    Guest
    Corsair Force 40-A

    14,567.35 GiB written
    22.17 Hours
    MD5 ok
    58.79 MB/s

  11. #1286
    Xtreme Mentor Ao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597
    Typical NAND specs:
    Array performance
    – Read page: 50μs (MAX)
    – Program page: 900μs (TYP)
    Erase block: 3ms (TYP)

    Hi SynbiosVyse
    Could you post SMART attribute values for E9, F1, E6 & the MWI when you do updates? (The RAW 1byte value for E6 works as a count down to LTT.)
    Last edited by Ao1; 08-13-2011 at 10:35 AM.

  12. #1287
    SynbiosVyse
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ao1 View Post
    Typical NAND specs:
    Array performance
    – Read page: 50μs (MAX)
    – Program page: 900μs (TYP)
    Erase block: 3ms (TYP)

    Hi SynbiosVyse
    Could you post SMART attribute values for E9, F1, E6 & the MWI when you do updates? (The RAW 1byte value for E6 works as a count down to LTT.)
    Like I said before I'm pretty sure most of the SMART info for Corsair's drives are borked. I started seeing stuff like this happening since firmware 2.0 (firmware 1.1 was okay). This screenshot was JUST taken (as you can see, barely anything has changed since my original, virgin screenshot several posts back):

    NewCrystal.png

    Also notice the health is still at 100%, even after quite a bit has been written to the drive. Vapor believes it will go down eventually, but I will keep an eye on it. I would not be surprised if it is rigged to stay at 100%. I have worked a lot with these drives and with the older versions of firmware the health would drop pretty fast, ever since firmware 2.0 all drives I have seen are at 100%. Perhaps people have just not used them enough, we'll see.

  13. #1288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    406.012 TiB, 1100 hours, sa177: 1/1/33228, sa178: 62/62/380
    415.193 TiB, 1125 hours, sa177: 1/1/33990, sa178: 60/60/398

    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

  14. #1289
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ao1 View Post
    Typical NAND specs:
    Array performance
    – Read page: 50μs (MAX)
    – Program page: 900μs (TYP)
    Erase block: 3ms (TYP)
    Typical block size 512KiB

    8 channels x 512KiB / 3ms = 1.398e9 = 1398 MB/s

    So it would only take 3 channels of block erase going in parallel to hit 525 MB/s of erasing. But it may be even faster than that, since I don't think the controller has to hold each channel until the block erase is done, so it can probably have more block-erases going on in parallel than there are channels.
    Last edited by johnw; 08-13-2011 at 01:21 PM.

  15. #1290
    SynbiosVyse
    Guest
    15.0575 TiB
    26.29 Hours
    58.79 MB/s
    MD5 Ok

  16. #1291
    Xtreme Mentor Ao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597
    E9 (if correct) is only showing 5,312 GiB of writes to NAND. F1, host writes, is showing 14,976 GiB. Were you running 0 fill? Now 46% fill?
    LTT & MWI are based on E9. Increasing compressibility reduces the amount of writes that get recorded to E9.

  17. #1292
    SynbiosVyse
    Guest
    Yes that's correct. I didn't realize the raw values in hex had changed, strange that CrystalDiskInfo does not translate the hex to decimal? Why does it say 0 there?

  18. #1293
    Xtreme Mentor Ao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597
    @ John
    Those specs are for 25nm Mircon NAND, with a 1MiB block. I'd also guess multiple channels. Seems like the controller/ SATA interface add quite a bit of overhead. (Edit: easy to see why a clean drive can give really high benchmark figures)

    @ SynbiosVyse
    Function > advanced features > Raw Values > Select preference on how you want to see the values.

  19. #1294
    Xtreme Addict bluestang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,405
    M225->Vertex Turbo 64GB Update:

    60.84 TiB
    MWI 59 (drops by 1 for every 50 raw wear)
    2064 Raw Wear
    116.81 MB/s avg for the last 29.13 hours (on W7 x64)
    MD5 OK

    Man, this drive flys on Win 7
    Home PC -- Cruncher #1
    GA-P67A-UD4-B3 BIOS F8 modded, i7-2600k (L051B138) @ 4.5 GHz, 1.260v full load, HT Enabled, Corsair H70 exhausted @ 1600rpm
    Samsung Green 2x4GB @2133 C10, Gigabyte 7950 @1200/1250, Vertex 4 128GB, 2x3TB WD Red, F4EG 2TB, BR Burner, Win7 Ult x64, CM690, HX750

    Work PC -- Cruncher #2 ... Crucial M225 64GB SSD Donated to Endurance Testing (Died at 968 TB of writes...no that is not a typo!)
    GA-EP45T-UD3LR BIOS F10 modded, Q6600 G0 VID 1.212 (L731B536), 3.6 GHz 9x400 @ 1.312v full load, Zerotherm Zen FZ120
    OCZ 2x2GB DDR3-1600MHz C7, Sapphire 6970 @955/1475, Vertex 2 60GB, 2x500GB Hitachi R1, Win7 Ent x64, Centurion 590, XFX PRO650W

    Music System
    SB Server->SB Touch w/Android Tablet as a remote->S/PDIF->Kenwood Sovereign VR-4090B->JBL Studio Series Floorstanding Speakers

    BTC: 1K91nTPceMcap66AhDBgMx8t87TomgAABH LTC: LNqbVqebzpMwuZHq95qRTfP73kR2FRZWS4

  20. #1295
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ao1 View Post
    @ John
    Those specs are for 25nm Mircon NAND, with a 1MiB block. I'd also guess multiple channels. Seems like the controller/ SATA interface add quite a bit of overhead. (Edit: easy to see why a clean drive can give really high benchmark figures)
    So, double the erase speeds for a 1MiB block. The rest of that looks like a non sequitur. What are you talking about?

  21. #1296
    Admin Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    13,107
    bluestang, I'm tracking SMART attribute C7 (host writes in sectors), CF (average erase count), D0 (max erase count), D1 (MWI), and C3 (reallocation equiv, I think). If you could include those raw values (preferably in decimal) with each update, that'd be great. (also keeping tabs on speed and MD5 check, but that's not a SMART attribute, of course)

    SynbiosVyse, I need the raw values (preferably in decimal) of SMART attributes E9 (NAND writes), F1 (host writes), B1 (wear range delta), and 05 (reallocation equiv, I think) from you, in addition to average speed, MD5 check, and E7 normalized value (MWI).

    Doesn't matter if its a screenshot or written out, whatever is easiest for both of you

    Also of note, your recent WA is down to just 1.22x (though I'm not certain about the numbers without the SMART attribute raw values). Before enabling TRIM, your WA was around 2.43x, so it seems TRIM has cut WA in half.

  22. #1297
    Xtreme Mentor Ao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    So, double the erase speeds for a 1MiB block. The rest of that looks like a non sequitur. What are you talking about?

    Those timings are at the NAND level. If a block is not clean, i.e. it contains a small of amount of valid data, that data has to be relocated before the block is erased, which adds time to the operation. Deciding where the data ends up is a processing task, which takes time to calculate. What I tried to say was that when a drive is in a fresh state it doesn't have to worry about any of that.

    A secure erase can be executed in under ~ 2 seconds, so there must be a way to access and erase all blocks more or less simultaneously, so a block erase can be very fast if the controller does not have to be concerned about checking to see if data is valid, mapping data or managing WA.

    When the drive is in a used state processing time is required, which adds overhead. As can be seen below that overhead can vary significantly depending on the state of the drive.

    Untitled.png

  23. #1298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ao1 View Post
    Those timings are at the NAND level. If a block is not clean, i.e. it contains a small of amount of valid data, that data has to be relocated before the block is erased, which adds time to the operation....

    A secure erase can be executed in under ~ 2 seconds,...
    In general it is true that GC may need to relocate some flash pages before a block can be erased. But in the specific case of ASU endurance test on the Samsung 470, I think that there is little relocation needed. For two reasons -- the amount of random writes are relatively small compared to sequential writes, and it is set to keep 12GiB free. With few random writes, 12GiB free, and TRIM, the GC just does not have much work to do.

    As for SE in 2sec, I think that is highly dependent on the SSD. I've had a SE take more than 30sec (I think it was an Intel G1). And I've seen references to it taking a minute or two. Some SSDs have built-in encryption, so all it has to do is generate a new encryption key and mark all pages invalid in the index, so that could be done very quickly. But for SSDs without encryption, it is not "secure" to just mark all the pages as invalid -- it needs to go through and erase all the blocks. So I can see that taking more than a few seconds (but still less time than it would take to write zeros to the entire SSD).

  24. #1299
    Xtreme Mentor Ao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597
    In principle I agree with you that an erase operation at the SSD level is likely to be significantly faster than host write speed capability.

    Whilst I don't think the erase time is an issue for the WA calculation I'm still not sure how WA has been calculated. Somehow it does not seem possible that it can be so high, although the host write speeds imply that WA is being sacrificed to some degree.

    It would be good if some of the key assumptions being made in the thread could be summarised in the first post.

    It's interesting to see the difference TRIM has made to bluestang. Significantly faster write speeds and reduced WA.

  25. #1300
    Moderator Anvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    Regarding SE, did anyone monitor writes during an SE?

    I've checked the SF drives and there are 0 writes, the 2 second SE on the SF based drives is due to that it is SE'd by sending a specific voltage to the NAND.

    --

    236.73TB Host writes
    Reallocated sectors : 6
    MD5 OK

    33.34MiB/s on avg (~60 hours)
    -
    Hardware:

Page 52 of 220 FirstFirst ... 2424950515253545562102152 ... 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
  •