SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

[Ao1]

Host writes: 11,055 GiB
MWI: 53
P/E Cycles: 1,688
POH: 234
Relocated sectors: 4,096

More time lost due to a fricking Windows auto restart. Auto update / off

[minpayne]

^^Ao1, could you eliminate any possibilities of BSOD by disabling auto-reboot upon BSOD? It could be found in System -> Advanced system settings -> Startup and recovery settings -> System failure automatically restart

I suspect that the disk went offline with some 0xF4 BSOD?

[Hopalong X]

That's a real shame isn't it? Whatever happened to the SSD promise that the drives will become read-only and will not die the way all SSDs have died so far. So, none of the players implemented any fail-safes in any drive. What a shame! I would be better served with 200TiB writes and read-only for next 5 years instead of 400TiB and dead-for-good in a week after that.

Intels have no read only point as some others.
Once MWI-1 is reached data retention is not guaranteed and may be reduced.

When you reach MWI-1 on the Intels (and many of the others tested here) it is your call-
1) When to back it up.
2) Stop writing to it and use it as giant read only thunb drive.
3) Keep on writing.

I don't know exactly what the final write numbers will be on the Intel 320 but if memory serves it will be in the 600-800TB range.
MWI was exhausted at 190TB.
If this was a data retention test I think One_Hertz might have been overly aggresive with the "Writes".

Since this is an endurance test it died like a "Spartan".

[Ao1]

^^Ao1, could you eliminate any possibilities of BSOD by disabling auto-reboot upon BSOD? It could be found in System -> Advanced system settings -> Startup and recovery settings -> System failure automatically restart

I suspect that the disk went offline with some 0xF4 BSOD?

It's not a BSOD, its a dumb arse Windozs auto reboot after an update. I know this as I had already checked the event viewer.

[Christopher]

Ao1,

Just out of curiosity, is the Z68 system you're using a dedicated endurance rig or is it a multipurpose system?

My dedicated uATX H67/ 1155 Celeron system is perfect for an endurance testing rig, and had been completely stable -- until the other day when I lost contact. I'm not sure if the remote desktop client crashed, or if the whole system is down. I'm still out of town, should be home tomorrow to find out. I've also purchased another 16GB MTRON, so I'm going to start testing one of the two (one is a 3.5" MTRON PRO 7000 16GB, the other is a 2.5" MTRON MOBI 3000 16GB). I'm not convinced that it's even possible to test one in a reasonable timeframe, but I guess we'll see, won't we? Perhaps the MOBI will surprise me with more than one SMART attribute.

[bluestang]

Bluestang,

are you planning on running the other M225?

Still debating. It's in a laptop right now not doing much since I don't use it that much. But when I do, it's nice to be in Win7 in 15-20 seconds!

Also, very busy right now with my physical inventory from the end of December. Pricing WIP for the bean counters just sucks and is very time consuming. I should be done by the end of Feb.

I'm sure I'll break down at some point and re-enter....I just miss you guys so much!

[Christopher]

Well Bluestang, the reason I was asking is because I obtained a brand-new Vertex Turbo 64GB... and I was wondering if you were going to run the other M225. I basically wanted your blessing before running it in the endurance test.

I was planning on running one of the MTRON 16GB drives and the 64GB Vertex Turbo... but I was hoping the Samsung would die soon to make room for other drives in the test. If you have no objections to me running this Vertex Turbo in the test, I will do so. I was kinda waiting around to see if you were going to run the other drive before I jump in.

[Anvil]

Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)

637.96TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 21
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 5760
MD5 OK

32.88MiB/s on avg (~168 hours)

--

Corsair Force 3 120GB

01 88/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 58 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 719007 (Raw writes) ->702TiB
F1 956891 (Host writes) ->934TiB

MD5 OK

106.90MiB/s on avg (~168 hours)

power on hours : 2733

[bluestang]

Don't need my permission...go for it.

Plus, then we can see how well a OCZ Turbo stacks against a Crucial Turbo.

[Ao1]

Half way house. MWI is 50 and P/E cycles are at 1803
MB/s: Steady 6.27MB/s

@Christopher, I running on my main work rig. It’s 100% stable, but using it for the endurance test is a pain. It runs along in the background and doesn't take up much in the way of resources (even when running 4K) but it still a pain in the butt. (No AV, restarts for app/ windoze etc.). I’m just glad I didn’t pick the X25-V or 320.

[Christopher]

Half way house. MWI is 50 and P/E cycles are at 1803
MB/s: Steady 6.27MB/s

@Christopher, I running on my main work rig. It’s 100% stable, but using it for the endurance test is a pain. It runs along in the background and doesn't take up much in the way of resources (even when running 4K) but it still a pain in the butt. (No AV, restarts for app/ windoze etc.). I’m just glad I didn’t pick the X25-V or 320.

I will say that I'm concerned about running three drives with three instances of ASU. The 1155 Celeron G530/H67 combo is pegged around 30 percent, but I think some of that is from the Splashtop remote desktop app (which is how I access the system, over my tablet, so it may drop down whilst I'm not looking)-- either way, it might not have the juice to run 3 drives. It's virtually silent, which is a plus too. I mainly use it headless, but I do have it connected to my LED TV if I need to access the UEFI or something.

I looked at resource utilization from the Slashtop remote client on my main SB rig, but it uses nVidia GPUs (it's optimized for nVidia and may leverage CUDA - The endurance rig uses 1155 SB video), and CPU usage was practically 0.

[Anvil]

Each instance should be about 2-3%, must be something else that's consuming the bulk of the 30%.

[Christopher]

Actually Bluestang, perhaps you can help me with something.

I found a brand new VT64, but it's one of the newer ones with 1.7FW. It was at 97 percent MWI out of the box. I tried D flashing it again, but nothing happened, so I flashed regular Vertex FW, used the NAND cleaner, then did Vertex Turbo FW again. This time, all the factory blocks disappeared and MWI went back to 100. But after a few moments MWI dropped back to 97 as the bad blocks got flagged again. I didn't know MWI was affected by runtime bad blocks. I'll post screenshots tomorrow.

[B.A.T]

Todays update.
Kingston V+100
And again it has dropped out.....


Intel X25-M G1 80GB
248,02841 TiB
20311 hours
Reallocated sectors : 00
MWI=134 to 132
MD5 =OK
46.82 MiB/s on avg


m4
252.9766 TiB
933 hours
Avg speed 80.48 MiB/s.
AD gone from 216 to 208.
P/E 4453.
MD5 OK.
Reallocated sectors : 00

[Christopher]

I know why it's pegged at 30 percent all the time... it's just at a lower clock level. The single core 1155 Celeron doesn't use P-states, doesn't downclock or reduce voltage, but the G530 does. It's always running at 1.4Ghz because ASU and the RDC client only use a couple percent combined at 2.4Ghz on both cores, so it never really gets a chance to hang out at 2.4 as everything possible is disabled on the endurance rig. It's about as stripped down as a modern Win7 system can be.

[Ao1]

Host writes: 11,549 GiB
MWI: 48
P/E Cycles: 1,886
POH: 256
Relocated sectors: 4,096
MB/s: 5.97

[Anvil]

Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)

640.57TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 05 21
Available Reserved Space : E8 99
POH 5782
MD5 OK

34.02MiB/s on avg (~13 hours)

--

Corsair Force 3 120GB

01 88/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 56 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 10 (SSD Life left)
E9 725327 (Raw writes) ->708TiB
F1 965294 (Host writes) ->943TiB

MD5 OK

106.87MiB/s on avg (~13 hours)

power on hours : 2756

[Christopher]

Okay... Just got home. Somehow, the system went to sleep even though sleep was disabled. So I lost the past few days and its basically right where my last update was.


UPDATE
I power cycled the drive and got 14764 PE cycles, so that would be the number for the last update -- at least they had started updating in real time, but it was lagging behind.

Oh and POR RECOVERY COUNT is unsafe shutdown count. I just tested it.

[Christopher]

Samsung 830 64GB Update, Day 43
FW:CXM02B1Q

TiB Written:
258.3029

GiB written:
264502.22

Avg MB/s
126.54

PE Cycles
14764
Reallocated Sectors

40960
20 Blocks, holding steady

1041 Hours




The drive essentially idled for 76 hours. The drive was powered on while the system was sleeping.

Annoyingly, the drive will no longer update Wear Leveling Count! Argh!

[Ao1]

Host writes: 12,118 GiB
MWI: 43
P/E Cycles: 2,071
POH: 283
Relocated sectors: 4,096
MB/s: 6.31

[Christopher]

**Enter a new challenger**
****OCZ Vertex Turbo 64****

Here is ASU and SSDLife.



I ran the NAND cleaner on it again, but I don't think the NAND cleaner does what I think it does.

[bluestang]

Have fun and Good Luck

[Christopher]

Thanks Bluestang!

But I should never have run the NAND cleaner. Speed is great at first, but slows down as it struggles with the marginal blocks which have to be re-flagged.

I was always under the impression that the cleaner would help identify bad blocks, not hide them. I guess if you have a drive with a lot of bad blocks, you may have a hard time destructive-flashing firmware. Which I did incidentally, even though it's a brand-new drive.

[Ao1]

I found this in a Toshiba product spec sheet. It would have been a lot nicer if they included a scale, but its the only thing I have come across that shows the relationship between P/E cycles and data retention, so it’s a start at least.

[johnw]

Hmmm, it seems like they are saying that data retention time is constant up to "X" erase cycles, then data retention time decreases geometrically (power law like C^-0.3) until 10X erase cycles are reached (data retention time having decreased to about half the initial value at 10X cycles), then then data retention time decreases at an even faster geometrical rate beyond 10X erase cycles.

I think they just made that up. I don't think they have any actual data to support that chart, except in the most abstract sense.