Quote Originally Posted by Computurd View Post
(7500000000000 / (300 * 4096)) / 60) / 60 = ?
(7500000000000 / 1228800) / 3600 = ?
(6103515.625 / 3600) = 1695.42 Hours

OR 70.64 days of completely random IOs. (full span write ONLY)

Off by a little before cause I used 4k vs 4096. The specification has random write I/Os at 300/s using a full span.
The intel addendum lists their measured IOPs at 300 for 4k full span QD=32 random.
When you do limited span IO testing (say 8gb testfile) you get increased efficiency of coalescing and caching mechanisms resulting in increased performance. This is why the iops for smaller datasizes is much more, to the tune of 30 mb/s if i recall correctly.
If you are getting >10x the write speed then you are also getting at least 10x the coalescing. If they are getting 10x the coalescing then they are getting 10x the endurance.
An increase in spare area from 7% to 17% provides over a 2x increase in write endurance. This is directly from Intel. 10% spare area = 280% improvement in write endurance under most circumstances.
Think if he is using the drive basically empty.

EDIT: also you must realize it is Host writes. after write combining and the effects of NCQ from the OS there can be a tremendous difference between host and OS writes.
Yes, that explains part of it, but not to the extent of writing 1PB to an X25-v. Here Intel claims the 160GB X25-M can withstand 150TB if only 96GB is used and the rest is left for overprovisioning (8.3k 8KB random write IOPS in this config or 66MB/s):
http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/...555_459555.pdf

X25-V has 4x less NAND so we are looking at 37.5TB. That asian site is claiming to have written 25x that amount already and that the SSD is still 97% healthy. There is no way. I am near willing to buy and kill an x25-v to see for myself.