SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

[johnw]

Here is some already collected endurance information on several drives
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/201...ive-scale.html

That is just anecdotal evidence of failures. And it does not even include any details about the symptoms of the failures, possible reasons for failures, whether any data could be recovered, and whether the drives were replaced under warranty. Completely useless. Worse than useless, since the systematic data I have seen on failure rates of SSDs shows them to have lower failure rates than HDDs, and this article tends to imply the opposite, without having a credible methodology.

[railmeat]

That is just anecdotal evidence of failures. And it does not even include any details about the symptoms of the failures, possible reasons for failures, whether any data could be recovered, and whether the drives were replaced under warranty. Completely useless. Worse than useless, since the systematic data I have seen on failure rates of SSDs shows them to have lower failure rates than HDDs, and this article tends to imply the opposite, without having a credible methodology.

"Completely useless. Worse than useless, since the systematic data I have seen on failure rates of SSDs shows them to have lower failure rates than HDDs"

its not useless,its a eye opener.

"since the systematic data I have seen on failure rates of SSDs shows them to have lower failure rates than HDDs"

how is this even possible since ssd,s are still to new(2+yrs) to compare to tried and true veteran (6+ year old) western digital raptors...lol? and sorry raptors are thee only drives worth comparing against any ssd.





im simplying replying from facts from my life.i have had raptors since they were released (36 gigers) in raid o at $250 a pop and ran FLAWLESS for 3-4 years then the 74gigers,then i grabbed 2 raptor-x (clear top)150,s in raid,again flawless.they just last period.plug and play literally.

now as far as ssd,s go they simply have NOT been out Long enough for me to give them any real life credibility or stabilty being i bought 1 crucical c-300 and x58a gig ud3r mobo(tried both ports,all firmware on mobo and ssd done)but it died quickly,like 2 weeks or less with 0 signs of problems,wierd.but man was it fast.fine so i got a ocz vertrex limited editon 100 gig,died 1 week,got another ocz lidetical drive lasted 1 month and i was like wow its ok now,then bam stuttering,slowing down,non-responsive ALOT,had enough and returned that 1 as well.heres my link.are they FAST?...omgosh yes but i simply still dont trust them period for good reasons i witnessed myself 3x.i still think its the intels chipset and not the drives problem reading the ssd instruction set on the ssd controller.i will let time pass,more tests done,let more bugs be worked out.im a gamer,not a guina pig for hardware.need stabilty.

my post
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ight=bootracer






this is NOT a isolated instance and needs not to be down played as one,just the facts being diff ssd,s died period and shows me i was not doing something wrong with my 3 ssd,s i gave a chance.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/201...ive-scale.html


"Portman Wills, friend of the company and generally awesome guy, has a far scarier tale to tell. He got infected with the SSD religion based on my original 2009 blog post, and he went all in. He purchased eight SSDs over the last two years … and all of them failed. The tale of the tape is frankly a little terrifying:"


•Super Talent 32 GB SSD, failed after 137 days
•OCZ Vertex 1 250 GB SSD, failed after 512 days
•G.Skill 64 GB SSD, failed after 251 days
•G.Skill 64 GB SSD, failed after 276 days
•Crucial 64 GB SSD, failed after 350 days
•OCZ Agility 60 GB SSD, failed after 72 days
•Intel X25-M 80 GB SSD, failed after 15 days
•Intel X25-M 80 GB SSD, failed after 206 days
You might think after this I'd be swearing off SSDs as unstable, unreliable technology. Particularly since I am the world's foremost expert on backups."


i like this thread alot and watching it closely and slowly watching 99-98-97-96-95 on this 1 drive being tested from the op.u dont think i wanna EASILY run out and grab a ocz vertex3 right now.im waiting and letting time prove itself with these drives...

lack of communication is the problem here.intel/amd and all of the major ssd controller manufactuers need to spend ALOT more time together in the labs then a quick "hotfix"


@NN "It's hardware that makes a machine fast. It's software that makes a fast machine slow." agee %100

[johnw]

how is this even possible since ssd,s are still to new(2+yrs) to compare to tried and true veteran (6+ year old) western digital raptors...lol? and sorry raptors are thee only drives worth comparing against any ssd.

Of course we cannot have good statistics on 5 year reliability of SSDs (although we can make good guesses based on tests and data we do have). But that is not the point. The article referenced is pure propaganda since it purports to say that SSDs have a high one or two year failure rate. There is some reasonable data already on one or two year failure rates of SSDs, so it is absurd to give any credibility to the kind of anecdotal evidence the article mentions.

this is NOT a isolated instance and needs not to be down played as one,just the facts being diff ssd,s died period and shows me i was not doing something wrong with my 3 ssd,s i gave a chance.

It absolutely should NOT be given credence. Anecdotal evidence is useless, or worse than useless, when looking at reliability. A careful statistical study with good methodology is required.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there are millions of SSDs in use. Even if the annual failure rate is only 0.1%, there should be thousands of SSDs failing each year. All anecdotal evidence tells us is that there are indeed failures -- it gives us no useful information on the failure rate. The useful information that anecdotal evidence might provide is failure modes and how companies deal with warranties. But the referenced article provides nothing like that.

[nn_step]

Of course we cannot have good statistics on 5 year reliability of SSDs (although we can make good guesses based on tests and data we do have). But that is not the point. The article referenced is pure propaganda since it purports to say that SSDs have a high one or two year failure rate. There is some reasonable data already on one or two year failure rates of SSDs, so it is absurd to give any credibility to the kind of anecdotal evidence the article mentions.



It absolutely should NOT be given credence. Anecdotal evidence is useless, or worse than useless, when looking at reliability. A careful statistical study with good methodology is required.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there are millions of SSDs in use. Even if the annual failure rate is only 0.1%, there should be thousands of SSDs failing each year. All anecdotal evidence tells us is that there are indeed failures -- it gives us no useful information on the failure rate. The useful information that anecdotal evidence might provide is failure modes and how companies deal with warranties. But the referenced article provides nothing like that.

If you prefer a more careful study. You will have to wait about 1-2 years before the following study will finish:

I have bought 2 of each of the following:

OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G
Corsair Force CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G
Corsair Performance 3 Series CSSD-P3128GB2-BRKT
Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC064MAG-1G1
SAMSUNG 470 Series MZ-5PA128/US
Intel 510 Series (Elm Crest) SSDSC2MH120A2K5
Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH160G2K5
Kingston SSDNow V+ Series SNVP325-S2B/128GB


and am going to subject them to the following actions:

Using a Debian 6.0 Linux box running off of a single 8GB MicroSD card, an undervolted Phenom2, 2GB of DDR2, and a twin set of areca ARC-1231ML-2G PCI Express SATA II (3.0Gb/s) Controller Cards, I will perform a continuous series of reads and writes to the drives until they fail and record exactly how many writes it can actually survive. [The other 3 cores will be dedicated to WCG]

Any questions or comments before I begin the test on May 24, 002011 @ 12noon EST?

[johnw]

Any questions or comments before I begin the test on May 24, 002011 @ 12noon EST?

Wow, that is a lot of money. Do you have a sponsor?

My only comment is that you are missing an Intel 320. That is an interesting drive since it is potentially the most reliable of all consumer SSDs, since it starts with the already reliable X25-M design and adds on XOR parity redundancy. I think it is the only non-Sandforce SSD that uses redundancy.

[Ao1]

Any questions or comments before I begin the test on May 24, 002011 @ 12noon EST?

Good luck. PE longevity is of course dependent on a wide range of factors. Free space, span of writes, speed of writes, xfer sizes, alignment of writes. Tests such as these can only tell you how long NAND will last in a particular set of circumstances. Very useful non the less.

Regarding reliability SSD's haven't been around long enough for long term statics, plus all aspects of the technology are evolving rapidly and at the same time. Add to that the evolving and competitive nature of the industry, which is pushing SSD's on the market that are failing due to a lack of technology maturity and compatibility. The later being mostly responsible for perceived high failure rates.

On the other hand I believe the highest cause of failure for a HDD is mechanical damage. Here SSD's provide a significantly more robust solution with a significantly lower likelihood of failure.

Overall SSD's are a more robust design and in theory (at least) less likely to fail, but not all SSD's are made the same.

Personally I feel very safe using an SSD, but for long term data storage I would only trust a HDD. That primarily comes down to the fact that if a HDD fails there is a lot more chance of getting data of it compared to an SSD.

If I had a laptop I would feel much safer with a SSD.

[nn_step]

Wow, that is a lot of money. Do you have a sponsor?

My only comment is that you are missing an Intel 320. That is an interesting drive since it is potentially the most reliable of all consumer SSDs, since it starts with the already reliable X25-M design and adds on XOR parity redundancy. I think it is the only non-Sandforce SSD that uses redundancy.

No I do not have a sponsor and unfortunately I will not have enough funds to get the 320s until next month. Which will skew their results.

Good luck. PE longevity is of course dependent on a wide range of factors. Free space, span of writes, speed of writes, xfer sizes, alignment of writes. Tests such as these can only tell you how long NAND will last in a particular set of circumstances. Very useful non the less.

Regarding reliability SSD's haven't been around long enough for long term statics, plus all aspects of the technology are evolving rapidly and at the same time. Add to that the evolving and competitive nature of the industry, which is pushing SSD's on the market that are failing due to a lack of technology maturity and compatibility. The later being mostly responsible for perceived high failure rates.

On the other hand I believe the highest cause of failure for a HDD is mechanical damage. Here SSD's provide a significantly more robust solution with a significantly lower likelihood of failure.

Overall SSD's are a more robust design and in theory (at least) less likely to fail, but not all SSD's are made the same.

Personally I feel very safe using an SSD, but for long term data storage I would only trust a HDD. That primarily comes down to the fact that if a HDD fails there is a lot more chance of getting data of it compared to an SSD.

If I had a laptop I would feel much safer with a SSD.

I'd feel much safer with a good backup policy.

[Ao1]

Any questions or comments before I begin the test on May 24, 002011 @ 12noon EST?

Do we have takeoff?

[nn_step]

First update:


OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G - a couple minor sector failures on one of the drives.
Corsair Force CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT - Nothing yet to report
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G - Nothing yet to report
Corsair Performance 3 Series CSSD-P3128GB2-BRKT - Both drives are throwing failures but drives are still functional
Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC064MAG-1G1 - Nothing yet to report
SAMSUNG 470 Series MZ-5PA128/US - Nothing yet to report
Intel 510 Series (Elm Crest) SSDSC2MH120A2K5 - One drive failed completely July 24 @ 9:14am and second drive is throwing failures but has yet to fail.
Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH160G2K5 - Nothing yet to report
Kingston SSDNow V+ Series SNVP325-S2B/128GB - a couple minor sector failures on one of the drives.


-------- End of line ----------



Any further questions?

[johnw]

Any further questions?

Yeah, what are you testing and how are you testing it?

[Ao1]

Any further questions?

Are the SF drives untrottled?

[sergiu]

Any further questions?

What do you understand by "throwing failures but has yet to fail"? Could you give us some details about what is happening? Also, how did Intel drive failed? did it reported SMART errors that would have indicated an imminent failure?

[nn_step]

Yeah, what are you testing and how are you testing it?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4854810

The short version being that I am using a kernel level module to continuously write sectors to SSDs and read them back to check for errors. Throwing failures implies that a write/read failed. (aka the data read does not match the data written) All sectors received an equal number of writes. Once 90% of sectors fail, the drive is considered failed.

Are the SF drives untrottled?

All drives are all receiving an exactly equal distribution of writes at a constant speed of 50MB/s

What do you understand by "throwing failures but has yet to fail"? Could you give us some details about what is happening? Also, how did Intel drive failed? did it reported SMART errors that would have indicated an imminent failure?

SMART errors are not even looked at.
A failed sector is one that is unable to have a successful write and read operation after 200 attempts to write to the sector.
A failure is that the data read from the sector is not the same as data written to the sector.
The Intel drive was classified as failed the instant that 90% of all of the drive's sectors have failed.

Closer analysis shows that less than 1% of the data written to failed sectors matches what was actually written and that errors tended to start rapidly collecting near the end of its life. It performed quite well, until the first sector failure then the drive died after a mere couple more days of testing. The second drive is currently at 42% failed and is expected to die by tomorrow night.

[nn_step]

Second update:


OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G - Both drives are throwing failures but drives are still functional
Corsair Force CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT - a couple minor sector failures on one of the drives.
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G - Nothing yet to report
Corsair Performance 3 Series CSSD-P3128GB2-BRKT - One drive failed completely July 26 @ 11:43am and second drive is throwing failures but has yet to fail.
Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC064MAG-1G1 - a couple minor sector failures on one of the drives.
SAMSUNG 470 Series MZ-5PA128/US - a couple minor sector failures on one of the drives.
Intel 510 Series (Elm Crest) SSDSC2MH120A2K5 - One drive failed completely July 24 @ 9:14am and second drive failed July 26 @ 3:37pm
Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH160G2K5 - a couple minor sector failures on one of the drives.
Kingston SSDNow V+ Series SNVP325-S2B/128GB - One drive failed completely July 26 @ 2:14pm and second drive is throwing failures but has yet to fail.


-------- End of line ----------

How can you not realize that there are people reading your posts who have actually written linux kernel code and kernel modules? It is quite obvious that you have no clue how to write a kernel module.

thank you for your words, be what they may.

From what I've seen, it seems that the rest of the drives will all die this month.