Quote Originally Posted by Metroid View Post
My drive matched Anvil's drive wear out level, One Herts's drive has written 5TB more at no wear out cost as it stands, Ao1's drive has surprised me by wearing out rapidly after a point. Th Sandforce drive seems interesting to look at.
Don't forget that the SF started off writing highly compressible data. 4TB or 5TB worth.

It will be interesting to see how linear the wear is with uncompressible data.

Is wear levelling with SF is 100% dependent on how compressible the data is?

Intel drives don't have that advantage, so they must rely on different techniques. The fact that the 320 is lasting longer (so far) than the X25-V with NAND that has ~40% less PE cycles is quite remarkable. It is able to write faster and last longer with less PE.

Assuming that the only wear levelling technique is compression the SF drive should start to rapidly deteriorate, but we will soon see.

I've been thinking about why read speeds get throttled with SF drives. My guess is that the channel that restricts write speeds deals with 2 way traffic. You can't slow down writes without slowing down reads at the same time.

"If" that is the case it is not that sophisticated, as there should be no reason to slow down read speeds.

Throttling read speeds and the poor implementation of TRIM seem to be the Achilles heel of an otherwise great technology.

It would be interesting to see what Intel could do with the SF controller.