And your drive had been running 24/7 for about 1 year?
Mine has been running for 350+- hours, doesn't look like that matters even though this is a test and yours has been running "for real".
From what I've read, the SF controller doesn't tolerate high deltas on least/most worn "flash blocks", meaning that it starts shuffling static data when needed, don't know about other controllers, there may be some static wear-leveling but we'll probably never know.
Most data in real life are compressible, at least for the OS drive so one can easily add 30% or more to the final result of this test. (as long as it stays at incompressible data)
Testing with incompressible data is of course important but I it leaves a lot of questions to be answered.
As for Intel using the SF controller, at first I thought it was a bit far fetched but when the Marvell controller popped up in the 510 I didn't know what to think, so, IMHO, it's not impossible.
I do think for that to happen Intel probably would wan't to write their own firmware. (like Crucial did for the Marvell controller)
There are some "bugs" or side effects or what ever one wants to call it that would never have been tolerated had it been an Intel SSD.
Still, I really enjoy the SF drives, I've had the same level of maintenance with these drives as with other SSD's, nothing more nothing less.
There has been quite a few fw updates on the SF drives but personally I've never been waiting for some fix, that I know of.
There is that TRIM bug that never got fixed on the SF-1XXX series, that's about it.
@CT
Without the shrinking we would never get to 1TB 2.5" SSD's and prices would leave most people out in the cold.
There is of course some truth in that things are happening too fast, 20nm NAND was already on the table (at least in the headlines) before 25nm drives were available.
edit
updated graph in the post #1





Reply With Quote


Bookmarks