Yup, the Samsung 470 can sprint, but let's see if it has the stamina...Originally Posted by Ao1
Whoa, that is still running fast. It took One_Hertz 9 days to write that much.(longer still for Anvil)
Yup, the Samsung 470 can sprint, but let's see if it has the stamina...Whoa, that is still running fast. It took One_Hertz 9 days to write that much.
Not looking like it
This isn't even the normalized writes chart where the Samsung (and C300 and M4 and later SF-1200s) will be 'corrected' for being larger.
For the graphs, we should be careful to get the bytes written correct. Anvil's app actually reports TiB written, even though it is incorrectly labeled as "TB". I'm not sure what the correct units are for the numbers One-Hertz and Anvil have been posting in their updates. In my updates, I am reporting TiB written, taken from Anvil's app.
I am reporting in Terabytes as per SMART data.
Last edited by One_Hertz; 06-30-2011 at 12:42 PM.
I think all applications involved use TiB (1024*GiB) but label it TB.
Do anything other than product labels actually use/acknowledge TB as 1000*GB?
As One_Hertz said, the SMART data is apparently in TB. And outside of Windows, I have seen most programs use the units correctly. Certainly most linux programs don't have the Windows bug of displaying incorrect units. Many of the linux command line utilities allow a choice of which units to display.
GParted displays in GiB and TiB. Palimpsest (linux disk management util) displays in TB and bytes, so you can see it is using the correct unit labels. GSmartControl displays in TB, TiB, and Bytes.
The difference between TB and TiB is significant and worth paying attention to, IMO. It is about a 10% difference, so I don't want to get it wrong...
Last edited by johnw; 06-30-2011 at 12:55 PM.
Didn't know SMART was using and displaying as TB, figured it was playing into the Windows scheme (which I don't mind...TB as 1000*GB has no use, IMO). And yeah, the difference is pretty big in the TB/TiB range...this is definitely something we need clarification on, I've been under the impression that all utilities report TiB, regardless of what they call it.
Easy enough to fix as long as I know what, specifically, is broken.
EDIT: I have all the charts in my spreadsheet fixed to TiB assuming that SMART reads out TB in all drives so far (so every drive is adjusted except the Samsung 470). Is it a correct assumption that SMART = TB universally? I don't want to keep posting updated charts that are wrong
Last edited by Vapor; 06-30-2011 at 01:08 PM. Reason: edit
Hard to say, universally. But anyone who has a drive running Anvil's app that has host writes as a SMART attribute (which Samsung 470 does NOT), can easily check what the SMART attribute is reporting, by comparing GiB written (labeled "GB written") in Anvil's app with whatever the SMART attribute is reporting at two different times, and checking to see if the difference in each number tracks as expected.EDIT: I have all the charts in my spreadsheet fixed to TiB assuming that SMART reads out TB in all drives so far (so every drive is adjusted except the Samsung 470). Is it a correct assumption that SMART = TB universally? I don't want to keep posting updated charts that are wrong
I was going to add and it might finish quicker as well
The Kingston SSDNow V+100 would be a good one to test. (~200MB/s sequential writes)
Here is part of a summary from Anandtech
"The second issue is the overly aggressive garbage collection. Sequential performance on the V+100 just doesn't change regardless of how much fragmentation you throw at the drive. The drive is quick to clean and keeps performance high as long as it has the free space to do so. This is great for delivering consistent performance, however it doesn't come for free. I am curious to see how the aggressive garbage collection impacts drive lifespan."
I forgot about that one! It can match the Samsung 470 in sequential write speed at 64GB capacity. I wonder if it has more interesting SMART attributes than the Samsung.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks