Here is a graph that shows the relationship between WRD (B1) & MWI (E7) for each of the SF drives being tested (excluding Vapor’s as there is not enough info). Anvil’s drive is holding up significantly better than SynbiosVyse & Christopher’s drives.
On SynbiosVyse’s drive the B1 value is more or less a perfect inverse of E7. I don’t know what NAND is being used in each drive, but it looks like SynbiosVyse & Christopher have NAND with 3K P/E specs and Anvil has 5K. It looks like the “disconnects” that Christopher experienced allowed better wear levelling, which has decreased the MWI burn out rate in comparison to SynbiosVyse's drive.
I can’t help think that SynbiosVyse’s drive failed due to the difference between least and most worn blocks, which resulted in an insufficient reserve block count. I think that is why the drive failed, but why, with hardly any static data, was SynbiosVyse’s drive unable to level out the wear.
@ Anvil, a summary in the first post of each drive being tested along with the NAND P/E specs would be really helpful. Also keys findings and calculation methods would be great.
SynbiosVyse WRD (B1) & MWI (E7)
Anvil/SynbiosVyse/ Christopher
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks