SSDs - State of the Product?

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
My 970 Pro is at 83x writes, but that is showing 98% Good. The SSD would have to last for ~4000x writes, when the spec is 1200x. How is that possible?
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,507
Location
I am omnipresent
I don't believe Samsung's tools, either. I was buying 850 Pros for a while that my back of napkin math suggested were getting around .7 DWPD and still showed something like 83% cell life after two years. That also seemed too high to to be trusted.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
No, that was with the Crystal. I will try the WD later, but I don't like the spyware part of it.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
The WD utility is useless, so I used the Samsung Magician. The results are the same (~41TB) but the Samsung only shows that amount, not as a percentage. I do have a 2TB 850 Pro (2048GB) that cost about $900 over 8 years ago. It has 22x life cycles at 98%, but has not been used in many years. It's probably the most expensive drive of any type I ever purchased other than that disastrous Intel U.2 SSD.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the model of drive, just that mine died out quickly. It is quite possile that it was because I was using an M.2 adapter, although I found someone had used that Intel SSD with it and I used it for a couple of weeks. Obviously Intel sold many thousands of the U.2 drives for enterprise use.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
I don't recall exacrtly why I did not submit the SSD for an RMA, other than that it contained data. It may not have had an OEM warranty and been past 30 days or maybe I was traveling.

I'm not sure why the Forum prohibits my functions. :(
 
Last edited:

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
There have been a few M.2 8TB TLC such as Sabrent, and now the Corsair is also making one. Despite that the smaller SSDs are less per GB, why are there not more 8TB M.2 SSds? The RocketPus has been going up in price over the past few months.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,507
Location
I am omnipresent
At a guess, there are more QLC NAND m.2 OEMs are probably looking at their offerings as most appealing to consumers, just as HDD vendors mostly market and sell SMR drives at the consumer level.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
I'm not convinced that it is worth $1K or more for 8TB TLC M.2 SSDs when similar 4TB SSDs are under $300. I know that I should get a single 30.72GB U.3, but the whole situation is nerve wracking.
 

fb

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
707
Location
Östersund, Sweden
I agree. Perhaps 8 TB is pushing the limits of current technology? I imagine it's easier to manage cooling, reliability and so on in the 3.5/2.5/EDSFF formats.
In the server space M.2 are more common as boot drives where I suppose they see a lot less activity than their carrier mounted friends who are fighting with database loads and whatnot 24/7.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,507
Location
I am omnipresent
My reasoning for getting proper tri-mode HBAs is that commonplace 2.5" SATA/SAS SSDs definitely top out at 4TB. I can still get 1DWD drives, which I see as a goal of any server drive life cycle. I don't particularly care about the PCIe data transfer rate (is it over 500MB/sec? Then it's fast enough) but I do care about capacity and life cycle. M.2 seems to cater to consumer limitations as well, which means QLC NAND and relatively low capacities. It's cheaper to get an HBA and an 8TB u.2 drive than one of those TLC m.2 guys and as a bonus, it can bring along 7 (or 15) more friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fb

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
I'm not sure about the DWPD vs. the TBW. For marketing the DWPD makes sense, but is an SSD with twice the capacity and half the DWPD (same TBW) really any worse for example? I see DWPD specified at 128KB sequential and also 4K random. Maybe your server application can use a larger indirection unit to improve the DWPD. For example the 65000 IONS has only 0.3 DWPD at 4K randoms yet 1DWPD at 128K sequential. 0.3 DWPD may seem low, but that is 9TB/day on a 30.72TB drive. How many TB/day are you processing on that system?
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,557
Location
USA
I agree. Perhaps 8 TB is pushing the limits of current technology? I imagine it's easier to manage cooling, reliability and so on in the 3.5/2.5/EDSFF formats.
In the server space M.2 are more common as boot drives where I suppose they see a lot less activity than their carrier mounted friends who are fighting with database loads and whatnot 24/7.
M.2 cooling can be an issue when the bottom side of the PCB is populated due to the larger capacities. Cooling should be a lesser issue in general because all the NAND is not active at the same time.
 
Top