TR's SSD endurance test

So the 1TB drives should be worth 800TB of writes at least.
 
I've been telling people to buy the Corsair Neutron GTX since it launched. I'm very glad to see those test confirm what I strongly suspected. It has one of the best garbage collection implementation out there and it pays. I've even used it in a few servers and so far, no issue.
 
My 240GB Intel 330 has only 2.05 TB of writes of it after a bit over a year in service. It's looking like it'll last at least 100 years at that rate. I wonder if flash memory cells also degrade with time?
 
jtr1962 said:
My 240GB Intel 330 has only 2.05 TB of writes of it after a bit over a year in service. It's looking like it'll last at least 100 years at that rate. I wonder if flash memory cells also degrade with time?
Click to expand...

I wrote 2TB on a single SSD in one day. :)
 
LiamC said:
What do you do with them? :confused:
Click to expand...

That's not terribly difficult. A cache drive in a ZFS storage pool of sufficient size; a drive that's acting as a target for disk images; somebody who dumps a vacation worth of .RAW files.

I've been putting 250GB SSDs in servers as a sort of intermediate upgrade to a full hardware replacement. So far, that's a strategy that's worked beautifully for me. I've not had an issue on database/web servers to date, but I have had a couple end users kill more than one SSD what I think is an unreasonably short time frame. I don't know if they've just had bad luck or if they do things that kill drives. I definitely know users who sit and watch Windows run a defrag every day now that I think about it...
 
CougTek said:
I've been telling people to buy the Corsair Neutron GTX since it launched. I'm very glad to see those test confirm what I strongly suspected. It has one of the best garbage collection implementation out there and it pays. I've even used it in a few servers and so far, no issue.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they can get 1TB from the LAPD controller?
 
So why is the Samsung 840 Pro weaker than others? I know the regular 840 used TLC memory but the Pro doesn't.
 
LunarMist said:
So why is the Samsung 840 Pro weaker than others? I know the regular 840 used TLC memory but the Pro doesn't.
Click to expand...
The test is largely pointless. Those parameters don't mean anything. There is nothing that suggests a 50 "score" on a Samsung = a "50" score on a Corsair.
 
Stereodude said:
The test is largely pointless. Those parameters don't mean anything. There is nothing that suggests a 50 "score" on a Samsung = a "50" score on a Corsair.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that they should test the drives to the point of data errors/other failure.
 
They are testing to failure: The last article is just update at the 200TB point. There will be more updates, so stay tune...

I agree that statistically, the tests are likely worthless because a sample size of one each is far too small. That being said, even anecdotal evidence is information that most SSD users would like to know and can't conveniently get before buying.
 
I don't mean to further muddy the waters, but their test is invalid anyhow. The faster you write data to the drive the less resting time the flash cells have between program and erase cycles. This will exaggerate the wear on the flash cells more than normal use would.

Doing this right would involve creating Vtm/V curves for the flash cells and characterizing the voltage levels / gate charge on the flash cells. Of course that's way beyond the scope of what a review website could do.
 
Stereodude said:
I don't mean to further muddy the waters, but their test is invalid anyhow. The faster you write data to the drive the less resting time the flash cells have between program and erase cycles. This will exaggerate the wear on the flash cells more than normal use would.
Click to expand...
This is only true for a user environment. If you put the drive in a busy database server, this will be its usage pattern. Granted, those aren't SAS drives and shouldn't be use in such an environment, but I'm sure they'll be anyway since several companies don't have a lot of monetary ressources but still want or need the increased performances SSDs provide. I'm almost certain that many of the Asus/Gigabyte/MSI/Tyan/etc servers out there, which don't require rebranded hard drives from the same company in order to respect the warranty (like HP and IBM do, for instance) will have consumer drives into them.
 
CougTek said:
This is only true for a user environment. If you put the drive in a busy database server, this will be its usage pattern.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect a busy database server to be continuously writing data to the drive as fast as possible, erasing it and starting over again 24/7 either.
 
P5-133XL said:
300TB update
Click to expand...

So it looks like the TLC is good for at least 1200 write cycles (300TB/250GB). Even if it only safe to assume 1/3 of that (5400 cycles) a 1TB drive should be good for 400TB.
I'll never understand why the Micron 960GB is only rated 72TB, but I will probably buy more of those before an EVO.
 
The problem is that the TLC drives should be much cheaper if only half the amount is needed.
 
Perhaps I should clarify. My beef is flash with 3 bits per cell flash. Trying to keep 8 distinct voltage levels in a flash cell is a disaster waiting to happen.
 
Stereodude said:
Perhaps I should clarify. My beef is flash with 3 bits per cell flash. Trying to keep 8 distinct voltage levels in a flash cell is a disaster waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Have there been problems documented as a result of this? I get that on paper they appear less durable and SLC and MLC are more desirable but I haven't seen large or many reports of the EVO with TLC being hugely problematic.
 
Handruin said:
Have there been problems documented as a result of this? I get that on paper they appear less durable and SLC and MLC are more desirable but I haven't seen large or many reports of the EVO with TLC being hugely problematic.
Click to expand...
Well, the SSD with 3-bit per cell flash is the first one to have a meltdown in the TR SSD endurance test. Average users probably haven't gotten to that point yet.
 
No and they probably won't into endurance problems very often. The heavy users would be more likely to buy other brands or the MLC pro series for performance reasons as well.
 
LunarMist said:
No and they probably won't into endurance problems very often. The heavy users would be more likely to buy other brands or the MLC pro series for performance reasons as well.
Click to expand...

I got mine Sept 13th of this year and so far I've written 1.24TB to the drive. I'll be curious to see how well it holds up. I don't think I'm a heavy user of the drive at these rates. If I were a heavy user I would consider an MLC or SLC (if they can be found anymore in reasonable sizes).
 
That's really, really impressive. I'm starting to think it will take a controller failure to take out one of these current SSDs.

Now that more cycles have been completed, I'm not worried about the Samsung 840 like the author is. It's using up its overprovisioning at a slow - and more importantly steady - rate, but after 500TB the remaps only add up to 1% of the nominal capacity. Given that overprovisioning is probably 20% on this TLC drive, it may well make it to 1 petabyte, at which point I don't think anyone cares.

I notice that the Corsair Force boot drive did its well-known suicide bomber routine - surprised they seemed unaware of its reputation. Hopefully that didn't contribute towards the temporary aberration on the Samsung drive after restarting the system to test data retention?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top