Thanks for the 411 Scat. I've been shy of ssd because I always want dependability over anything else. Maybe I'll try one. I really don't have any systems which would benefit from being faster (and I have 20+ systems). Brand names are the way to go. In manufacturing when something doesn't come up to spec they sell it under a different name. I'd use nothing than Intel.
SSD Endurance... FWIW
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
I burn through SSD's and spinny drives like crazy...
Some of the big RAID arrays have 16+ disks in the array and have 1-2 hot spares because we hammer on them and they go one every few months. SSDs as well; we use them for cache on raid cards as well as cache for virtual host servers and some NAS devices so that the arrays don't get hammered.
We use Compact Flash or USB (thumb drives) for most OSes these days.
We go thought enough that there are always 2-3 SSD's and 3-4 HDD's in the warranty RMA process.
Some of the big RAID arrays have 16+ disks in the array and have 1-2 hot spares because we hammer on them and they go one every few months. SSDs as well; we use them for cache on raid cards as well as cache for virtual host servers and some NAS devices so that the arrays don't get hammered.
We use Compact Flash or USB (thumb drives) for most OSes these days.
We go thought enough that there are always 2-3 SSD's and 3-4 HDD's in the warranty RMA process.
When you install an OS on a thumb drive, you're limited to the machine you did that on, right?
I'm with you on reliability.
Here's a new consumer offering based upon already accepted enterprise-class SSD from Intel.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...el Is Back With Its Own Controller 03-04-2014
Also, Intel SSD 335 was one of 2 drives which fully passed a torture test about "data corruption from random power loss shutdown". The other was Intel SSD DC S3500 enterprise class drive.
You could even scour eBay for used drives which originally had 5-year warranty (Like the 320 and 520, others). Even if you don't have a receipt as original purchaser, Intel will honor the warranty period from date of manufacture. (If you get SSD 320, be sure it has the latest firmware as prior earlier firmware had a power-up problem. Intel has a utility, "SSD Toolbox", which you can use to check status of your drive and easily install latest firmware from Windows.... no need for boot USB or to burn an ISO.)
If you're not so concerned about speed.... I like to use smaller SSDs... 80/120GB. They are slower than larger ones, of course (fewer parallel channels), but they're still plenty speedy. For troubleshooting and reinstalling OS on a drive, W7 "archives old copy of Windows" and installs a fresh copy. But the old copy takes up space on the drive. To get rid of that, I do a "low level format"... and that takes lots less time on a small drive than a large one.... FWIW.
you'll be a deadly mofo with that in your rig, skull and all.
Saw an older study on SSD endurance... test was terminated before all drives failed. Last report I saw was "8-days short of 2 years".
One of the drives was the Samsung 830... had written 6.5PB on 256GB drive.
Another drive was Intel X25-V... that's a 40GB, 34nm drive. It had written 1.732PB..... which works out to 43,300 write cycles! (Makers claimed only 5,000 cycles for MLC on those drives.... now claiming "only 3,000 cycles".... though they'll probably go for many more.)
As the technology has progressed, the NAND cells have become smaller. The first ones were 50nm... now down to about 19nm. There's a negative to smaller, more compact, faster NAND cells... they're not as durable as larger-cell NAND.
One of the drives was the Samsung 830... had written 6.5PB on 256GB drive.
Another drive was Intel X25-V... that's a 40GB, 34nm drive. It had written 1.732PB..... which works out to 43,300 write cycles! (Makers claimed only 5,000 cycles for MLC on those drives.... now claiming "only 3,000 cycles".... though they'll probably go for many more.)
As the technology has progressed, the NAND cells have become smaller. The first ones were 50nm... now down to about 19nm. There's a negative to smaller, more compact, faster NAND cells... they're not as durable as larger-cell NAND.
SSD reliability is generally related to the controller chipset on the drive and has little to do with the flash memory. This is Intel's strength which explains why their SSD's are rated so highly.
Here's a recent article on a torture test performed on a few SSD's to gauge reliability:
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...might-be-the-only-reliable-drive-manufacturer
Here's a recent article on a torture test performed on a few SSD's to gauge reliability:
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...might-be-the-only-reliable-drive-manufacturer
Shame they didn't include Samsung SSD's in their comparison. Considering Samsung is one of Intels primary competitors. Article needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
No doubt Intel is extremely dependable. I have installed both, Intel and Samsung. Never an issue with either...
Doubt many of us experience the kind of "multiple power failures" as would be seen in such torture tests.
However..... if "power failure which corrupts your operation" is a big concern... perhaps better to go with "best to cope" with that risk. (I live in an area which seems to have half-dozen power-blip outages per year. The torture test for this issue was "6500 random power loss events".... hard to draw conclusion from such different params.)
IMNSHO the power loss test is a useless one - who in their right mind would run a PC without a UPS?
I started out with Intel SSD's (X25-G2), then on to the later models 320, Samsungs 830 and now onto the Toshiba's (Toshiba was the inventor of the memory cell). No going back to HDD.
All my data is in memory so no horrendous writing to storage.
Back testing? Once you've figured out how the markets work then no testing is required - human fear and greed has been the same since the start of times; it is the oldest profession (what do I get in return?) and will not change, ever.
Peace