External enclosure for the msata drive

I replaced the SSD in my series 9 and the original SSD has just been hanging around so I thought I'd get an external enclosure for it. I wanted to find an enclosure specifically for msata rather than an msata to sata adapter for a sata enclosure to keep the size down. Not easy to find. I purchased this one on ebay but it did not work. The drive would just flash on and off without ever establishing itself. I've found this but the shipping is $20 to the UK but I might go for it. There is also this which would replace the lead and make the whole thing not much larger than a pen drive but very fast with 128Gb capacity. Has anybody else found anything suitable?

 

The MyDigitalSSD unit looks to be the only one that has certainty in working OK. I had first bought a Runcore mSATA to 2.5" adapter and that wouldn't work. Then I bought a Renice one which is OK.

You could ask MemoryC if they can get the adapter since the sell the MyDigitalSSD SSDs.

John

 

Thanks. I've sent them an email to see if they can supply it

Had an email back saying this will be in stock from the end of next week

 

Thanks.

Let us know how you get on.

John

 

Had an email from memoryC today informing me it is now in stock and I have placed the order. It was £22.39 including postage. I'll let you know how it performs when I get it.
Here's the link

 

Thanks for the update. They moved quite quickly.

I'll probably get one in anticipation of the 480GB crucial M500 mSATA appearing soon (it's actually available at a £100 price premium).

John

 

Arrived today and works really well. Crystal Disk Mark below. Very good performance for an external USB 3.0 drive I feel. Ideal extra storage for my Nexus 7 as well


As a comparison this is a conventional USB 3.0 HDD

 

That speed is in the USB 3.0 range although not the best (I have a CDM result for a Sandisk U100 connected via USB 3.0 which gets to 190MB/s). MemoryC have put it on Amazon UK where the postage bill is slightly less.

Keep your original SSD in bootable condition in case you need to send the computer back under warranty.

John

 

Isn't the Sandisk a faster drive anyway than the original 3Gb/s Samsung? Also I suppose enclosures vary. I don't have a USB 3.0 thumb drive. How do they compare?

Yes, I saw that, a pound cheaper in total on Amazon

 

Which Samsung SSD is that?

The U100 gets about 450MB/s sequential read when mounted internally. The majority of recent SSDs are in that range. The fastest of my USB 3.0 SSDs is about 100MB/s sequential read (other speeds are slower). All well within the USB 3.0 ceiling but a lot faster than USB 2.0 which has an effective ceiling around 30MB/s.

John

 

The SSD with original first gen 900X. The CDM for that when installed was:

 

I'll do some more tests after I get home to compare the performance of the U100 in this enclosure (I ordered one today) and in other USB 3.0 enclosures in my collection.

John

 

I also got this adapter but the performance is poor when this is used in place of the cable which is a shame because it is rather neat. Fine for streaming movies on my Nexus 7 though

 

I've received my mSATA enclosure and done my own comparative tests.

Sandisk U100 in MyDigital SSD mSATA to USB 3.0 enclosure


Sandisk U100 in Renice adapter in Icy Box 2.5" to USB 3.0 adapter


Sandisk U100 in Renice adapter in Icy Box 2.5" to USB 3.0 adapter


And, for comparison, 500GB Momentus thin 2.5" HDD in Icy Box 2.5" to USB 3.0 adapter[/B]


My computer reports the mSATA USB 3.0 adapter as ASMT 1051. Examination of the board reveals the Asmedia 1053 controller.


There are two versions of this chip: 3Gbs and 6Gbs. The speed we are seeing suggests that the 3Gbs version has been used. My other two USB 3.0 enclosures also appear to use the Asmedia controllers: The 1051 controller chip used in the one with the metal box and the plastic box is reported as AS2105. All of them fall well short of the 3Gbs potential throughput. I don't know whether the Renesas controller in my NP900X4C is also a bottleneck.

John

PS: This thread evolved in the Samsung forum, but is more appropriate here since the adapter will be of interest to anyone with an mSATA SSD.

 

Interesting results. In my case I was particularly looking for a small mSATA enclosure rather than an adapter into a 2.5" enclosure and the speeds are fine for the mSATA out of the first gen 900X as the drive is only 3Gbs anyway. Don't think there'd be great deal of difference in real world situations and the mydigital enclosure is a pretty good price.

 

the M500 is still on sampling stage on micron's website, this is probably a sample for sale and if they decided to go for a preproduction firmware revision...... well those who can't wait will be in kinda a trouble

 

What about this one ?
SSDMB (mini-SATA to USB3.0 Adapter) good bad ?

 

@John Ratsey
Sandisk U100 is very poor mSATA SSD ..

 

The U100's read performance is OK. See here. Its deficiency is a very small write cache.

John

 

There is a more important thing for others to keep in mind with these external USB 3.0 devices that allow one to treat an mSATA SSD as if it were a HDD, and that is that if one is careless and doesn't use the device for more than 6 months (9 months? 12 months?), one runs the risk of the SSD dieing.

Whereas w/ a HDD the HDD does not die nor does an unused HDD lose data for a very long period of time (greater than 1 year).

w/ regard to this NBR SSD forum being the proper spot for this thread, I totally agree!

 

Yeah I red that .. that is why I got m4 rather U100 on ebay was 5 pounds difference.. so that's why..

 

Where is the source of this information?

I would never recommend buying the U100. Mine came free with my Samsung Series 9 notebook (and got replaced by the m4 with twice the capacity as well as better performance).

John

 

A responsible NBR person said it. More than once. Someone like tiller. It's been awhile, so I'm not totally sure that tiller said that.

Do you doubt it??? i.e. that SSD drives cannot be trusted to keep data reliably if they are not used for 12 months.

 

The Intel SSD's have been validated to keep data for a minimum of 12 months with no power applied if/when used within their design parameters (ie. - no constant 4K R R/W testing...).

I'm pretty sure that other SSD manufacturer's have to stick to that parameter too if they want to have their SSD's JESD218 specification compliant also.


The link below has some useful and interesting information too on SSD's.

See:
Series SSD: Solid State Disks in Storage Systems | Smorgastor

 

Thanks for responding.

Interesting ref/link.

More to the point, which do you think/believe will retain valid data longer, when 50% filled with data (not counting SSD unallocated/spare space (which is yet another downside of SSD drives))...

A 500GB HDD that is unused for awhile???

Or a 480/512GB SSD that is unused for awhile???

My own bet is on the HDD.

But Anandtech is pretty gung ho on using SSD units for his own web site, so maybe I'll learn something here.

I also suspect that @John Ratsey will be very cautious with saying anything.

However it seems to me an especially worthy topic is this thread.

My own experience with SSD units is very recent (see sig), but I've already seen too many on NBR post about failed SSD units. Your ref is the 1st that I've seen opening the question to read errors vs. total drive failure. He made a good impression on me when he started with the HDD biz's standard HDD spec of 10 to the -14.

 

I don't have to believe: I know.

Numerous HDD's have proven to retain their data much longer than any 'true' SSD I have heard/owned has so far (only counting from ~2008 with the Intel X25-M).

I have (many times) gone back to the original HDD to get photos (because the new HDD failed!!!) - some up to a dozen years or so. I have also heard first hand how clients retrieved data from HDD's from over 20 years ago (from the original system, no less - yeah, they don't make anything (today) like they used to).


Using an SSD like a USB memory stick is a bad idea (ie. using it once in a blue moon). If the system is not used continuously/daily, is used with sleep/hibernate enabled (and also expected for the system to 'sleep'...) and/or the DATA on the SSD is not backed up continuously (at least once a day...) - then imo the SSD is being used wrong.


As I said a few years ago - one of the best fit/uses of an SSD is as a Scratch Disk/Temp file/WIP (work in progress) container. With today's USB keys and Win8x64 that take ~5 minutes to do a clean install with, using an SSD for the O/S and the programs is also viable - even if it were to fail 2 or 3 times a year...

So far, I have only had to do a few re-install of Windows 8 x64 PRO when I was too eager to install the WU back in Feb this year (KB2778344) - other than that - the systems are used daily with the following 'tweaks' and enhancements applied (without any other problems with Intel 510 Series, Intel 520 Series, Sandisk Extremes, Crucial M4's, Samsung 840 PRO and Crucial M4 mSATA SSD's among others...):


Base system: Quad Core (8 Threads) SNB or IB platforms with 16GB RAM (or more) 240/250/256GB SSD's (minimum - also a few M4's at 512GB capacity too).

All SSD's with at least 30% unallocated capacity (in addition to at least 25%/25GB free) - over and above any Over Provisioning the SSD shipped with.

Clean Windows install - NO CLONING

Latest IRST drivers (currently v12.5)

System Restore: Disabled.
Hibernate: Disabled.
Pagefile: Disabled.
Turn off Windows Write back buffer flushing: Checked.

Unpark all cpu cores:

See:
Coder Bag: Disable CPU Core Parking Utility


Set DIPM to 5 Minutes (300,000 ms):

See:
AHCI Link Power Management - Enable HIPM and DIPM - Windows 7 Help Forums



Disable SuperFetch and PreFetch: (This is only recommended for a fast SSD like the ones listed above).

Install the SSD Toolbox: (If your SSD has it - and set it to run automatically, weekly).

With Windows 8 - set Defrag (yes, the built-in Windows Defrag) to Optimize the SSD partitions: Automatically - weekly.



If anyone has any additional 'tweaks' that obviously enhance the performance/responsiveness of a current platform Windows 8 x64 system, please add to this list!


Previous to the above tweaks - all the SSD based systems I have/use would respond very much like any other properly HDD based system - but the above finally makes an SSD a 'must have' in every system I need to work on.

And so far (going into year 3 for some platforms - crosses fingers) - I have not had a catastrophic SSD related failure yet.


Hope this answers your question(s) fully?

 

An SSD is no different than a USB flash drive except it has a more sophisticated controller and more Flash cells. You can use an external SSD in the same manner as the USB flash drives except it is faster.

I do agree that they simply don't make HDDs like they used to, I have an old WD Black 250gb and an ancient Maxtor 80gb that are still going strong but I have had numerous high density WD greens, Seagates and Samsung HDDs die within a year. Flash definitely isn't expected to retain data for long periods of inactivity.

I disagree with disabling the Hibernation setting on Windows 8. As far as I know, this also disables Fast Boot which can shave at least 3-4 seconds off the boot time when coupled with an SSD with very fast Sequential read speeds.

If you are on a desktop, disabling EIST and the C states will definitely increase system responsiveness but at the cost of massively increased idle power consumption.

@Othersongs, you should take the failed SSD complaints with a grain of salt because of the selection bias, people who are ticked off will tend to complain while those who don't have problems won't say anything.

 

Thank you for this clarification.

Validation to hold data for a year isn't quite the same as expecting the drive to be unreadable in, say, 5 years. I also haven't had problems reading HDDs that are up to about 10 years old - my 11 year old Fujitsu P2020 still boots off its HDD). I haven't tried reading my old floppy disks recently to see if the data have faded away but there's always a residual uncertainty about how long they will last (this also applies to user-made optical discs).

Anyway, getting back on topic, my reason for interest in the device bein discussed in this thread is primarily for cloning my SSD when I get a bigger one. It may also be used to update the original SSD. Having a convenient device for periodically using an SSD is likely to reduce the risk of the SSD losing data due to non-use.

John

 

Marksman30K,

No, a flash drive and an SSD are very different. One is expected to retain the data indefinitely (flash drive) with relatively few writes to it. The other (SSD's) are expected to have a very high amount of writes with data retention (in a power off/disconnected state) being very limited...).

See:
Patriot Supersonic Magnum 256GB USB 3 Flash Drive Review - Incredible Gaming On A Flash Drive | The SSD Review



The above link features a USB 3.0 flash drive that is embarrassed by almost every 7200 RPM HDD available (in 4K R writes) - highlighting the fact that constant writing is not the 'expected' use of flash drives.

See:
Patriot Supersonic Magnum 256GB USB 3 Flash Drive Review - Incredible Gaming On A Flash Drive | The SSD Review



While you can use an SSD as a flash drive - you can't use a flash drive as an SSD (for long, anyways - it will die).


With all the Windows 8 (SSD based) systems I have access to, disabling the Hibernation file has not only given back ~14GB of capacity or more (note: all my system are 16GB or more) - but has also decreased boot times AND shut down times too (~2 seconds to off...). Definitely worth a try...

In an 'run with admin priv' command prompt window, type:

"powercfg -h off" and press enter. Reboot AND shutdown a few times and see if your setup isn't faster while also giving you more capacity and/or free space on your SSD.

To enable Hibernation again, type:

"powercfg -h on".



John Ratsey,

If the SSD specifications only call for data to be retained for 12 months - I know that they can/might be exceeded and even surpass the 5 year mark or more.

However, I would highly doubt that even a small percentage of SSD's are even certified/capable of going to the 1 year mark as 'required' by the JESD218 specification - but maybe I'm being paranoid?

 

I think you are being a little paranoid. I'm sure I passed the 12 month test last year when I sold one of my old SSDs to a friend after first copying all the contents. I think the SSD had been sitting on the shelf for nearer two years and one. And the Sandisk U100 for my Samsung NP900X3B had been sitting on the shelf for about 8 months before I put it back in so I could send the computer to have the battery replaced under warranty.

Nonetheless it is useful to be aware that SSD data retention may not be as good as HDDs (although the latter are more vulnerable to mechanical issues and may be reluctant to spin up after several years of inactivity).

John

 

It seems that the "powercfg" command is also in Windows 7.

I never use hibernation, since a boot SSD drive is fast enough (for boot and shutdown) that it's almost as easy to simply turn the laptop fully on or off, as it is to futz around w/ flaky hibernation or sleep.

So once you turn hibernation off, does it stay off upon the next reboot?

Or do I need to set up a startup *.bat file to do that each time the laptop is booted?

 

Once set to 'off' - it stays off.

 

To quantify my paranoia:

I mean I doubt the long term data retention of SSD's after being used (in my workflows - ie. 'heavily').

Buying a new/fresh SSD - copying data to it and storing it for x years would be like using an SSD like a flash drive (and I can see the data still being there many years later...).

But, if we actually used the SSD like it was supposed to be used, to increase productivity above a HDD storage subsystem solution (while also being used in a host initiated write environment not in a user initiated write environment), then that data retention time line is GREATLY reduced.

And is also why the JESD218 specification is in place I am sure...

 

Thanks again for the response.

For others, I did the "powercfg -h off" command, in a command prompt window that I started w/ administrator privileges. 2 reboots (so far) have been 7 seconds faster than before. But that's w/ Win7 which is slower than Win8 on bootup.

 

Any news on the External enclosure for the msata drive?
The one on ebay is unavailable.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/MyDigitalSSD-mSATA-USB3-0-Bullet-Enclosure/dp/B00AYIDDMA#productDescription

Are there any alternatives?

 

On the memoryC website you can enter your email to be informed when it's back in stock

 

Thought I'd give the nod to a new enclosure which seems reasonable:

ZTC Thunder Enclosure mSATA to USB3.0 Adapter

 

Any info about the controllers used in those and/or how they compare to the MyDigitalSSD enclosure?

 

One of the ZTC enclosures arrived today.

Device Manager reports it as AS2105 although the small print on the chip says "Asmedia ASM1053 (which is the same as the MyDigitalSSD adapter discussed here). However, the ZTC adapter seems to be slightly slower when tested in the same computer as last year.



However, I then plugged into a Windows 8 version of the same Samsung NP900X4C and got faster, but very similar scores (left = ZTC, right = MyDigitalSSD).



MyDigitalSSD sell have a faster adapter that supports UASP (USB Attached SCSI Protocol). However, it is unclear to me what is needed to get UASP to work. There is also a note on that web page to avoid using the adapter with Toshiba mSATA SSDs because of heat issues.

There is nothing to indicate that the ZTC adapter supports UASP but someone on Newegg says they have seen transfer rates of up to 370MB/s.

The ZTC adapter also comes with a little bag. Unfortunately, both adapters come with a very thick and stiff USB 3.0 cable. I don't know why. WD supply a thinner, more flexible cable with their Passport USB 3.0 drives.

John

 

3 more contesters:

Zotac RAIDbox mSATA enclosure USB | zotac.com
Delock Multiport mSATA enclosure USB / eSATA | delock.com
ZTC Sky Board ZTC-EN002 mSATA enclosure USB | amazon.com (update of ZTC Thunder ZTC-EN001)

 

The ZTC Sky Board ZTC-EN002 comes with a JMicron controller ID 152d:0539. Driving the SSD over USB3.0 results in errors and freezes. I'm glad at least it didn't destroy my SSDs, although SMART data reports some CRC errors.
USB2.0 works flawlessly, but who cares. The only thing I like is the quite thin and short cable, which works btw, tested with a USB3.0 2.5" enclosure.

Not recommended!