The new SSD Thread (Benchmarks, Brands, News and Advice)

Hey Les, can you get us a review of this?

http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+128...ticle12319.htm

64 or 128 is OK. At prices like $299 for the OCZ for 64GB, I am getting ready to fly on this. Dave

 

ssds have a much faster accesstime to random data. a time of 0.1ms compared to 8 to 30ms on harddrives is a factor 80 to 300 faster to access a random, small file.

this means if you have to load several smaller files, an ssd is always faster. and about every app you start has several district files (dlls, exe, settings...) => faster boot of any app.

then again, the 173.5mb/s, do you have a source of that? haven't heard this before. but haven't read that carefully as well..

 

btw, possible big help for ssds, espencially for the [edit]random[/edit] write speed:

http://www.superspeed.com/servers/productsuite.php

i'll try the software cache on my eee..

 

Are you referring to the new Hitachi rev. B drives? I doubt they can pull that kind of speed sustained, burst - it's possible but that really doesn't mean much. SSDs have consistent speed, hard drives drop as they are filled up. Plus as mentioned before, they have access times orders of magnitudes faster.

 

I have contacted Dell and my friend at Samsung to see if I can grab a drive for testing. I can't promise anything though as NBR had previously expressed that they were going to move in a different direction with ssd reviews (a polite thank you but...I think) and I subsequently accepted a new position which overloads me at work.

Its a bit dissappointing as the ssd side of the site seems to have fallen short a bit on consistent ssd reviews. We were at one point the top source on the Net and I know this strictly through the connections I had made (industry and consumer) who have expressed such.

I would have had a blast countering Toms claims of inferior ssd battery times.

Maybe we will get lucky and see a reconsideration. Conversely, I would believe one of the sites admin is also trying to get a drive for review.

EDIT: I still stand by the fact that this thread is the most educational for anyone on the net with the most creditable of opinions...except mine of course eheheh

 

It's tom's hardware that claims lower battery life, not anandtech.

 

Ooops corrected tx.

 

ya, rev. B was the one I was speaking off, I saw it in Japanese news... http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2008/0709/hgst.htm

 

John, I appreciate your replies and understand that you're trying to keep me from making a mistake with my purchase. Thank you for your reply. But I want to just clarify myself in case others want to copy my setup.

From all the reviews we have all read up to this point, SSDs have always been touted as more reliable than a normal drive. We would both agree to this. This is an understood point.

So, as I believe that SSDs are more reliable than mechanical hard drives, so the increased chance for failure caused by 2 SSDs in RAID 0 is less than 2 HDs in RAID 0.


Also, from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_0#RAID_0, failure chance for RAID 0 is approximately:

MTBF / # drives

therefore 1.5million hours / 2 drives = 750,000 hrs ( ~80yrs) , right?

Or, we have always said in this thread that an SSD will last a lifetime. So half a lifetime is pretty good, isnt it?

So with SSD's being reliable, I might as well just take advantage of that strength and use them in RAID 0 for the insane speed increase, right?

Yes, its 128GB for boot drive, and two 500 gbs. However, it isn't as little as your math suggests.

Here's a simple diagram (without the obvious HD "missing space):

[ 128GB ] = RAID 0 SSDs
=
[ 128GB ][ 372GB ] = 500GB HD #1
= =
[ 128GB ][ 372GB ] = 500GB HD #2 (exact clone of HD #1)

So in total, I have 500GB of space for my computer (or 465GB of "real" space). Or, by the time I buy this, I use 750gb or 1tb hard drives instead, and have more space with the same setup. I'm still deciding between either using the two hard drives in RAID 1 or using backup software.

I don't like failure too, so I was also including a way to backup my RAID 0 setup. But from this statement, I can fully understand where you are coming from and I appreciate you trying to keep me from experiencing the pain of drive failures. Thanks!


The only problem I see with this is that I have no idea how to rebuild the RAID 0 if there's a failure. I am trying to read up as much as possible on RAID 0 recovery right now. And when I mean rebuild, I'm not looking for data recovery, but just setting up RAID 0 again with the data from my backup.

 

if you use a matrix-setup for the 500gb, then you can even get more out of it.. you dont need the ssd-mirror in a raid1 (so you have it 3 times..)

so it's
[64gb] ssd
[64gb] ssd => 128gb raid0
[64gb][436gb] 500gb hdd
[64gb][436gb] 500gb hdd => 126gb raid0 ssdbackup + 436gb raid1 hdd storage

everything is stored at least 2 times, ergo save enough.

with 2 tb disks, you get close to 1tb, as you only loose 64gb again.

you loose close to 100gb because of the wrong labeling of the disk (900gb in real, 1tb for sale), the ssd backup costs you less..

 

raid0 backup restore is just as any disk restore. it's just important your restore software can load in the raid-driver somehow, to be able to access the disk. so a dos-based ghost will not work, f.e...

 

nad how you will have access to raid0 disk ?

 

with the raid-controller driver. if it's a windows/windows-pe based backup, you can load it at boot of the cd (press f6 for loading additional drivers). if it's a linux based backup (acronis true image), i dunno.

it depends on your backup-software.

 

We do not have to agree to this until the SSDs actually are as reliable as hard drives. The one SSD I tried so far lasted about two weeks. About one third of the reviews at Newegg of that device ( you can read them here) complain about premature failure.

Eventually, SSDs probably will be more reliable than hard drives. So far? results are mixed.

 

You have to distinguish between MLC and SLC SSDs. SLC is a proven, reliable technology, while MLC is not. Your Super Talent is MLC.

 

Touting is not the same as long term reliability.

Ahhh wikipeida, the Cheez-Whiz of Knowledge is what I call it.

MTBF is great when you're talking about a large aggregate of drives. You have two drives; not a large aggregate.

So let's do an ugly case. Your first drive dies in the infant mortality window, call it 250 hours (about 10 days in). The second fails at 1.5 million hours. Your MTBF is higher than expected, at 750,125 hours. This is why MTBF isn't particularly useful when dealing with small groups of drives.

Now, if you want to talk about a data center it's a different ball game. Our mid-sized NetApps filers (locally) have about 2500 spindles (ie drives). We've got another 3000 or so spindles in two other data centers. Here MTBF becomes a more worthwhile statistic. In addition, I have some EMC filers with somewhere around 300 spindles. Again, MTBF is a worthwhile statistic.

See above.



So with SSD's being reliable, I might as well just take advantage of that strength and use them in RAID 0 for the insane speed increase, right?





Yes, its 128GB for boot drive, and two 500 gbs. However, it isn't as little as your math suggests.

Here's a simple diagram (without the obvious HD "missing space):

[ 128GB ] = RAID 0 SSDs
=
[ 128GB ][ 372GB ] = 500GB HD #1
= =
[ 128GB ][ 372GB ] = 500GB HD #2 (exact clone of HD #1)

So in total, I have 500GB of space for my computer (or 465GB of "real" space). Or, by the time I buy this, I use 750gb or 1tb hard drives instead, and have more space with the same setup. I'm still deciding between either using the two hard drives in RAID 1 or using backup software.[/quote]

You only have 372 of usable, as you have 128GB (in two redundant copies of the drives). That's about what I said you had.




The only problem I see with this is that I have no idea how to rebuild the RAID 0 if there's a failure. I am trying to read up as much as possible on RAID 0 recovery right now. And when I mean rebuild, I'm not looking for data recovery, but just setting up RAID 0 again with the data from my backup.[/QUOTE]

Depends on what you're using for RAID.

Windows isn't my area of greatest expertise, so I'll defer to others on the ideal way to recover from that.

Cheers,

 

2 out of the 3 I had of these units died quickly too. Maybe they had a bad first run, but I won't buy another from this manufacturer. I'm waiting to get the new MLC's from Samsung...anyone know when they are going to be for sale in the US?

Tom

 

I kind of chuckle when this same thing comes up over and over and over and over again...ssd reliability. Newegg reviews...this is our source which I must admit, the Supertalent does not look so good on.

Well....actually, its kind of hard to use a grading stick because so many buy the ssd and then never come back to say how much they love it. Its similar to the site....People come, on average, to find a system or to figure out how to cure a problem. For the most part, very very few actually return after NBR has served its purpose to say "Hey I just love this Thanks".

So granted I can consider that a few have failed and on the other side, I can argue that its an unfair comparison because angry people go back to vet and feel better after doing so. I don't blame them.

You cannot compare this to ssd reliability whatsoever. It does not encompass all the other ssds nor their effectiveness. In my experience, Sandisk did a horrid job on their first release but they were the first out and we must credit them for that. They ventured to go where no other had.

Samsung then followed suit to be number two and I, personally, have to give them alot of credit because, not only did they up Sandisk, but they followed through with a much better slc in the SATA II design.

We can go on about the successes of Memoright, Mtron and so on but reliability cannot even be considered without looking at the whole picture.

The Supertalent mlc is to ssds as the Sandisk was. It is a first offering of a consumer mlc design. They will improve. It is also just a very small portion of the picture.

Having said all that and getting back to the original thought of failure rate and reliability, I kind of laugh. Here we are questioning their reliability yet the Military uses them on Fighter jets without question and has for some time. Conversely, they are a mainstay of not only commercial jets but the aeronautical systems that guide them as well. I am sure if I dig deep into any of my enterprise ssd contacts, I will be told of at least one case of ssds being placed in lifesaving situations. I am not technically inclined but would bet you would probably see them in medical equipment to include catscans, MRIs and so on....

Their reliability is not questioned by anyone but us, the consumer, and solely for the fact that industry is now trying to concede to our needs. SLC cannot be made affordable strictly because it utilizes slc NAND whereas we hollared and now mlc is out...

Just like ssds last July/August, I am seeing the exact same growing pain with mlc design...and I am seeing technology regroom itself once again with every release.

I am very curious to see the success of the Samsung release shortly.


Just my 8 cents...

 

I have had my 120 GB Supertalent for two months now and I have had no problems with it, for a MLC drive it's pretty fast. Les if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know about SSD's.

 

Hi all,
I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place but I posted before where someone had a similar question in 2007 obviously no replies there. Hope someone here can help


I was searching for a solution regarding SSD not recognized by Bios and came across this page. Here is my case I have a Clevo M665 SRU and a SATA SSD 32 GB (MLC) a friend brought from Japan (no name). the BIOS does not even detect it. Bios only sees the DVD writer. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks

Alex

 

Same Here!..I'm looking forward to having this technology in my next laptop.

 

SLC may be a proven reliable technology in some implementations. How do we know that all the Super Talent failures are from the MLC? They might have screwed up the controller part, or the batch of chips might have been bad, incorrect packaging, etc. The thing that went wrong with the Super Talents could be a thing that would have also gone wrong with SLC. We don't know why those drives are dying like flies. It may or may not have anything to do with SLC vs. MLC.

 

Darn good point! This is still new and evolving technology. Mistakes will be made. There is still room to establish major players. Samsung has really stepped up to the plate, when early on SanDisk looked a like a forerunner. Mtron, um, yeah, BUT PRICES ARE STILL WAY TO HIGH FOR THEM. Are they smoking Flash Crack? Come on Intel! Come on Seagate! Where are you WD? It is quite a horse race! Dave

 

Did you try plugging it into another computer? Your desktop maybe? If it doesn't work then, it means it's dead. Obviously.

 

I really want a SSD inside of my laptop also I can afford one, but tell me whats the sooo called difference between slc and mlc? (in simple words).

Also what about battery life, will it be improved?

Im looking foward to the next 128gb Samsung drive and the 128gb OZC drive, which one is better?.

Thanks alot in advance

 

Read my article below..."Know Yr SSDs"

 

Damn I wish I could back in time and get the 64gb Samsung SSD from my m1330 configuration . And no I cant return it cuz my friend recived it like 25 days ago...

 

Nehalem Sneak Peek

The Intel SSDs are real. No information so far, but at least pics of SSDs with the Intel label.

 

Update to the Tomshardware article about power consumption of SSDs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968.html

 

Wow, that OCZ really sweeps the floor of all the others (both ssd and hd).

 

Anyone see the New OCZ's? Here's a link to one you can pre-order

http://www.directron.com/oczssd21c64g.html


$169 (32GB), $259 (64GB) and $479 (128GB), according to OCZ. Thats fantastic. Especially given the specs (step up from the original OCZ SSD) Reads 120-143mb/s, Writes 80-93mb/s

 

Those aren't quite adding up vs. OCZs spec'd prices... Directron shows
$220 (32 GB), $280 (64GB), $520 (128GB).

I'm not sure why the discrepancy but it's obvious from a $$$/GB that the 64GB is the sweet spot for pricing.

32GB = 6.885/GB
64GB = 4.37/GB
128GB = 4.06/GB

Not much of a break in price from 64 to 128GB. That's only a delta of about 8%.

I wish the 32GB pricing was closer to what OCZ said it would be. Maybe the pricing will go down when the 32 and 64GB parts are no longer pre-order.

Of course if you need the space, the 128GB is the bad boy to get

Best,

 

Yea, this is where I got the prices

http://www.ocztechnology.com/aboutocz/press/2008/294

The article was written july 1st. Second-to-last paragraph.

It seems there's price variance everywhere I look. At this site VVV It shows the 32gb version at 210, but the others are higher than OCZ's estimates. 300 for 64gb, 530 for 128gb

http://www.case-mod.com/data-storage-ocz-memory-c-3_152.html

Its probably just retailers using their disgression, and trying to make some profit, lol. But I'm sure they will get down after they've actually been released. These are all place where you can pre-order.

 

Benchmarks of some the latest SSDs versus HHDs: http://techreport.com/articles.x/15079/1

No OCZ Core yet.



(link found by danwat1234)

 

Higher is better for those, right? Yea...and technically the samsung and OCZ are the same drives (so I was told).

 

Right.

There's plenty of other benchmarks there too. I'm a bit surprised the difference between the real expensive SSDs and the WD Black scorpio aren't bigger. It may have to do with the benchmark setup they choose.

 

Yes, but WorldBench stats are "just numbers" for performance -- they aren't actual throughput rates. That said, the performance, with the exception of the Super Talent drive the results are pretty much as expected from my POV.

I don't know what the margin of error is for their performance measurements but I will bet that the Samsung/OCZ twins are within the margin of error for the measurement.

Best,

 

First OCZ Core benchmarks: http://www.bluefi.co.uk/.

 

Ooooo...i'm excited, and I havn't even clicked on the link yet

 

wellwell. dunno what i should think about the write performance, though... but that's just a first quick test, we'll see tomorrow i'll guess.

i'm thinking of ordering two, one for the pc, one for the server. let's see the next benches.

 

Yea, I'm hoping to see atleast 2 or 3 more reviews/benches tomorrow...so we can get a sense of consistancy. And the tests wern't exactly methodical.

 

I have sincere doubts that the tests will be as directly comparable as we would like. Conditions will be radically different which would make the results have a high degree of variability.

Best,

 

The write performance although better than my current 5400rpm HDD, is still a little bit lower than expectation. Maybe I expect too much though. It is after all still MLC. I was hoping sustained 80MB/s.

 

Seems like he has a bunch of processes running in the background. Somone should tell him.

Edit: I did.

 

Newegg has the OCZ core 128 gb drive in stock.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227345

It's actually close to the OCZ estimated prices...after MIR. $519-$40=$479. Not bad for 128. Considering the samsung sata II is going for $399 for 32gb.

 

It's interesting to see the Core series vs whatever they called the first series on one page. 4x the storage for a comparable price

Cheers,

 

Sold out already. Jees that was quick.

 

I am very very glad they sold out. That means 1) We can expect a flood of reviews within the next week, and 2) The prices will start to stabilize after the enthusiasts clear the market.

 

Some OCZ benchmarks done on my desktop:

Intel ICH7 write






Marvel 61xx write






Intel ICH7 read






Marvel 61xx read






Marvel 61xx with enabled advanced performance option read






File Benchmark Intel ICH7






File Benchmark Marvel 61xx



As you see the results are different depends on controller.



OCZ drive info




Either HDTune isn't capable to read the disk capacity or 128GB capacity is a fairy tale.