It's very unlikely that your SSD died because the NAND was exhausted. More likely a controller or firmware failure.I am more weary about ssds since my old SSD died on me. The warranty on it was for 2 years and I had it 2 years and 10 months. It was only a 120gb drive and was used a lot though. A 1TB ssd should last quite a while though if not filled up.
Really? I thought that was all worked out?! I have a few thumb drives that have held data for 4 or 5 years.. Remember an SSD will only only data for a year or so while mechanical disks are good for many, many years.
.
True. I know they sold some of their stake in IMFT early last year. I'm not too familiar with their current arrangement with Micron. Maybe Kristian can explain?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5603/intel-sells-some-of-its-imft-stake-to-micron
Samsung has estimated 13 year lifespan at 40 GB/day of writes but they could be biased, and so I still don't trust TLC for smaller capacities.
Really? I thought that was all worked out?! I have a few thumb drives that have held data for 4 or 5 years.
I have a Samsung 840 250g coming for my gaming system and it only gets used every great once in a while when I feel like some Left For Dead 2. Until two days ago it hadn't been booted for well over a year!
I wouldn't mind an SSD using the the same form factor of a 3.5" of a hard drive if it needs to be bigger to fit more chips instead of it having to be 2.5" that it is at the moment. I'd certaintley consider buying a 3.5" 2TB SSD if it didn't cost that much. Can anyone tell me why SSDs have to be 2.5"? Surely then can do 3.5" and fit much more chips in.
It's not biased, it's simple math. 40GB of writes per day equals to 43,800GB of writes in three years (I think that's the lifespan Samsung was quoting?). Even the 120GB model can withstand at least 128,000GB of writes, so that figure is accurate if we assume a write amplification of 3x (which is quite accurate for client workloads).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLM Crew Chief View Post
Really? I thought that was all worked out?! I have a few thumb drives that have held data for 4 or 5 years.
I have a Samsung 840 250g coming for my gaming system and it only gets used every great once in a while when I feel like some Left For Dead 2. Until two days ago it hadn't been booted for well over a year!
I can't find any good links now but I remember flash drives being "tuned" to hold data longer while and SSD un-powered would only hold data for a year to 5 years?
I'm having a hard time finding good data on this.
If you find that can you please post a link? I'd like to read it before I install the new drive. This might be a deal breaker on SSD's for me.
Its more then just from the same fabAt least Intel's is, can't see how Micron's would be any different since it's physically from the same fab.20nm IMFT is rated for 3k P/E cycles, right?
The part you didn't quote me on was where I wrote that TLC needs to be lower priced because it's less proven technology than MLC. Samsung's estimates could be wrong, despite what they claim, is what I'm getting at. If TLC drives cost a little more than half of what MLC drives cost, I would get a TLC drive twice as big as I would get if it were MLC. But the actual price difference isn't that big. Until TLC falls in price more, I don't think it's worth getting over MLC drives.
Its more then just from the same fab
IMFT = Intel Micron Flash Technology
A jointly owned subsidiary firm of intel and micron. Its a single company that manufactures flash for both intel and micron.
So, basically IMFT flash... that being said, there is binning for different quality levels.
I'm well aware of that, but Intel and Micron validate the NAND on their own. For example, Intel offers 25nm MLC with 5,000 P/E cycles, whereas all Micron 25nm MLC I've seen is rated at 3,000 cycles. Hence Intel and Micron NAND are not exactly the same, Micron could be for example using lower binned chips in the M500 (and saving the better ones for enterprise), making the endurance less than 3,000 P/E cycles.
TLC isn't exactly unproven technology.
Well, given that my SSD is only used for holding the OS, games and VMs (which are backed up anyway), I don't particularly care.But reasonable minds can disagree and I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they want to entrust their data to a TLC drive that isn't that much cheaper than a non-OCZ MLC drive.
Why do you think it matters at current capacities? If you were to write 30GB/day (which is a damn lot) to even a 120GB 840, it would last you 40 years according to xtremetech. Even if you normalize the number to 1000 P/E cycles, it would still last you 11.4 years.With enough TLC it won't matter.
Even if you normalize the number to 1000 P/E cycles, it would still last you 11.4 years.
Why compare OCZ's drive which is among the worst in terms of MLC testing at XS? Why not compare TLC to other MLC drives like Samsung's 830 drive which lasted for well over 20k writes IIRC?
Even if TLC were just as good as MLC, there's just no way I'm paying anywhere near what the asking price is for a 840 when it's barely any cheaper than 830's were.
TLC should cost way less to produce, so I know I can just wait it out before prices fall. And if I needed a good MLC drive, they are still around, and some cost not much more than 840s; on sale, they may even cost less!
It's a justified assumption, given that his isn't an enterprise workload and the drive has demonstrated a WA of around 1 in the Anvil Storage bench. The drive I have seems to be adhering to the rule of WA of around 1 as well.You seem to be assuming a very low write amplification, around 1.1.
Some workloads may have considerably higher WA, in the 2 - 5 range.
At least in my opinion, the SSD 840 has been priced competitively, see for example the tables here. It's often the cheapest name-brand SSD around and if it's not the cheapest, it's at least among the top three. Of course if you want to include every small-brand SandForce drives, then you'll probably find an MLC NAND based SSD that's always cheaper than the SSD 840. However, I would rather pick the SSD 840 than buy a SandForce based SSD from a small, unproven manufacturer.
The big picture in the SSD 840 is pretty good IMO.
It's a justified assumption, given that his isn't an enterprise workload and the drive has demonstrated a WA of around 1 in the Anvil Storage bench. The drive I have seems to be adhering to the rule of WA of around 1 as well.