http://www.micron.com/~/media/Docume...611tnfd03.ashx
That document should allow you to pretty much work out anything you need to from SMART
I've got to ask - what do you use the server for? That's one hell of a throughput!
http://www.micron.com/~/media/Docume...611tnfd03.ashx
That document should allow you to pretty much work out anything you need to from SMART
I've got to ask - what do you use the server for? That's one hell of a throughput!
Almost exclusively Mac users. If you checkout the thread on the Crucial forum for the 000F firmware, I've not seen a PC user that's not solved any issues by doing the usual checking of settings / reseating cables and so on.
Latest reports on there are suggesting that the latest OSX has fixed the issue - but I'm not a Mac user, so can't say for certain.
Thanks for the link, as I recall, I looked at that document or a similar one when I was evaluating the Crucial M4 drive, but it did not match the SMART data I was getting back from the drive. I sent the link to the Crucial tech support rep, and was told that the doc was out of date, and there was not a similar doc available for the current M4 drives. The rep said that there was a propriety tool in the works, but it was not available yet, and would be windows only, which was no good to me.
The server host a couple of high traffic databases running on Percona MySQL on Ubuntu Linux. I am using SSD drives for random access speed, not throughput, and I have them in RAID 0 in order to get enough capacity, and to spread the wear across all the drives, rather than for throughput.
The way I see it, the reliability and performance of an SSD is from a combination of both the controller and the firmware. Intel where much slower to market with Sandforce SSDs than other makers, and apparently that is because they spent more time debugging and optimising their version of the firmware than others. Seeing as Intel have a reputation to protect, I don't think they would be selling a Sandforce based SSD unless they where confident they had got rid of all the bugs, especially considering the problems that other manufactures have suffered.
Agent (23-08-2012)
@chrestomanci - yes your right. Intel as always have spent more time than others ironing out the bugs & developing some good firmware, which IMO means its probably the best drive to use the sandforce controller.
But you still cant fault Samsungs track record, both the 470 and 830 have consistently reported some of the lowest (if not THE lowest) fail rates.
Both Samsung and Intel benefit from firmware like "garbage collection", and other various techniques that both improve reliability and reduce the performance drop-off as the drive ages. Intel set aside 8GB (on their 120GB drive, more on the larger ones) of unallocatable space specifically for garbage collection, Samsung just use free allocated space. Which is better, for reliability, probably the Intel, but not by much.
As for performance - Samsung is pretty consistent in all areas, a little short of the Crucial M4 on 4k QD32 benchmarks. But has better performance than the Intel with incompressible data. This is basically the reason why I ranked them: M4 -> 830 -> 330 in order of performance earlier in this thread. But as Phage said, its probably not going to be noticeable, maybe in a monster RAID0 like above but not for the average user.
All in all - the decision of 'which SSD to buy' is like choosing what to put on your toast... butter, marmite, jam etc... which is better? All depends on exactly what your looking for, there are some 'bad' ones to avoid, but at the end of the day a slice of toast is a slice of toast.
I just purchased a Kingston V+200 which will probably just be for games. (Already have Crucial M4 for OS). It was a bit of an impulse buy as I realised it has the Sandforce controller but precisely what problems are still existent using this drive/version of the controller?
That is what I thought, mainly from reading Anandtech's review. So I went ahead and bought the 120gb 520 (~£150 back in April), only to get repeated (but not repeatable) BSODs of the F4/9F variety, characteristic of the 'Sandforce Bug'. After checking Intel's forums, I was not the only one - although most problems were with Macs and laptops (mine is a Z68/2500K desktop). I got no direct reply from Intel, but some forum users suggested disabling the power-saving features - hardly an ideal fix. Eventually I got an RMA ticket, but then Intel announced a full refund for 520 owners - due to borked AES-256 encryption inherent to the SF-2281 controller. Result - I now have a 256gb Samsung 830, performing faultlessly, and £12 change.
I'm not saying the 520 is a bad drive, it's probably the best Sandforce drive around. But don't think that because it's Intel, there will be zero problems (I imagine the same applies to the 330 too). AFAIK Samsung is the only SSD to use in-house NAND/DRAM/controller/firmware (why did Intel stop using their own controllers???), and the Crucial M4 has a great reputation for reliability, compatibility and longevity too. Other non-Sandforce 6gbps drives are looking promising, but I'd stick to the tried and tested.
tl;dr - Avoid Sandforce, even Intel can't polish a turd.
I own the M4 and has been a great drive, quick and no problems since purchase. Also heard lot of good things about the Samsung so think you'll be happy with either and in the real world you'll see no difference in performance.
If price is the same then check out the warranty situation and make a decision based on that.
Also have an M4 (128 GB) and it's been nothing but fantastic. No freezes, no crashes. I have latest firmware and I got it in sale otherwise I would have also gotten the Samsung. Both have been hailed as great so I'd probably just go for whatever is cheapest for you at the time you're buying one. I don't know about intel personally.
From what i've seen failures are still sub-0.5% annually, so nothing to get that worked up about, its just slightly higher than Samsung's etc rates.
If you're talking about OCZ/ Sandforce based drives there then it's not even close to being sub 0.5%. It's closer to 3% if you take the figures from retailers : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/810-...omposants.html
Now 3% still doesn't sound much (although still too high), but when you consider that these drives can be no where near their MTBF, it's a worrying figure.
Where is your figure from?
All the figures in the world don't make drawing conclusions any easier though with all the firmware updates.
I own Samsung 830 and it would be my choice again.
the only thing I would do differently is selling Norton Ghost on eBay, as that software is useless. And it would make the drive cheaper.
m4 would be the second choice.
Having had an M4 causing blue screens out of the box, I would now stick to Samsung or Intel. Currently have a Samsung and it has not missed a beat. Delighted with it.
I got my M4 from ebuyer for £74 a couple months ago. Have not experienced anything odd. It has good track record isn't it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)