LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOr am I missing something . . .
Or am I missing something . . .
I know with the Intel 330 & 520 they are actually 128GB SSDs, but limit usable space to 120GB. The other 8GB is used for 'garbage collection', i.e. the firmware uses this space to keeping the rest of the SSD in check.
I'd imagine that most of the 120GB SSDs are actually 128GB (as that's the logical size for scaling flash storage), and do something similar to intel.
Desktop: P8Z77-V -l- i7-3770k @ 4.2Ghz -l- Hyper212 EVO -l- 8GB Corsair Dominator -l- XFX HD6950 2GB -l- 128GB Samsung 830 -l- 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7,200.12 -l- Corsair Carbide 300R -l- XFX Pro 450W -l- Gigabyte M6800 -l- Microsoft Keyboard -l- Windows 8
Laptop: HP Pavillion DV-3 4050 -l- i5-M450 -l- 4GB -l- 500GB Hitachi TravelStar -l- Windows 7
Audio: Denon M38DAB -l- Mission MX1 -l- QED Reference Inter-connectors -l- Creative Megaworks THX 5.1 550
Headphones: AKG K450
TVs/Monitors: Asus PA238Q -l- LG 22" Flatron -l- Philips 27" LCD
ahah - cheers
Yes you are right, as far as im aware anyway. SSD memory chips follow the same size pattern as RAM.Originally Posted by Samwood
Currently looking at one of these myself, it's reassuring to know that it won't matter if I buy a 120gb or a 128gb, one of the things I've been fretting about.
With Sandforce controllers it's because they drive their flash chips in a raid 5 array, so one of the chips is lost as parity information. That means that you can have an entire chip die on you, and it shouldn't matter. There is other error correction in place as well same as a "normal" hard drive, same as all SSDs, I don't know if there is enough forward error correction on other drives to survive a chip kill though.
Most controllers seem to drive the flash chips in a raid-0 configuration, so all chips are seen as storage.
OFC some people seem to think that writing your data to a drive with a Sandforce controller in it is on par with writing it down on burning paper thanks to firmware bugs (not seen any yet myself mind), in which case the raid-5 aspect of the design won't make you feel any more secure
Edit to add: They call the feature "RAISE". Something to read if you want to know more: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5710/t...force-capacity
Last edited by DanceswithUnix; 21-09-2012 at 09:14 AM.
thanks - more useful info :-)
I stuck my Hexus bundle Kingston HyperX 3k in my laptop on Tuesday, had 2 BSODs since. There is new firmware released about a month ago, which I'll be flashing this weekend, but given the stability of the system previously I doubt it's a coincidence that the BSODs have occurred just after a swirch to SSD...
That said, it does seem to be system and SATA controller dependent, from having a quick read around - either you'll be fine with Sandforce drives, or you won't. Hopefully once I've updated the firmware I'll fall into the former category ...
Hope your firmware update isn't destructive. Must admit I didn't look at updating either of my drives before I deployed them (both Sandforce) but one is the wife's laptop which is just for surfing etc so not too worried about data integrity on that one.
saw your edit, but this also has a nice bit on it: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-review-4.html
In short it's not RAID5 and it's not parity information on the chip, but they are somewhat comparable in their final result
Looking at the instructions from Kingston it isn't, but I'll be making a full system image just in case
EDIT: Should say my laptop isn't used for anything particularly mission critical (anymore) and the BSODs haven't really been an issue, but I'd rather not have them happen every couple of days! Reading up the release notes it looks like a number of the fixes on this drive relate to issues when waking from sleep, so perhaps it's not the best choice for a laptop!
Last edited by scaryjim; 21-09-2012 at 04:46 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote