Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Memory and Storage

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-10-2013, 12:13 PM   #1
Kippa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 230
Default Any news on the release date for the Crucial M500 1TB SSD?

Any news when thee Crucial M500 1TB SSD will be released? I am thinking of upgrading to an SSD, just want to know does anyone have any idea when it is due out?
Kippa is offline  
Old 03-24-2013, 07:28 AM   #2
ThePiston
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 839
Default

I've checked and I can't tell a specific date. I do see that they are in production though:
http://www.micron.com/products/solid...=M500&306=M500

edit* the 960MB is "sampling" though
ThePiston is offline  
Old 03-24-2013, 08:06 AM   #3
ThePiston
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 839
Default

this page says first week of April:
http://www.upgradeable.com.au/blog/2...for-pre-order/

Australian preorder site: http://www.upgradeable.com.au/parts/UCA1639.html

Last edited by ThePiston; 03-24-2013 at 08:09 AM.
ThePiston is offline  
Old 03-25-2013, 01:04 AM   #4
sub.mesa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 611
Default

Should be petty soon now. Beware that availability may still be fluctuating during the launch. This SSD I've been having an eye on for many months now. It has all the potential to become the best SSD of 2013.

The 1TB version (actually 960GB) seems to be vastly cheaper per GB than the 120GB and 240GB offerings. Those wanting to switch to solid state storage completely and not use mechanical storage will find this SSD to be the first serious option that is reasonably affordable.

The Crucial M500 is a huge upgrade over its predecessor. It sports a brand new controller with good performance, RAID5 redundancy on the NAND level, power-safe capacitor to prevent corruption on sudden power loss as well as general good performance. Assuming the M500 will continue the trend of competitive pricing, this could very well make it the best SSD of this year. Together with the Intel 320, this will be the second consumer-grade SSD that is inherently reliable.
sub.mesa is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 05:12 AM   #5
_Rick_
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,753
Default

To me that sounds a lot like something with enterprise class features - meaning that it won't be cheap.

The RAID 5 redundancy is something that's actually a bit worrying, all things considered, because it means they expect their flash to start dying during the warranty period, and hide that behind some 1:10 or so redundancy factor. It also remains to be seen whether that is any more effective than just using spare area, as RAID 5 amplifies the number of writes, and thus leads to faster NAND-exhaustion. As flash is supposedly immune to read errors, RAID 5 would gain very little advantage (some performance advantage when NAND dies during a write, as you can queue up writing the parity information, retains data if NAND dies in such a way that it is rendered unreadable), and only add disadvantages (higher complexity, more writes, calculation of parity, more power consumption).

Oh well, with the launch only a few weeks away, we'll see what they ended up doing.
_Rick_ is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 06:20 AM   #6
ThePiston
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 839
Default

I expect we'll see some reviews posted before they are available for purchase
ThePiston is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 06:30 AM   #7
Hellhammer
AnandTech SSD Editor
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePiston View Post
I expect we'll see some reviews posted before they are available for purchase
We don't have review samples yet, so I'm very doubtful that the shipping will start next week.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
Hellhammer is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:32 AM   #8
sub.mesa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Rick_ View Post
To me that sounds a lot like something with enterprise class features - meaning that it won't be cheap.
As always, the actual cost is negligible. Just like ECC and other 'enterprise' features, these are only expensive because the companies use political pricing. They know their enterprise users can pay much more, so they need to find a trick justifying that. This usually means separating product lines and forcing those who can pay more, to actually do pay more.

The array of capacitors would add a dollar perhaps to the total price. I think it's well worth it. Just like ECC would be worth paying 2 dollars more as consumer. But if they gave everyone ECC, there would be no more opportunity to rip-off enterprise customers. They still want their wealthy customers to pay thousands of dollars for a few dollar additional costs. That is how the system works, mate.

Quote:
The RAID 5 redundancy is something that's actually a bit worrying, all things considered, because it means they expect their flash to start dying during the warranty period, and hide that behind some 1:10 or so redundancy factor. It also remains to be seen whether that is any more effective than just using spare area, as RAID 5 amplifies the number of writes, and thus leads to faster NAND-exhaustion.
I'm not sure you understand the whole meaning of bit-level redundancy? The whole idea here is to avoid 'bad sectors'. I also don't see how spare space is relevant in this context. The actual overhead is 1:16 (both in available space and in amplified writes).

The redundancy is crucial (pun intended) to protect the Flash Translation Layer (FTL) that stores the difference between logical LBA and physical NAND addressing. Corruption on an SSD is much worse than corruption on a HDD. The corruption can cause the entire SSD to fail. Once the FTL is corrupted, your problems start. Many people who are having problems with their SSD, encounter exactly this issue.

Now you are telling me this protection is irrelevant? We consumers should be happy with the crappy SSDs that we got today?

Quote:
As flash is supposedly immune to read errors
It is? Did I miss something? I always thought modern flash had to spend more than half of their raw capacity on error correction, otherwise no sector could be retrieved without corruption. If you believe this is incorrect, I highly anticipate your understanding of it.
sub.mesa is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:19 AM   #9
AdamK47
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 10,451
Default

Hmmm.... 4 of these or get two more 512GB Vertex 4s. Running out of space on my 3TB array. Only have 103GiB left.
AdamK47 is online now  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:22 AM   #10
ThePiston
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamK47 View Post
Hmmm.... 4 of these or get two more 512GB Vertex 4s. Running out of space on my 3TB array. Only have 103GiB left.
only bad thing about M500 is that they are new and untested in the wild. firmware will probably need tweaking once it's out too
ThePiston is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:29 AM   #11
_Rick_
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sub.mesa View Post
As always, the actual cost is negligible. Just like ECC and other 'enterprise' features, these are only expensive because the companies use political pricing. They know their enterprise users can pay much more, so they need to find a trick justifying that. This usually means separating product lines and forcing those who can pay more, to actually do pay more.

The array of capacitors would add a dollar perhaps to the total price. I think it's well worth it. Just like ECC would be worth paying 2 dollars more as consumer. But if they gave everyone ECC, there would be no more opportunity to rip-off enterprise customers. They still want their wealthy customers to pay thousands of dollars for a few dollar additional costs. That is how the system works, mate.
I understand - and that's why they'd be cutting off their own leg, by offering these features cheaply. Unless they see themselves setting those losses off by massively increased sales and profit int he consumer sector.

Quote:
I'm not sure you understand the whole meaning of bit-level redundancy? The whole idea here is to avoid 'bad sectors'. I also don't see how spare space is relevant in this context. The actual overhead is 1:16 (both in available space and in amplified writes).

The redundancy is crucial (pun intended) to protect the Flash Translation Layer (FTL) that stores the difference between logical LBA and physical NAND addressing.
So it's actually redundancy in the "file-system"-like layer of the SSD, and not the actual data? Much like a real file system, the organizational information and the data are likely stored separately? Or are they actually using 16/8 dies and spread parity across dies/half-dies? Spare space is relevant, as it is what you use, when flash starts dying. With parity spread throughout, you lose spare space, but you can continue using existing data (slowly) even if one cell fails.

Quote:
Corruption on an SSD is much worse than corruption on a HDD. The corruption can cause the entire SSD to fail. Once the FTL is corrupted, your problems start. Many people who are having problems with their SSD, encounter exactly this issue.
Again, the FTL is a tiny subsection (similar to a FAT, if I had to guess) of the SSD's memory. Corruption in the organisational layer is always worse than actual data corruption, but usually this corruption comes from firmware bugs, memory and transmission errors...rarely from flash failure. Also, it's just as important to protect the FS-section of the data, as it si important to protect the FTL. Either of those failing means all your data becomes close to impossible to recover.

Quote:
Now you are telling me this protection is irrelevant? We consumers should be happy with the crappy SSDs that we got today?
I'm saying that the problems are elsewhere, than in the flash layer. And that 1:16 redundancy isn't a whole lot, if indeed your flash is suddenly dying.

Quote:
It is? Did I miss something? I always thought modern flash had to spend more than half of their raw capacity on error correction, otherwise no sector could be retrieved without corruption. If you believe this is incorrect, I highly anticipate your understanding of it.
According to Wikipedia, ECC is about 1/32 of the raw capacity, for NAND flash. It could be possible, that by using TLC, they are forced to use more ECC than that, and thus increase to 1/16 (and use that as base for their "RAID-5" claims). That will probably allow them to offer a competitive warranty and lifetime.
They surely won't be using more ECC than absolutely necessary, as this means less capacity per die, and thus makes the device more expensive per GB.

More than half would be pretty disastrous.

All in all, I suspect that what they're actually doing is spread ECC across dies, instead of keeping it in-die, and increase the ECC ratio to 1:16, to deal with cheaper (per GB) TLC dies. It does improve wear leveling, and it will cover more bit errors, but won't help with an entire page dying at once.
The problem with using actual RAID 5 is that write amplification goes way higher, because your minimal writable units grow massively (factor 15). This means a read-erase-write now takes 16 times the writes/erases it used to take. This doesn't sound good for longevity.
_Rick_ is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 11:32 AM   #12
Ao1
Member
 
Ao1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 122
Default

Is it going to use Enhanced ClearNAND Flash?

http://www.micron.com/products/managed-nand/clearnand
Ao1 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 11:40 AM   #13
Hellhammer
AnandTech SSD Editor
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1 View Post
Is it going to use Enhanced ClearNAND Flash?

http://www.micron.com/products/managed-nand/clearnand
Nope.



That FBGA code corresponds to MT29F256G08CECABH6-10ES:A, whereas ClearNAND is MT29FCA... or MT29FEN...
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
Hellhammer is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 12:56 PM   #14
corkyg
Moderator
Peripherals
 
corkyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 23,522
Default

Thank you Ao1 and Hellhammer for getting this thread back on track for the original question. So, is the release date sill Q2 2013?
__________________
CorkyG - Tucson, AZ

In my view you cannot claim to have seen something until you have photographed it.... Emile Zola

Last edited by corkyg; 03-29-2013 at 01:01 PM.
corkyg is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 01:14 PM   #15
ThePiston
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 839
Default

word on the street is April 11. I'm waiting for these to build so I'm anxious.
ThePiston is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 01:37 PM   #16
Hellhammer
AnandTech SSD Editor
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePiston View Post
word on the street is April 11. I'm waiting for these to build so I'm anxious.
I'm still skeptic about that because we have absolutely no info regarding the review samples. April 11th is only 13 days away, so the deadline for reviews would end up being very, very short (shipping alone takes at least a few days). Of course, this wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer only gives us a day or two to come up with an in-depth review...
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
Hellhammer is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 02:16 PM   #17
ThePiston
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 839
Default

all of the 7mm versions (except the 960GB version) have been in production since beginning of March at least. The 960GB must have gone from "sampling" to "production" only in the last week. So, if they're in production you could get one of them soon - theoretically anyway.

There's nothing worse then waiting on one part for a build.

I think the SSD price drops over this past week are because of this rollout. It'll be the SSD to beat for a lot of reasons if it lives up to the hype.
ThePiston is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 03:39 PM   #18
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Rick_ View Post
I'm saying that the problems are elsewhere, than in the flash layer. And that 1:16 redundancy isn't a whole lot, if indeed your flash is suddenly dying.
OTOH, it could a life-saver, if any data got corrupted. The nice thing about ECC above the lowest storage layer, is that you don't have to care what the source of the error was, or will be.

Quote:
They surely won't be using more ECC than absolutely necessary, as this means less capacity per die, and thus makes the device more expensive per GB.
ECC at a higher level, for your data, not trusting the storage device, is always preferable. Hardware bugs happen. Power loss, ripple, voltage spikes, etc., happen, and might cause corruption.

Quote:
This means a read-erase-write now takes 16 times the writes/erases it used to take. This doesn't sound good for longevity.
No, it means they'll take 1/15th more, plus an additional write somewhere, per standby command received, or other similar events. A custom RAID-like parity scheme need not suffer the negative consequences of traditional RAID 4/5/6, which assume that a disk will report all errors correctly, drop out, or work perfectly, and that all writes are good writes.

Also, you can safely bet that similar schemes are used by other makers, too, if not straight-out data duplication, but only for the mapping data itself.

Finally, do we have any official word on whether they are using a RAID-like scheme for the M500, like they did the P400m? It wouldn't be a bad thing, but I haven't found anything substantiating it, as of yet, just rumor.

Relevant: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/...13-final80.pdf
__________________
"The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows." - Frank Zappa
Cerb is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:26 PM   #19
Lifted
Diamond Member
 
Lifted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,665
Default

This doesn't look so hot...

www.micron.com/~/media/Documents/Products/Data%20Sheet/SSD/m500_2_5_ssd.pdf

Quote:
Table 7: Drive Lifetime

Capacity | Drive Lifetime (Total Bytes Written)
120GB | 72TB
240GB | 72TB
480GB | 72TB
960GB | 72TB
That's 75 writes across the 960GB drive (or per cell).

Doesn't make sense considering the 120GB drive has the same 72TB figure.
Lifted is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 11:45 PM   #20
Emulex
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ATL
Posts: 9,538
Default

Well if its just 72TB, buy two samsung 840 non-pro and rock those, $500 (or less) with recent deals for 500gb x 2 .

$375 * 2 for 840 pro's (newegg recent deal) if you need many more times that drive lifetime.
__________________
-------------------------
NAS: Dell 530 Q6600 8gb 4tb headless VHP
KID PC1: Mac Pro Dual nehalem - 6gb - GF120 - HP ZR30W
Browser: Dell 530 Q6600 4GB - Kingston 96gb -gt240- hp LP3065 IPS - 7ult
Tabs: IPAD 1,2,3 IPOD3,HTC flyer, Galaxy Tab - all rooted/jb
Couch1: Macbook Air/Macbook White
Couch2: Macbook Pro 17 2.66 Matte screen - 8GB - SSD
HTPC: Asus C2Q8300/X25-V - Geforce 430- 7ult - Antec MicroFusion 350
Emulex is offline  
Old 03-30-2013, 12:08 AM   #21
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,669
Default

*SOMETHING* is definitely up, there, that's for sure. The same total write endurance rating minimum across the capacity spectrum makes absolutely no sense, to me. Even if they used lower-endurance NAND for the larger drive(s), the stats should at least vary some. 72TB for 120GB is about expected (600 fully random overwrites), but that should make for nearly 600TB for the 960GB drive.
__________________
"The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows." - Frank Zappa
Cerb is offline  
Old 03-30-2013, 03:32 AM   #22
Hellhammer
AnandTech SSD Editor
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifted View Post
This doesn't look so hot...

www.micron.com/~/media/Documents/Products/Data%20Sheet/SSD/m500_2_5_ssd.pdf

That's 75 writes across the 960GB drive (or per cell).

Doesn't make sense considering the 120GB drive has the same 72TB figure.
Don't forget the small print:

Quote:
1. Total bytes written calculated with the drive 90% full.
2. Access patterns used during reliability testing are 25% sequential and 75% random and
consist of the following: 50% are 4KB; 40% are 64KB; and 10% are 128KB.
3. GB/day can be calculated by dividing the total bytes written value by (365 number of
years). For example: 72TB/5 years/365 days = 40 GB/day for 5 years.
Given the workload, that's on par with other drives from what I have seen. E.g. OCZ Vector is rated at 36.5TB (100% 4KB random writes).
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
Hellhammer is offline  
Old 03-30-2013, 04:25 AM   #23
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,669
Default

The small print explains the 72TB figure for the 120GB, which is quite reasonable, but not at all why that figure is 1/8th that, in relative terms, for the 960GB, much less why it's no higher at all for any other capacities.
__________________
"The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows." - Frank Zappa
Cerb is offline  
Old 03-30-2013, 04:49 AM   #24
SSBrain
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Default

It's their way of saying that these drives are intended for (and warranty valid for) consumer workloads, I guess.

By the way, the 960 GB model should generally have a much lower write amplification than the 120 GB model, so should last even more than its capacity difference from this one. I would expect 2 PB of writes at the very least.

Last edited by SSBrain; 03-30-2013 at 04:54 AM.
SSBrain is offline  
Old 03-30-2013, 04:56 AM   #25
Hellhammer
AnandTech SSD Editor
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
The small print explains the 72TB figure for the 120GB, which is quite reasonable, but not at all why that figure is 1/8th that, in relative terms, for the 960GB, much less why it's no higher at all for any other capacities.
Manufacturers are often just conservative with these figures.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
Hellhammer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.