Long term performance of SSDs. Analysis of Intel SSDs.

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Dead drives offer 0MB/s.

I do love the fact that with SSD technology provided the nature of death is from exceeding write lifetime for a given cell the data in the cell is still readable for years to come. We don't get that benefit from spindle-based technology.

So yeah in the case of poor wear-leveling related drive failure the write speed goes to 0 MB/s but we still get >0 MB/s read performance and can our data off the drive.

This aspect gives me warm fuzzies about SSD technology.

 

[taltamir]

i look at it as turning into a read only drive. its still readable, you just cant modify it anymore, kinda like a multisession CDR

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: FireChicken
CDW has them but they are pricey

Thanks for the link. The 150BLFS seems to be for 210$. While the price is somewhat steep, at this point, I don't really care all that much. Otherwise, Id have to buy a torq No. 8 I think, and risk killing the warranty.

Just checked on pricewatch, there are a couple other providers like ewiz that have it for $183 shipped

Yeah, CDW seems a bit expensive across the board.

I still don't think you need to remove them from the IcePAK for noise reasons, but up to you.

 

[SickBeast]

I think that for some usage types like servers, this 'death' problem could be an issue, but for most people IMO these SSDs are a God-send and the best thing that's happened to the PC in a long time.

I think that with the proper countermeasures enabled, most people don't write all that much to their hard drives.

 

[taltamir]

even if your server is intense enough to eat up those drives, it will take potentially years do to so, at that time you just buy new, faster and cheaper drives.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

So is this decrease in performance only affecting Intel drives, or is it a property of all SSDs in general, regardless of maker?

 

[taltamir]

all drives, regardless of maker. If anything the intel handles it better due to its superior controller logic (NCQ really helps mitigate this).

 

[MikhailT]

Originally posted by: taltamir
all drives, regardless of maker. If anything the intel handles it better due to its superior controller logic (NCQ really helps mitigate this).

There are people who use Samsung SLC/MLC who did not notice any performance degradation over months of use.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir
all drives, regardless of maker. If anything the intel handles it better due to its superior controller logic (NCQ really helps mitigate this).

Talta I am not sure if fuzzybabybunny is talking about stutter performance issues or the more recently uncovered performance degradation over time that happens with Intel SSD's (see fuzzybabybunny's OP in this thread).

It sounds like you are talking stutter whereas fuzzybabybunny is asking if more than just the Intel drive has the performance issue contained in the OP.

 

[taltamir]

I was refering to degradation of performance over time, not stutter... From what I have that is a result of the drive reaching steady state, it is full of fragmented sectors that require a read-erase-write cycle for every write. Which decreases their performance. However intel handles it better due to its controller logic, and even better still when it has NCQ enabled via AHCI.
Defragging will make things much much worse though, as the physical sectors are not the numerical sectors (due to wear leveling)

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: MikhailT

Originally posted by: taltamir
all drives, regardless of maker. If anything the intel handles it better due to its superior controller logic (NCQ really helps mitigate this).

There are people who use Samsung SLC/MLC who did not notice any performance degradation over months of use.

There are people who drank tap water filled into different bottles using a garden hose on penn and teller bullshit and expressed their opinion of which is tastier solely based on the logo, name, and pricetag.

There are people who buy 200, 2000, and even 20,000$ cables and swear up and down that they sound better, even though measuring equipment shows they are rated the same for electrical conductivity without error.

There are people who swear that their monster HDMI cable has better quality, despite even a 10 dollar cable off of ebay being 100% pixel perfect when tested (it helps that the signal is digital).

 

[MikhailT]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: MikhailT

Originally posted by: taltamir
all drives, regardless of maker. If anything the intel handles it better due to its superior controller logic (NCQ really helps mitigate this).

There are people who use Samsung SLC/MLC who did not notice any performance degradation over months of use.

There are people who drank tap water filled into different bottles using a garden hose on penn and teller bullshit and expressed their opinion of which is tastier solely based on the logo, name, and pricetag.

There are people who buy 200, 2000, and even 20,000$ cables and swear up and down that they sound better, even though measuring equipment shows they are rated the same for electrical conductivity without error.

There are people who swear that their monster HDMI cable has better quality, despite even a 10 dollar cable off of ebay being 100% pixel perfect when tested (it helps that the signal is digital).

That wasn't my point. My point was that as long as people don't notice any performance degradation over months of use, the Samsung controllers are doing a good job at handling the weaknesses of SSD. Intel isn't the only one.

 

[taltamir]

That wasn't my point.

I know, that was me demolishing your point.

But yes, samsung drives give acceptable enough performance that people are not going "ARRRRG THIS DRIVE IS SO SLOW I WAS RIPPED OFF!". But why pay so much more money for ACCEPTABLE performance... Even the intel drives have trouble competing with the velociraptors in some benchmarks... Acceptable performance and acceptable performance FOR THE PRICE are two different things...

Almost every company has expensive SLC SSDs with a samsung controller... while they perform adequately, they are very expensive and don't offer benefits over spindle drives to justify their cost.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: FireChicken
CDW has them but they are pricey

Thanks for the link. The 150BLFS seems to be for 210$. While the price is somewhat steep, at this point, I don't really care all that much. Otherwise, Id have to buy a torq No. 8 I think, and risk killing the warranty.

Just checked on pricewatch, there are a couple other providers like ewiz that have it for $183 shipped

Yeah, CDW seems a bit expensive across the board.

I still don't think you need to remove them from the IcePAK for noise reasons, but up to you.

The high harmonic overtones would kill me. 26dB w/ icePAK is not quiet at all. The seeks will be too noisy from this drive so I'll have to enable AAM mode to keep the drive quiet enough for my environment.

 

[MikhailT]

Originally posted by: taltamir

That wasn't my point.

I know, that was me demolishing your point.

But yes, samsung drives give acceptable enough performance that people are not going "ARRRRG THIS DRIVE IS SO SLOW I WAS RIPPED OFF!". But why pay so much more money for ACCEPTABLE performance... Even the intel drives have trouble competing with the velociraptors in some benchmarks... Acceptable performance and acceptable performance FOR THE PRICE are two different things...

Almost every company has expensive SLC SSDs with a samsung controller... while they perform adequately, they are very expensive and don't offer benefits over spindle drives to justify their cost.

That's the cost of being the early adopters. there's always going to be people who think the performance isn't acceptable for the PRICE they paid. Faster and better products for cheaper price are always coming out, that's life.

 

[taltamir]

true, but the samsungs have been out for a while, and the NEWER intels outperform them. it doesn't justify it because there is something that costs slightly more and performs better.
Similarly to how buying a 65nm intel core2 extreme makes no sense anymore. If money is an issue, buy a non extreme core2 (65 or 45nm). if you splurge, get an i7 extreme...

 

[MikhailT]

Originally posted by: taltamir
true, but the samsungs have been out for a while, and the NEWER intels outperform them. it doesn't justify it because there is something that costs slightly more and performs better.
Similarly to how buying a 65nm intel core2 extreme makes no sense anymore. If money is an issue, buy a non extreme core2 (65 or 45nm). if you splurge, get an i7 extreme...

Corsair S128 is selling for 327$ on newegg. It has 128GB of storage, 110MBps read and 80MBps write.

Intel X25-M is selling for 369$ on newegg. It has 80GB of storage, 250MBps read, and 80MBps write.

Regular people, with slower desktop and laptop who only have SATAI interface, should they spend 40$ more on Intel that is also 40GB smaller and doesn't really outperform that much when limited by SATA I 120MBps real life limit?

If somebody going to tell me it'll be long term buy, that's the wrong reason to buy considering how frigging hot the SSD market is. Buying those SSD for long term purpose is a mistake. By this time next year, Intel should have 320GB MLC for lower price and faster controller than the current drives.

 

[taltamir]

a person buying a 350$ HDD with about 100GB +/- 20 of space running SATA1?

No... normal people run normal harddrives, MAYBE a two platter 640GB drive for speed... Hardcore people buy velociraptors for 250$ and enjoy great speed increases... People so hardcore that they are in danger of tripping on their own epenis use a high end SSD, and they pair it with a suitably high end system... those people USED to buy the samsung drives which WERE the best SSD money could buy, and gave performance advantages and some slightly disadvantages compared to a velociraptor, which were mitigated by tweaking and running "steady state" (the program). NOW they buy intels. Tommorow they might buy whomever dethrones intel with an even better SSD, perhaps the next samsung. (and they do all that with SATA2)

 

[MikhailT]

i feel like we are talking about two different things and we are confusing the crap out of each other. God knows i am confused with 5 other threads with both of us are talking.

As far as I understood, you were talking about cost/benefit justification. What i was trying to say that there is no point of talking about justification because there are always going to be early adopters paying more money for performance that may not be deem acceptable by other people but at same time can be deem acceptable for certain people.
I gave you an example, most of the current laptops are only with SATAI interface, even with SATAII interface it is clocked down to SATAI. There are lot of people with HTPC or slim cases that may not be suitable for 10K rpm raptors or may not even fit the 3.5 drives. Is buying the intel drive a justification for them when considering the fact for 50-100$ bucks lower, they could also get Corsair drive with bigger storage, cheaper price even if it is an older than the Intel drives. Those people does not need the Intel, they would be happy enough with bigger storage, cheaper price with the extreme stable drive with no stuttering.

Also, the Samsung MLC or SLC drives did not need to be tweaked. they work right out of the box. Those tweaks are used for the stuttering issues bought on by the jMicron drives.

 

[taltamir]

ah, laptops are another thing altogether, and the raptors don't even fit in laptops. I am not trying to do a cost benefit analysis. I am saying that anyone who buys a drive THAT expensive has enough money (and willingness to spend it) to buy the FASTEST drive. Which used to be the samsungs but isn't anymore. Yes they are quite decent drives, and make for a better deal in the limited space laptop scenario. But for an enthusiast building a godbox, they are going for the best money can buy.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: taltamir
People so hardcore that they are in danger of tripping on their own epenis

:laugh: Thanks for making me laugh. That's sig-worthy.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: MikhailT

Originally posted by: taltamir
true, but the samsungs have been out for a while, and the NEWER intels outperform them. it doesn't justify it because there is something that costs slightly more and performs better.
Similarly to how buying a 65nm intel core2 extreme makes no sense anymore. If money is an issue, buy a non extreme core2 (65 or 45nm). if you splurge, get an i7 extreme...

Corsair S128 is selling for 327$ on newegg. It has 128GB of storage, 110MBps read and 80MBps write.

Intel X25-M is selling for 369$ on newegg. It has 80GB of storage, 250MBps read, and 80MBps write.

Regular people, with slower desktop and laptop who only have SATAI interface, should they spend 40$ more on Intel that is also 40GB smaller and doesn't really outperform that much when limited by SATA I 120MBps real life limit?

If somebody going to tell me it'll be long term buy, that's the wrong reason to buy considering how frigging hot the SSD market is. Buying those SSD for long term purpose is a mistake. By this time next year, Intel should have 320GB MLC for lower price and faster controller than the current drives.

//thread

In normal usage scenarios the Samsung drives perform just as well as the intel drives.
Of course, the intel drive is faster if you copy 10GB of data ... but unless you are someone that does that repeatedly, you will not notice a difference between the intel and the samsung.
Furthermore, the intel drives suffer from steadystate issues, WHICH THIS THREAD IS ABOUT BTW!!!!!, and the Samsung drives DON'T!
Once the intel drives hit steadystate their performance seems to drop to the level (or below the level) of the Samsung drives.
As you will see, if you know how to use Google, Samsung actually ships their drives in steadystate, so this is a non-issue for those drives.

Seems like taltamir either doesn't know what he is talking about, or has some agenda to push some SSD drives over others.

I have to say that I am getting really sick and tired of all these SPAM attempts by SSD mfctrs on forums!

 

[Viper GTS]

This is precisely what I've been posting about for a couple months now. This problem is NOT exclusive to Intel. I'm under NDA & couldn't talk much about it but that article quotes from an Intel confidential document that I have.

Every SSD I have tested under our load conditions eventually has this problem. It is not an Intel specific problem, & it is not an MLC specific problem - Intel's SLC drives do the same thing (my tests used the Intel X25-E, & all other drives I've tested have been SLC).

Perhaps this will shut up those who say the SSD bashers just can't afford them. The application I am evaluating them for most certainly CAN afford them, but current models simply don't maintain sufficient performance relative to the 15K SAS we use currently. The fact that you're paying 10x as much for the capacity just makes things worse.

Don't get me wrong I'm very excited about SSD tech in general but current drives just don't have the ability to hold up to our write load. There is one drive that is looking like it has potential but it is currently $5,000 for 200 GB. I don't have samples yet but I do have hope for it.

Viper GTS

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
This is precisely what I've been posting about for a couple months now. This problem is NOT exclusive to Intel. I'm under NDA & couldn't talk much about it but that article quotes from an Intel confidential document that I have.

Every SSD I have tested under our load conditions eventually has this problem. It is not an Intel specific problem, & it is not an MLC specific problem - Intel's SLC drives do the same thing (my tests used the Intel X25-E, & all other drives I've tested have been SLC).

Perhaps this will shut up those who say the SSD bashers just can't afford them. The application I am evaluating them for most certainly CAN afford them, but current models simply don't maintain sufficient performance relative to the 15K SAS we use currently. The fact that you're paying 10x as much for the capacity just makes things worse.

Don't get me wrong I'm very excited about SSD tech in general but current drives just don't have the ability to hold up to our write load. There is one drive that is looking like it has potential but it is currently $5,000 for 200 GB. I don't have samples yet but I do have hope for it.

Viper GTS

Wow. You must really run some heavy tasks on your servers to notice this issue with SLC drives.
In normal desktop/laptop usage (office/games), I don't think these issues are that noticeable though. What do you think?

 

[Viper GTS]

Our use pattern is extremely unusual. It's multiple streams of non-stop writes, of varying sizes, and heavily randomized. This could potentially be a 24/7 use. To make matters worse we need at a minimum 1 TB capacity. We currently use 8x450 GB 15K SAS, & for a couple very specific uses where reliability/ruggedness is more important than capacity we're willing to take the capacity hit to 1 TB.

I would not hesitate to put one of these drives in a laptop. In fact if I were buying a laptop today I would insist on it. They're perfect for that. For my personal desktop use I use Velociraptors, and will continue to use them for the foreseeable future.

Viper GTS