SSD for storing video content and mailing

[tinpanalley]

Is there any particular reason why any one SSD drive would be better than others for storing and accessing videos? I mean, don't they all pretty well have decent sequential read/write rates? No video content will really be viewed FROM this drive, just copied to another HDD.

Secondly, I would assume that properly padded in bubble wrap and maybe in some small fitted cardboard box, there's no reason I couldn't constantly ship an SSD back and forth between the US and Europe in regular mail, right?

Thanks for any opinions!

 

[eton975]

If the drive is gonna be going through high-temp places on the way, make sure the SSD doesn't use TLC NAND, which will lose electrons from the cells on the NAND chips faster. (not kidding!)

Either that or blow a hot air dryer into your case as you write your files to make the electrons go in easier. (also not kidding!)

 

[tinpanalley]

If the drive is gonna be going through high-temp places on the way, make sure the SSD doesn't use TLC NAND, which will lose electrons from the cells on the NAND chips faster. (not kidding!)

Either that or blow a hot air dryer into your case as you write your files to make the electrons go in easier. (also not kidding!)

Completely stunned. I have to go online and read about this. Way too fascinating to not learn more about.

 

[eton975]

Completely stunned. I have to go online and read about this. Way too fascinating to not learn more about.

Read.

 

[tinpanalley]

Read.

Does that mean, buying one that's been sitting in Amazon's warehouses for a few years could already be bad or is it just stored data that goes bad?

Ok, well I think it's SLC NAND on the one I want to get... Sorry, it's Amazon France but the specs are straightforward.

But anything from a decent manufacturer is going to have good read/write rates and otherwise you see no problem with the protected physical mailing back and forth?

 

[eton975]

Ok, well I think it's SLC NAND on the one I want to get... Sorry, it's Amazon France but the specs are straightforward.

But anything from a decent manufacturer is going to have good read/write rates and otherwise you see no problem with the protected physical mailing back and forth?

Nope, though would wrap the SSD in aluminium foil/antistatic bag before the bubble wrap.

Otherwise, everything looks fine.

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

Does that mean, buying one that's been sitting in Amazon's warehouses for a few years could already be bad or is it just stored data that goes bad?

Ok, well I think it's SLC NAND on the one I want to get... Sorry, it's Amazon France but the specs are straightforward.

But anything from a decent manufacturer is going to have good read/write rates and otherwise you see no problem with the protected physical mailing back and forth?

I think most SSDs would be fine unless you really wear it down at which point the data retention in unusually hot temperatures will be pretty short.
Let's say you use 10% of the available write cycles, that means it has ten times as long data retention as it would have if you had used up all the write cycles.


The SanDisk Ultra II does have a cache of SLC NAND but it mainly consists of TLC and it has fewer write cycles than any SSD I have ever heard of.
If it was an 480GB SLC SSD it would cost a lot more than that.

Also the write speeds outside of the SLC-cache is not that high, especially when writing already compressed data like videos.
So it may not be the ideal choice for what you intend to use it for.


Not all SSDs have good read/write speeds.
Read speeds are good with pretty much all of them but smaller SSDs tend to have lower write speeds.
And SSDs with TLC NAND made by any other than Samsung tend to have bad to atrocious write speeds.

 

[tinpanalley]

I think most SSDs would be fine unless you really wear it down at which point the data retention in unusually hot temperatures will be pretty short.
Let's say you use 10% of the available write cycles, that means it has ten times as long data retention as it would have if you had used up all the write cycles.

The SanDisk Ultra II does have a cache of SLC NAND but it mainly consists of TLC and it has fewer write cycles than any SSD I have ever heard of.
If it was an 480GB SLC SSD it would cost a lot more than that.

Also the write speeds outside of the SLC-cache is not that high, especially when writing already compressed data like videos.
So it may not be the ideal choice for what you intend to use it for.

Not all SSDs have good read/write speeds.
Read speeds are good with pretty much all of them but smaller SSDs tend to have lower write speeds.
And SSDs with TLC NAND made by any other than Samsung tend to have bad to atrocious write speeds.

Goodness... a lot I didn't know. Well, that's why I come here. So, what can you recommend in terms of a brand or model for my purposes: an SSD for the purposes of backing up video and audio content and being able to transfer over to it several GB of content without it taking as long as USB 2.0 does. Yes, every now and then, it will be accessed to copy from it, but it will mostly be storage/backup.

How's this one for example: Samsung EVO 850 MZ-75E500B

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

Goodness... a lot I didn't know. Well, that's why I come here. So, what can you recommend in terms of a brand or model for my purposes: an SSD for the purposes of backing up video and audio content and being able to transfer over to it several GB of content without it taking as long as USB 2.0 does. Yes, every now and then, it will be accessed to copy from it, but it will mostly be storage/backup.

How's this one for example: Samsung EVO 850 MZ-75E500B

The Samsung 850 EVO has a lot more write cycles than the SanDisk Ultra II definitely, 2000 instead of 500 even if it also uses TLC NAND.
Still at Amazon.fr it seems you can get a Crucial MX200 with 3000 write cycles for less so if you want the best endurance at that pricepoint that is the one to pick.
The main reason to choose the 850 EVO over the MX200 would be the longer warranty: five years instead of three.

But I think anyone of them would be fine.
That chart is based on the SSD having all of its write cycles depleted which is something that is extremely rare for consumers these days.
I mean we're talking about closer to 2 petabytes of writes for the 850 EVO and 3 petabytes for the MX200 to wear them out.
And even then it's only if you store it somewhere really hot that your data is going to be at risk.

Also, do you intend to transfer files via SATA or USB 3?

 

[ArisVer]

You should consider BR discs as an alternative if the files are not large enough and if the information goes only one way. You will need good packaging though.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm confused, why use an SSD? It seems to me like insisting that only the very fastest HDD is suitable for transferring a handful of Word documents.

Of course this next idea depends on how much data needs to be shipped, but I'd rather that say a few DVD recordables went missing in the mail than an SSD.

- edit - ArisVer's post appeared after I posted my response.

 

[tinpanalley]

The main reason to choose the 850 EVO over the MX200 would be the longer warranty: five years instead of three...
Also, do you intend to transfer files via SATA or USB 3?

Malfunctioning is more important to me for this application than warranty. None of this content won't live elsewhere, meaning it will never be permanently lost if the SSD dies.

Ultimately, I'm using this to transfer video and audio back and forth. So it will be loaded with content, dumped off, then sent back, deleted, start again. I hope to transfer files via eSATA which I'm troubleshooting in another thread because my eSATA card isn't working. But USB3.0 is entirely possible as well. Straight to the mobo via SATA is do-able but more annoying, so I'd rather not. I also have a USB3.0 dock, but that too seems to not be transferring at full USB 3.0 speeds for some reason.

I appreciate the recommendations for other media but I'm not asking about other media. I've already planned this out and for the purposes of what I'm doing, SSD is what we're using. Until now it was individual flash drives. The amount of content makes that tedious. I've already said above what the content is so I don't understand the reference to Word documents.

Side question: How is MLC NAND where all this is concerned?

 

[mikeymikec]

I appreciate the recommendations for other media but I'm not asking about other media. I've already planned this out and for the purposes of what I'm doing, SSD is what we're using. Until now it was individual flash drives. The amount of content makes that tedious. I've already said above what the content is so I don't understand the reference to Word documents.

Different storage mediums have different respective advantages and disadvantages, right? To put my analogy (regarding Word documents) a lot more basically is that using an SSD for this job seems to be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But as you say you've already decided. I can't honestly think of a scenario where an SSD makes a more ideal data mule, but hey ho. So then I would ensure that when I change from a more throwaway form of storage medium to one that I would be more irritated about it dying, I would probably research the environmental stress factors that the storage medium is likely to be subjected to as a result of being in transit on a regular basis. Someone has already mentioned heat, others that I would be concerned about would be whatever scanning systems that parcels might go through.

As for your original performance question it's kind of like asking which Ferrari is likely to outrun the average Honda Civic, which comes back to me talking about a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

At least with more disposable forms of storage the write-off of device loss (through device malfunction or delivery system problem) is less shocking. However if the amount of data in question rules out flash drives or optical storage, it comes down to HDD or SSD probably, I guess there aren't any tape drives to consider already at each end.

 

[tinpanalley]

To put my analogy (regarding Word documents) a lot more basically is that using an SSD for this job seems to be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I hate waiting forever for things to copy.
I hate having to remember what the contents were of each individual flash drive.
I hate the idea of polluting the environment by repeatedly burning BD-Rs and on top of that, waiting for them to burn (not to mention the occasional coaster)
I'm not going to send a HDD back and forth, and yes the drive needs to go back and forth.
That's all. I didn't think the details of why I wanted to do what I wanted to do was relevant. I just wanted help understanding which SSD I should look out for. It would appear that for non-extreme temperatures, and a very low number of write/read/delete cycles compared to most storage drives, any standard SSD will do. At least that's what I'm understanding. The budget I have doesn't permit me to look for SLC drives, but there are several MLC and TLC drives and if they'll last for a few years serving their purpose then that's worth the 120-180 dollars.

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

Malfunctioning is more important to me for this application than warranty. None of this content won't live elsewhere, meaning it will never be permanently lost if the SSD dies.

Ultimately, I'm using this to transfer video and audio back and forth. So it will be loaded with content, dumped off, then sent back, deleted, start again. I hope to transfer files via eSATA which I'm troubleshooting in another thread because my eSATA card isn't working. But USB3.0 is entirely possible as well. Straight to the mobo via SATA is do-able but more annoying, so I'd rather not. I also have a USB3.0 dock, but that too seems to not be transferring at full USB 3.0 speeds for some reason.

I appreciate the recommendations for other media but I'm not asking about other media. I've already planned this out and for the purposes of what I'm doing, SSD is what we're using. Until now it was individual flash drives. The amount of content makes that tedious. I've already said above what the content is so I don't understand the reference to Word documents.

Side question: How is MLC NAND where all this is concerned?

I think that 850 EVO and MX200 both have high enough endurance to be safe from any data retention issues when left unpowered unless in extreme situations.

Should inform you that the write speeds for the MX200 may slow down considerably when you are about to fill it up.
At least mine does.

It seems that MX200 is no longer as cheap as it used to be, the SanDisk Extreme PRO seems to have gotten cheaper however and is supposed to be perform well at pretty much everything and would also make a good option.



About the eSATA and USB: I think that USB 3 has the advantage when transferring files and eSATA has the advantage when it comes to IOPS.
So USB 3 may be the better option of the two if you get your dock to work at proper USB 3 speeds.



Well, TLC in SSDs is usually rated at 1000 write cycles with the exception of the SanDisk Ultra II which is rated at 500 and the 850 EVO rated at 2000.
MLC nowadays tends to be rated at 3000 write cycles with the exception of the BX100 which is rated at 2000 and the 850 Pro rated at 6000.

 

[tinpanalley]

About the eSATA and USB: I think that USB 3 has the advantage when transferring files and eSATA has the advantage when it comes to IOPS. So USB 3 may be the better option of the two if you get your dock to work at proper USB 3 speeds.

Ok, well I'll certainly do all I can to get more USB 3.0 speeds coming from that dock. Very strange situation.

Well, TLC in SSDs is usually rated at 1000 write cycles with the exception of the SanDisk Ultra II which is rated at 500 and the 850 EVO rated at 2000.
MLC nowadays tends to be rated at 3000 write cycles with the exception of the BX100 which is rated at 2000 and the 850 Pro rated at 6000.

I'm not understanding, how can these numbers of write cycles be so low? I thought SSD were supposed to be in the tens of thousands of write cycles at LEAST?

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

I'm not understanding, how can these numbers of write cycles be so low? I thought SSD were supposed to be in the tens of thousands of write cycles at LEAST?

As far as I know the last time MLC NAND was rated at 10000 write cycles we were still on the 50nm node.
Now we're down to 16nm.
So 3000 write cycles is pretty good given that 25nm was rated for 3000 too.

Going down to smaller nodes have improved things that are more important for consumers like size and cost rather than endurance.
Still, consumers wearing out their SSD is extremely rare nowadays actually and in some ways it is less likely to happen than it used to be because while they have fewer write cycles than they used to SSDs make better use of the write cycles they have now.

 

[tinpanalley]

As far as I know the last time MLC NAND was rated at 10000 write cycles we were still on the 50nm node.
Now we're down to 16nm.
So 3000 write cycles is pretty good given that 25nm was rated for 3000 too.

Going down to smaller nodes have improved things that are more important for consumers like size and cost rather than endurance.
Still, consumers wearing out their SSD is extremely rare nowadays actually and in some ways it is less likely to happen than it used to be because while they have fewer write cycles than they used to SSDs make better use of the write cycles they have now.

I must not know what a write cycle is. I thought it was one instance of recording of data.

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

I must not know what a write cycle is. I thought it was one instance of recording of data.

Using up a write cycle means you have written data the equivalent of the size of the drive.

For example for a 500GB SSD it would mean writing 500GB to it.
Of course that does not take into account the write amplification, it meaning that the size of the file(s) written and the amount of wear on the drive is rarely the same.
A WA of 1 means that they are the same, above 1 means it has been worn more and below 1 means it has been worn less.

But if you are writing large files that are written sequentially like movies then WA should be around 1 meaning the amount of data written and the amount of wear will be roughly the same.