SSD Endurance testing experiments

Discussion on HDDs, other storage solutions, sound cards and acoustic systems, peripherals.

Moderators: CPUagnostic, MTX, Celt, Hammer_Time, Sauron_Daz, Tacitus, Anna

SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:52 pm

Lots of people have been shy to try buying an SSD since early/cheap models were very prone to failure, lots had fw issues that required the drive to be updated to work properly ( for those that were not DOA or completely failed weeks or months after purchase ). However, over the years, the SSD manufacturer's have worked VERY hard at extending SSD reliability and lifespan.

Here are the latest results of "Endurance Testing" modern Consumer Desktop SSD drives:

http://www.mswhs.com/2014/01/your-ssd-w ... -how-long/

By Philip Churchill on January 23rd, 2014

Your SSD will Last How Long?

With our report of Blackblaze publishing their data detailing hard drive failure rates. It has come to our attention (courtesy of our friend James Tenniswood), an article detailing the longevity of SSD’s.

The article from Hardware Info tested the life span of a Samsung SSD 840 250GB TLC SSD, and after months of testing the good news is even if you push an SSD to the max by downloading lots of movies everyday averaging 30 GB per day, the SSD will last you 24 years!

So with an average lifespan of 75 years for the memory chips, consumers have absolutely nothing to worry about, as in 24 years we will all be using higher capacity drives than we are currently using, even if "Hard Drive" is not the term we use then
.


The article mentioned above: http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4178/10 ... -20-6-2013

Another SSD endurance article:

http://techreport.com/review/25889/the- ... 0tb-update

The SSD Endurance Experiment: 500TB update

Halfway to a petabyte


by Geoff Gasior — 9:34 PM on January 9, 2014

I am running out of ways to introduce our SSD Endurance Experiment. This long-term write endurance test began in August, and we've published numerous updates since. Now that our subjects have crossed the 500TB mark, it's time for another checkup.

The rationale for our endurance test hasn't changed, which is why these intros tend to channel the same theme. Solid-state drives use flash memory that has limited write endurance. Every time data is written, the physical structure of the NAND cells degrades. The cells eventually erode to the point where they become unusable, forcing SSDs to poach replacement blocks from their overprovisioned spare areas.

This dynamic raises several questions. What happens when drives run out of overprovisioned area? How long does it take? And do they slow down along the way? We're seeking answers in our endurance experiment, which is subjecting a collection of drives—the Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, Intel 335 Series 240GB, Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB, Samsung 840 Series 250GB, and Samsung 840 Pro 256GB—to a merciless onslaught of writes.

This introductory article explains the finer details of the experiment, so I won't rehash them here. Our approach is pretty straightforward, though. We're using the endurance test built into Anvil's Storage Utilities to write a series of incompressible files to each SSD. We're also writing compressible data to a second HyperX unit to test the impact of SandForce's write compression technology. As the experiment progresses, we're monitoring the health and performance of each drive at regular intervals.

All but one of our test subjects is based on two-bit MLC NAND. The Samsung 840 Series has three-bit TLC flash, and that puts it at a distinct disadvantage versus the others. TLC NAND's higher bit density increases the storage capacity of the cells, but it also makes the flash more sensitive to wear. Flash memory stores data using a range of voltages that narrows down as the cells degrade. TLC NAND has to differentiate between eight possible values within that narrowing window, which is more difficult than tracking the four values required by the MLC alternative. (Likewise, MLC flash has lower endurance than one-bit SLC NAND.)

We're keeping an eye on flash health using several methods. So far, the best one seems to be monitoring the raw SMART data reported by each drive. One of the SMART attributes counts the number of sectors that have been reallocated from the spare area to replace retired flash from the user-accessible storage. The reallocated sector count is a death toll of sorts, and it lets us highlight TLC NAND's more limited endurance rather neatly. The following graph depicts the number of reallocated sectors for each drive over the course of the experiment thus far.


Image

The 840 Series reported its first reallocated sectors after 100TB of writes, and it's been burning through flash steadily ever since. After 500TB of writes, the 840 Series is up to 1722 reallocated sectors. Meanwhile, the other SSDs have only a handful of flash failures between them. And two of the drives, the Neutron GTX and the HyperX 3K being tested with compressible data, haven't logged a single reallocated sector.

Samsung won't confirm the size of the 840 Series' sectors, but we're pretty sure it's 1.5MB. That means the drive has lost 2.5GB of its total flash capacity already. Fortunately, those flash failures haven't affected the amount of user-accessible capacity. The 840 Series has extra overprovisioned spare area specifically to offset the lower endurance of its TLC NAND. So far, at least, those flash reserves seem to be sufficient.

Although the 840 Series is clearly in worse shape than the competition, these results need to be put into context. 500TB works out to 140GB of writes per day for 10 years. That's an insane amount even for power users, and it far exceeds the endurance specifications of our candidates. The HyperX 3K, which has the most generous endurance rating of the bunch, is guaranteed for 192TB of writes.


To be fair, we should note that the 840 Series has another blemish on its record. The drive failed several hash checks during the setup process for the unpowered retention test we performed after 300TB of writes. The 840 Series ultimately passed the retention test, but its SMART attributes logged a spate of unrecoverable errors that likely caused the hash failures. In a real-world setting, unrecoverable errors could result in data corruption or even a system crash.

Worryingly, Samsung's Magician utility seems unaware of the 840 Series' degrading condition. The software can access the SMART data, but its main interface still proclaims that the drive is in "good" health. The 840 Pro, which has recorded only two reallocated sectors and no unrecoverable errors, has the same "good" health rating.

Third-party software like Hard Disk Sentinel doesn't necessarily do a better job of monitoring drive health, either. We're using the app to read the SMART data on each drive, and it has a separate health indicator of its own. The thing is, that value seems to be based on different attributes for each drive. We're getting wildly different ratings for units that otherwise appear to be in similar condition. HD Sentinel also gives the 840 Series and 840 Pro identical 1% ratings, so it's hard to take the health indicator seriously.


Now that our health checkup is complete, it's time to look at performance.

...

Despite a few hiccups, our subjects have maintained largely consistent performance throughout the experiment. I can't explain the higher random read scores for the Kingston and Intel drives earlier on, but it's worth noting that those drives are all based on SandForce controller tech. They seem to be back to normal now.

Despite obvious signs of flash wear, the 840 Series has shown no signs of weakness in our performance tests. Its 840 Pro sibling stumbled during the last round, though. The drive's sequential write rate varied more than usual from one run to the next. We extended the test session from three to five runs, but the median speed was ultimately lower than at previous milestones.

The 840 Pro came close to its peak sequential write speed in a couple of test runs, so the recent variability may be a temporary anomaly. However, we have additional data suggesting that the 840 Pro's write speed may be slowing slightly.

Unlike our first batch of performance results, which were obtained on the same system after secure-erasing each drive, the next set comes from the endurance test itself. Anvil's utility lets us calculate the write speed of each loop that loads the drives with random data. This test runs simultaneously on six drives split between two separate systems (and between 3Gbps SATA ports for the HyperX drives and 6Gbps ones for the others), so the data isn't useful for apples-to-apples comparisons. However, it does provide a long-term look at how each drive handles this particular write workload.

From the beginning, the 840 Pro's average write speed in the endurance test has been the most erratic of the bunch. The other drives exhibit fluctuating speeds from one run to the next, too, but the amplitude of those oscillations has been substantially lower overall. Don't worry about the occasional performance spikes exhibited by some of the SSDs; those outliers crop up because we secure-erase the drives at every milestone.

Now, look at what happens to the yellow line after the last spike. Note that the highs and lows are slightly lower than they were earlier in the experiment. Hmmm.

Since the 840 Pro's write speeds in the endurance test have bounced around since we started the experiment, I'm hesitant to draw any firm conclusions about the recent reduction. The 840 Pro definitely exhibits inconsistency with this particular write workload, but we've seen it deliver strong all-around performance in a wide variety of benchmarks, so the variability isn't necessarily a concern on its own. We should have a better sense of what's going on with the 840 Pro as the experiment pushes past 600TB.

Before signing off until our next update, I need to take care of a little housekeeping. Between 300TB and 400TB of writes, the test rig hosting the Samsung drives and the compressible HyperX config crashed without warning. The event log reported an unexpected loss of connection to the system drive, and that disconnect seems to have caused the crash.

The system drive is a Corsair Force GT 60GB unit left over from an SSD performance scaling article we published nearly two years ago. It does little more than host the operating system for our test rigs, and it's only written a few terabytes in its lifetime. The drive's SMART attributes show neither reallocated sectors nor unrecoverable errors, so flash wear appears unrelated to the premature disconnect.

Around the time of the crash, everything about the system seemed fine. The SATA cable was attached, the PSU was pumping out the correct voltages, and the endurance test had been running without issue for days. SandForce-based SSDs of the Force GT's vintage do have somewhat of a reputation for being finicky, though. To avoid future problems, we've replaced the drive with an Intel 510 Series SSD. The machine hasn't suffered any disconnects since or crashes since, and testing is proceeding smoothly.

As I type this, our subjects are already well on their way to 600TB. We have another data retention test planned for that milestone, so stay tuned.TR


So, SSD drives ( the midrange to high-end SSD's tested above ) are pretty damn reliable from the endurance tests overall.

They need better diagnostic/health monitoring sw though, that much is for sure.. not just relying on the S.M.A.R.T. data which is archaic ( although reliable of course ) , even Samsung's "Magician SSD utility" cannot properly diagnose the health of a Samsung SSD... relies on SMART data reporting instead... ugh... all the manufacturer's need to improve in this area... other than that no real complains, they just keep getting faster and cheaper all the time, which is very good for consumers...

There is still a lot of life left in mechanical hdd's of course ( large cheap capacity ) but eventually SSD or some newer improved storage technology will cause them to be phased out eventually ( probably in 10 or more years time from now I am guessing ) , just like the floppy drive did, and those "Zip" cartridge drives etc. Hard disk drives will be the next to die off , but not for many years ...

http://www.zagg.com/community/blog/what ... available/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd ... ,3269.html

http://www.storagereview.com/best_drives

http://solid-state-drive-review.toptenreviews.com/

8)
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33573
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Sauron_Daz » Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:07 am

Makes the decision to go SSD easier: one concern lifted! :D
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:38 am

just like the floppy drive did, and those "Zip" cartridge drives etc. Hard disk drives will be the next to die off , but not for many years ...

I still don´t expect it to happen at all.
The pricetag for the size is still so advantageous towards HDDs that there´s always a place for them, and there doesn´t seem to be any major change to that relation on the horizon.

So, SSD drives ( the midrange to high-end SSD's tested above ) are pretty damn reliable from the endurance tests overall.

This seems to be the first round of testing i have seen that is rather overall positive without any majorly questionable methods or results.

About time. And good to know that SSDs are getting up to an acceptable common level of reliability.

They need better diagnostic/health monitoring sw though, that much is for sure.. not just relying on the S.M.A.R.T. data which is archaic ( although reliable of course ) , even Samsung's "Magician SSD utility" cannot properly diagnose the health of a Samsung SSD... relies on SMART data reporting instead... ugh... all the manufacturer's need to improve in this area...

SERIOUSLY YES!



Makes the decision to go SSD easier: one concern lifted!

No, it makes it much harder, because i neeeeed the bigger storage space!
The pricetag of SSDs are still far from preferable, but i would LIKE to get one... Which makes the decision very hard.

Currently i´m mostly leaning towards HDD combined with extra RAM...

Because the simple fact, 120GB SSD roughly equals a 2TB HDD in price.
I could actually pay for 2 one TB HDDs to put in RAID 0 for the pricetag of a single 120GB SSD.

At that point, advantages starts to disappear down to where the SSD being inert and still having much better random R/W are the good parts left.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15126
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Hammer_Time » Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:47 pm

You keep forgetting that I said "10 years from now", not tomorrow...

You keep quoting todays tech and prices, but I am not talking about SSD vs HDD today, I am talking well into the future here...

A LOT can change in 10 years time!

Do you not think we will have 10 TB ( Terabyte ) or larger SSD's by then, at very affordable prices?

SSD's have many advantages over a large, heavy, mechanical disk drive as you know, no moving parts, lower power consumption, smaller size, way faster access times, and much faster r/w speeds, there is no area where a mechanical hdd is superior to an SSD ( leaving out the obvious price and capacity factor here ).

They already make 4 TB SSD's ( at an price of $29,000 of course, but how much did the very first HDD cost years ago? And those huge IBM enterprises drives that required a forklift to move, those were not cheap when they first came out either... ).

Do you not think that in 10 years time we will have SSD's that are larger than today's 4 TB hard disk drives, and much cheaper as well???!! I certainly think we will... in 10 years time...
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33573
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:59 pm

You keep quoting todays tech and prices, but I am not talking about SSD vs HDD today, I am talking well into the future here...

A LOT can change in 10 years time!

Do you not think we will have 10 TB ( Terabyte ) or larger SSD's by then, at very affordable prices?


No.

Not really no.

Currently the biggest i can find is 4TB, and costs $29000.
4TB Seagate lowend, $240. WD Black 4TB, $390. 74-120 times higher price.

The most optimal biggest size vs price SSD i can find? 1TB at prices ranging from $550 to 900. I bought this whole system for less, with a 1TB HDD.
For a HDD? 1TB at $70 for a slow WD and $97 for a Seagate Barracuda.
5-13 times higher price.

I guess you haven´t noticed how prices for SSDs have been leveling out in the last few years? Oh the same is happening for HDDs, and even for similar reasons, but not as much.

And as long as the gear that is needed to make SSDs, can also be used to make more profitable ICs, the premium paid for SSDs isn´t going away.
And even if it magically DID go away, a very simple truth remains, HDDs contain less expensive parts.

There´s an article online called something vaguely like "why SSDs will never kill HDDs", a year or two old, it essentially went over good vs bad, and in the end it came down to price, the estimate was that in normal desktop size storage devices, the best possible you could ever expect was probably a 3 times higher pricetag for an SSD.
And that he didn´t expect to happen unless you looked exactly at the most optimal size compared to manufacturing node for the SSDs only.


I´ve said it before, you simply cannot get away from the limitation of SSDs, to add more data you must add more flash cells, while for HDDs, they don´t expect those to hit any physical limits for a while yet(and that´s if they don´t do anything crazy, in theory they could for example start playing with 5.25" HDDs again, the increased platter size would allow a dramatical increase in HDD size, for an increase in cost that is almost negligable!(basically same parts except slightly larger platters and box) And i´ve seen some talk about the possibility of squeezing in an extra platter in 3.5" drives, with current commercial tech, that would allow 6+TB drives at the drop of a hat and 9+TB with only a relatively small exertion). And by that time, the IC manufacturing nodes may very well be at their physical limit.

Currently? WD is playing with helium to allow for more platters without penalties. A 4 platter drive can jump to a 6-7, and with about 1TB per platter...
Meanwhile, Seagate has SMR and HAMR, the former should give 20-25% higher densities, the latter 60-70%.
Those are the techs that are working NOW.

Seagate stated last year that they expect to sell 60TB HDDs within a decade. For the price you buy a 3-4TB HDD today.
WD is essentially agreeing.

So, they expect to improve the price/GB ratio by around 15-20 times in 10 years.
Is it even physically possible for SSDs to do the same? With the drastic increases in costs for setting up manufacturing at each smaller node shrink, i have doubts.

Unless someone comes up with a revolutionising new memory cell technology(not on the horizon AFAIK), SSDs are basically mature tech, their cost improves by making the cells at smaller manunfacturing nodes and..., that´s about it.
HDDs, the 3 techs above is the stuff coming now, possible this year, and there´s a another halfdozen(at least) techs in R&D that can keep improving HDDs.

I wont be surprised at all if in 10 years, the price/GB ratio between HDD and SSD have widened again. It´s impossible to say but it wouldn´t surprise me.

If HDDs are no longer commonly used in 10 years, then i WILL be surprised.

I expect there to be more and more SSD+HDD in new "big" systems, while smaller and portables switch more towards SSDs, as well as people running HDDs on NAS machines connected to systems with only SSDs.


( leaving out the obvious price and capacity factor here )

And that´s your mistake and why you´re wrong.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15126
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Hammer_Time » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:05 am

Okay, we must revisit this topic 10 years from now then! :twisted:

Mebbe it will take MUCH longer than 10 years, as you and also this article suggests:

http://storageeffect.media.seagate.com/ ... have-left/

How many years do HDDs have left?

I admire everything about this infographic by Mozy except for one thing…the apparent end of disk drives in the 21st century. Maybe it’s time to face the music, and join the “SSD will kill the HDD” bandwagon. Then again, maybe not. After all, we still have 72 years to go in the 21st century :)

Will it happen, sure. I can buy that. The question is when. At what point in the 21st century will we see an all-flash based data storage world? I have no idea. All I know is that it won’t be in the next 5, 10, maybe even 20 years. Look closely at the infographic…where the HDD apparently dies and where SSD takes over, there is one data storage technology that rears its head – cloud.

We all know cloud comprises a lot of SSD, and even more HDDs, heck it even includes Tape. Maybe I am splitting hairs and spending way to much time over-analyzing the graphic, but perhaps the SSD, HDD, and Tape lifelines should all merge into cloud. That might be a better representation of data storage in the 21st century, but then again, I’m a long-time HDD guy only recently diving headlong into SSD.

How many years do you think the HDD has left in it’s already very long life?


Image


Okay, I must revise my "10 years+ prediction" to "70 years+" then... happy now?? :wink: :twisted: :lol:

Perhaps they will have even perfected the "Warp Drive" by then too! :D

Edit: Found this related article interesting:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/ ... rd-drives/

I bet Celt would have something to say on this topic! :wink:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33573
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Sauron_Daz » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:55 am

DIREWOLF75 wrote:
Makes the decision to go SSD easier: one concern lifted!

No, it makes it much harder, because i neeeeed the bigger storage space!
The pricetag of SSDs are still far from preferable, but i would LIKE to get one...


True... they are quite expensive. :(
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Sauron_Daz » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:59 am

Hammer_Time wrote:Okay, we must revisit this topic 10 years from now then! :twisted:

Mebbe it will take MUCH longer than 10 years, as you and also this article suggests:

http://storageeffect.media.seagate.com/ ... have-left/

Okay, I must revise my "10 years+ prediction" to "70 years+" then... happy now?? :wink: :twisted: :lol:


I doubt many of us will be capable of revisiting this topic aftyer 70 years..
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Hammer_Time » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:01 am

That is why I am overly optimistic with my initial "10 years+" prediction!! :twisted: :mrgreen: :lol:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33573
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Sauron_Daz » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:24 am

We'll see in 10 years then.. :wink:
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:41 am

Edit: Found this related article interesting:

I think the article title captures what i´ve been saying oh so many times by now.

SSDs will replace SOME HDDs. Perhaps many or even most. But not all.

And, it fails quite a bit because of all the talk about comparing performance, hello? We already know that HDDs can´t keep up with SSD performance most of the time, and in some tasks are outperformed to an extreme degree.

However, that´s still not the full story by far, a good example is how my friend has SC2 installed on his SSD. Yet, when we start multiplayer games, with a total loading time that is extensive to say the least, my system is only a few seconds behind his at worst and sometimes actually a few seconds ahead(and an average of maybe 2-3 seconds behind, who cares when total load time is above 30s), and after my use of RAMDISK, if i have run SC2 recently or it´s not the first map loading, my system nearly always finishes loading first.

If i run my cpu at stock speed(3Ghz instead of 3.6Ghz) i always load slower, but it still adds just 3-5 seconds. And my friend´s system isn´t exactly a slouch, the top end Thuban hexacore with more RAM than me.

Sure, his system boots up in half the time mine does, but i don´t restart my computer more than maybe twice a week, and yes his system is definitely faster to respond when loading from the disk is involved in any way, and it WOULD be very nice to have that extra speed, but where it should really count? Like loading up bigass games? I´ve found that other hardware and the software overall often keeps loading times limited closer to HDD times even with SSDs.

So again, i´d like to have one as my bootdrive, but i´m still leaning towards getting a 2TB WD Black as my bootdrive for my next system.
Combined with putting a few GB of RAMDISK as pagefile and i don´t really expect to be missing out on all that much.

Okay, we must revisit this topic 10 years from now then!

Oh yes we must. :moon:

Mebbe it will take MUCH longer than 10 years, as you and also this article suggests:

Hmm, that pic is seriously skewed. About 20 years ago i randomly ended up on the train sitting next to a guy that was an inventor and one of his things were involved with holographic data storage.
He believed then that we could have it working within a decade, 2 at most.
2 decades later, it looks a lot less promising. It´s not that we CANT do holographic storage, it´s doing it in a way that works for home desktop systems without tripling their pricetags that is the problem. So, i´m no longer expecting that to happen.

And quantum storage? Sheesh, people keep throwing "quantum this or that" around so much it´s just silly. Yes there´s potential for it to work, it even looks slightly more promising than holographic storage...
Emphasis on "slightly". Because as it is, it really doesn´t look like something we should expect.
It´s the same with quantum computing, it´s potentially superduper effective, but "programming" is a nightmare from a horror story. So, not really expecting THAT to happen either(for common home systems i mean).

Just as an aside, i might mention that i still have some old computer science magazines talking about how "bubble memory" is going to be the FUTURE!

It didn´t even last until the end of the 1980s.

I also expect flash drives to be a primary storage device of the 21st century. Simply too useful not to.


And cloud storage? :lol:

Please don´t make me laugh myself to death.

It´s not even a valid comparison as a cloud has to use HDDs, SSDs or something else to store it on.
It´s like adding "computer" because hey, i store everything on the computer, yay!


Oh and BTW, with all the talk about networked solutions? Why would anyone want to use SSDs then? Because then the main limiter become the network speed, and even 5400rpm HDDs of today can saturate the majority of networks today and for quite a long time ahead.


I doubt many of us will be capable of revisiting this topic aftyer 70 years..

Meh, i just need to hold out for twice again as long. :mrgreen:
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15126
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby TAViX » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:58 am

Guys, 10 years is not that much. 2003 vs 2013; were some advancements in tech, but nothing impressive to be honest.
Image
User avatar
TAViX
X-Bit Gundarm
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:03 am

TAViX wrote:Guys, 10 years is not that much. 2013 vs 2013; were some advancements in tech, but nothing impressive to be honest.

Expect you meant 2003 vs 2013, but yeah, have to agree.

Putting the memory controller on the cpu possibly the most impressive change? Or the only drastic change perhaps i should say.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15126
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Hammer_Time » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:05 pm

Okay Okay, I concede... HDD's will probably be around for a long time yet... :mrgreen:

I found this interesting article on the history of SSD's which you may or may not enjoy reading:

http://www.storagesearch.com/chartingtheriseofssds.html

SSD Market History

Charting the Rise of the Solid State Disk Market


by Zsolt Kerekes, editor - StorageSearch.com

I published the world's first comprehensive history of the SSD market here on StorageSearch.com. It has been used as the primary resource for many other "so called" SSD history articles in other web sites and publications - although the attribution is often notable by its absence.

This article lists key technical, product and market milestones from 1976 to 2013. After decades in "virtual stealth mode", and many false starts and setbacks, the SSD market is now coming out as an exciting technology which will change the way all computers are designed.
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33573
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby TAViX » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:01 am

If you ask me, I think will see a hybridization of HDD and SSD. Probably something like a 10TB-HDD+64GB-SSD something like we already start to see. And I'm OK with that tbh.
Image
User avatar
TAViX
X-Bit Gundarm
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:56 am

TAViX wrote:If you ask me, I think will see a hybridization of HDD and SSD. Probably something like a 10TB-HDD+64GB-SSD something like we already start to see. And I'm OK with that tbh.

Yep, those are definitely starting to come along nicely.

And it is a VERY nice compromise. If there´s one good enough released before i buy my next system, it´s definitely going to be harder to decide what to pick.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15126
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Stupify » Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:21 am

i honestly would not like the hybrid drives. i have been moving away from mechanical drives as i am becoming more and more portable. I just want to avoid moving parts and so mechanical drives are no good. mechanical drives stay home. i do have a mechanical drive on my laptop but that's because i can't afford huge ssds at the moment.

i do like the concept though as it saves space provides higher storage than just ssd at a cheaper price point, or at least aims to. the price of $320 for 120ssd+1TB 2.5" drive seems somewhat outrageous to me but then again this is a new product and wd maybe just cashing in the R&D cost first. maybe couple of years later we may see some reasonable prices? but hopefully the 3d/cube/memoristor provide that cheaper storage options by then. one can only hope.
What goes around comes around with interest!
User avatar
Stupify
Moderator
 
Posts: 9187
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Sauron_Daz » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:09 am

DIREWOLF75 wrote:
TAViX wrote:Guys, 10 years is not that much. 2013 vs 2013; were some advancements in tech, but nothing impressive to be honest.

Expect you meant 2003 vs 2013, but yeah, have to agree.

Putting the memory controller on the cpu possibly the most impressive change? Or the only drastic change perhaps i should say.


And the move to 64 bit CPU's.
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby Sauron_Daz » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:10 am

Stupify wrote:i honestly would not like the hybrid drives. i have been moving away from mechanical drives as i am becoming more and more portable. I just want to avoid moving parts and so mechanical drives are no good. mechanical drives stay home. i do have a mechanical drive on my laptop but that's because i can't afford huge ssds at the moment.

i do like the concept though as it saves space provides higher storage than just ssd at a cheaper price point, or at least aims to. the price of $320 for 120ssd+1TB 2.5" drive seems somewhat outrageous to me but then again this is a new product and wd maybe just cashing in the R&D cost first. maybe couple of years later we may see some reasonable prices? but hopefully the 3d/cube/memoristor provide that cheaper storage options by then. one can only hope.


Just buy the SanDisk Readycache and be done with it. Costs some $45..
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: SSD Endurance testing experiments

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:53 am

Sauron_Daz wrote:
DIREWOLF75 wrote:
TAViX wrote:Guys, 10 years is not that much. 2013 vs 2013; were some advancements in tech, but nothing impressive to be honest.

Expect you meant 2003 vs 2013, but yeah, have to agree.

Putting the memory controller on the cpu possibly the most impressive change? Or the only drastic change perhaps i should say.


And the move to 64 bit CPU's.


Was that really such a big and impressive move? I mean it´s not like 64 bit cpu:s didn´t already exist. They just weren´t there among the desktops.
It WAS a big thing for AMD to push it through, but overall it was nothing revolutionary.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15126
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Next

Return to Storage, Sound and Others

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest