|
jabro posted:Between these two:
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Straker posted:That seems really silly, why not use some regular flash drives instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Why would anyone back up important data to any kind of memory or anything at all tied to one interface standard? Just operate under the assumption that you need multiple redundant backups of anything important, and that none of them will be permanent or archival, replicate to new media as necessary. What else can you do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Got my new Mobo and sata controller, hitting 350MB/read 250/Write Nice, getting over the product specs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211530
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I thought that if you leave an SSD powered off it loses everything after 6 months or a year or something. no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
DNova posted:no. Without power, full data loss will eventually occur. Time span is more in terms of a few years than a few months, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Without power, full data loss will eventually occur. Time span is more in terms of a few years than a few months, though. Yes and it's closer to a decade than a year (all you have to do is read a few datasheets for this info). Also, it's not about having POWER. Having power doesn't change anything because there is no timed refresh of individual flash cells. They're discharging constantly after being written whether the drive is powered or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
DNova posted:Yes and it's closer to a decade than a year (all you have to do is read a few datasheets for this info). Also, it's not about having POWER. Having power doesn't change anything because there is no timed refresh of individual flash cells. They're discharging constantly after being written whether the drive is powered or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Basically, SSDs are fine for short-term storage, but don't use them for long-term archiving. When it comes to backups and stuff like that you really want to go for a bunch of mechanical drives - for the price of 1TB of SSD storage (that's still vulnerable to things like "getting stolen" and "your house burning down"), you could have several redundant mechanical drives (including some in off-site locations).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
According to UPS I'll be getting my Force GT 120 tomorrow and I'm really excited. My retail copy of Win7 doesn't have Service Pack 1 with it so can I just install it afterwards or does the SSD require Win7 with SP1?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Alereon posted:JEDEC specifications say consumer flash has to hold data for 1 year at 30C after all write cycles are exhausted (enterprise MLC has much shorter retention since it's optimized for endurance). 10 years sounds like the kind of number you'd see quoted for brand new 50nm MLC, smaller cell size and cell wear both reduce retention (though again JEDEC specs say it has to be a year at 30C, worst case). I'm also pretty sure that a flash controller DOES do a timed refresh of cell contents, otherwise you'd lose data that wasn't updated on a regular basis. It's not like DRAM where there's a refresh cycle, but if the drive is operating it will re-write older blocks as needed. So yeah, it's not going to be an issue if your backup media gets reused on a regular basis, but flash isn't suitable for something you want to stick in a safe and pull out years later. I read datasheets for common flash chips, not JEDEC specs. Also, one year of retention once the cells are WORN OUT is pretty good, and is already higher than some people think flash is capable of at all. My statement (closer to a decade than a year) is correct for commonly used flash ICs (ones that you haven't already WORN OUT). edit: Also, would like some citations about flash controllers doing timed refreshes of static data. I've never seen that in any datasheets, BUT I haven't read any datasheets for modern (in the last year) consumer SSD controllers, either. edit2: For those who don't know, the "wear item" in flash memory is a dielectric (insulating) material that keeps the electrons in the cell from leaking out. When the cells are used over and over again, the dielectric is damaged and becomes less insulating. This allows the cells to discharge faster (apparently ONE YEAR!! at end-of-life according to JEDEC specs, which I feel is a very generous/safe specification). A new cell has much better dielectric and the cell will retain its charge for a LOT longer undisturbed. sleepy gary fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:According to UPS I'll be getting my Force GT 120 tomorrow and I'm really excited. Just install SP1 after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Re: retention, I posted this link before where people are just writing continuously to see how much the drives can take before dying/locking themselves up: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271063-SSD-Write-Endurance-25nm-Vs-34nm Last time I checked it was just a Samsung that died but now a Corsair is dead too apparently, going by the chart the Corsair stopped retaining after nine days, while the Samsung couldn't be recovered after being stored away for a week iirc. Of course that's an incredibly small sample size but I don't know what else we have besides datasheets until a large firm comes out with their own tests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:My retail copy of Win7 doesn't have Service Pack 1 with it so can I just install it afterwards or does the SSD require Win7 with SP1?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
japtor posted:Re: retention, I posted this link before where people are just writing continuously to see how much the drives can take before dying/locking themselves up: That is a drat interesting test. It's always hard to get hard figures on what drives will really last. Sacrificing SSDs for data!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
Contemporary mechanical drives will allegedly lose their data if you just chuck them in a box for years and years too, sooo yeah not really a viable archival medium for consumers either. Old drives should last much longer though (just poked around some 2-3GB SCSI drives that hadn't been connected to a computer at all in 9 years), and you'd imagine patterned media might also last longer what with the domains being better separated, but obviously no one could possibly know that for sure yet.evil_bunnY posted:write speed will be pretty lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Thanks for asking my previous questions, I have one last question though: Is it OK to encrypt an SSD? Example: If I used Truecrypt to create an encrypted operating system? Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Sure, you'll obviously be losing some/much of the speed benefits (depending on CPU) but it'll still be much better than a given encrypted mechanical drive. edit: also new Intel CPUs have some kind of extensions that make encryption really fast but I don't recall much offhand
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
straker posted:edit: also new Intel CPUs have some kind of extensions that make encryption really fast but I don't recall much offhand Yes. Get a CPU with AES acceleration and use AES.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Is it OK to encrypt an SSD? Example: If I used Truecrypt to create an encrypted operating system? Yes, but it will mess up garbage collection. Software-based full disk encryption will write over the entire disk with encrypted data and encrypted random crap so that the data can't be so easily picked out. None of that random crap has been TRIMmed by the OS, so the SSD doesn't know to clear it, and your drive is essentially 100% full except for when the OS sends a write command to clear a block. This makes for much slower performance and very high write amplification, which are both bad. You have two choices: 1) Buy an Intel 320 or other SSD with hardware-based FDE, or 2) After you encrypt the volume, either write a file to the SSD that fills all of the free space and then delete it, or use CCleaner or somesuch to zero-fill the free space. The former is more secure if you want FDE to hide the data, as the data will merely be TRIMmed, not actually erased. The latter is easier, but it will also immediately add a full program/erase cycle to the drive. Probably not a big deal, but if it's a smaller drive, it could well be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Thanks for asking my previous questions, I have one last question though: Use bitlocker for encrypted system partitions if you have a TPM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Did they ever fix the problems with the last-gen Sandforce controllers? Like, the old Corsair Forces were recalled and refurbished, and I can pick up a 120g version for $99. I was thinking of throwing one in my laptop, especially if they've stamped out most of the bugs. I know they had horrible problems before, but they released a bunch of updates - is it worthwhile to try? e: I just bought a 120gb Force 3 for my desktop and couldn't be happier, I should've picked up a second for my laptop. I have an old Vertex 2, but apparently they gently caress up real bad in laptops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
whiskas posted:My understanding is that SSD's never lose the ability to read data, so even if the drive malfunctions the data is still recoverable, whereas if a traditional hard drive malfunctions either the data is lost or you have to pay $$$ to recover it. The "never" part has already been pretty well addressed, but I wanted to point out that the "if the drive malfunctions" part is completely wrong as well. SSDs are supposed to still be able to read data if they use up all of the available write cycles without malfunctioning. If the drive actually malfunctions, your data is far less accessible than it would be with a traditional hard drive, not more. You would have to pay $$$$ to recover any data at all (from a non-sandforce drive), and probably $$$$$$ if you want any reasonable chance of recovering a files larger than 4KB or from a Sandforce drive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Well I got my Force GT 120 today and installed it but while installing Windows 7 with AHCI enabled I keep getting bluescreens. The Corsair Firmware update tool shows what firmware is currently on the drive correct? If true, it already has the newest firmware (1.3.3). Or do I try installing Win7 with AHCI disabled and see what happens? Edit: even device manager says it has 1.3.3 on the drive which is the newest firmware so what am I doing wrong? spasticColon fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Well I got my Force GT 120 today and installed it but while installing Windows 7 with AHCI enabled I keep getting bluescreens. The Corsair Firmware update tool shows what firmware is currently on the drive correct? If true, it already has the newest firmware (1.3.3). Or do I try installing Win7 with AHCI disabled and see what happens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Weird. Post-recall (B3) motherboard? Latest BIOS? You might also try loading the Intel F6 AHCI drivers on a USB drive before starting the install. Yes it is a B3 motherboard (MSI P67A-G45) with the latest bios. And I thought I didn't have to load the newest AHCI drivers. I get random bluescreens while trying to set up Windows 7 like setting up the username, computer name, password, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Could a little battery that kicks in every few months the drive gets no power, would that extend its data retention significantly? Maybe SSDs already do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Yes it is a B3 motherboard (MSI P67A-G45) with the latest bios. And I thought I didn't have to load the newest AHCI drivers. I get random bluescreens while trying to set up Windows 7 like setting up the username, computer name, password, etc. Node posted:Could a little battery that kicks in every few months the drive gets no power, would that extend its data retention significantly? Maybe SSDs already do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link to the report regarding there not being enough silicon factory capacity on earth to replace mechanical HDDs with SSDs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
I tried loading the newest AHCI driver while installing Windows 7 and that fixed it. I have the SSD plugged into the very first of the first two SATA ports that are white on the motherboard that according to motherboard details are the SATA600 ports. MSI also recommends that I have hot plug enabled for better system running so I have that enabled as well. The speed is very impressive and makes me  at how fast it is at times. Windows 7 boots up in less than 10 seconds and cuts game loading times by half or more. Thanks to all who helped me.
spasticColon fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jan 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Make sure that's an intel port. I worry that it might be Marvell if you had to install a driver.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
This motherboard doesn't have a third party SATA controller on here. But I spoke too soon...I just got another bluescreen. Does this mean my SSD is a lemon? Edit: Now I'm getting random hang-ups where the system will freeze for a few seconds then go back to normal. Edit2: Now I'm getting weird poo poo like my mouse pointer disappearing at random along with the random hang-ups. Edit3: Another bluescreen. Why can't I have nice things?  Edit 4: If anyone has any ideas please share them otherwise I'm starting the RMA process. Edit 5: If I have "hot plug" enabled along with AHCI in the bios, I get random bluescreens but if I have it disabled I get random hang-ups and other weird poo poo like the mouse cursor disappearing. Edit 6: Okay, after enabling AHCI along with "hot plug" and setting the boot hierarchy of my SSD and two HDDs to coincide with the order they are plugged into the motherboard, the random BSOD stopped. But should I trust it or should I go with a fresh install? Goddamn my system is loving schizophrenic in regards to overclocking and SSD installations. 
spasticColon fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jan 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Looking at buying this drive in the next two weeks: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=210_902_1221&products_id=18484 Bear in mind that I'm paying the Living In Australia fee on this, so if the price seems way high, that's why. Is this a terrible drive? I know the OP says Intel stuff is pretty great reliability-wise, but other similar capacity drives from that supplier seem more expensive. Is it an old model or something? It's cheaper than the Corsair Force 3, which the OP says is quicker. The anandtech comparison linked on the first page does not include the Intel drive I'm looking at, and since "performance scales with capacity", I'm worried that the 120gb version I want will be significantly slower than the 160gb version on that site, making comparisons incorrect. How much slower is the 120gb Intel 320 series than the Corsair Force 3 drive? Noticably? Depends on what I'm doing? I won't care anyway, since they're both so fast? Basically, I don't know crap about SSDs and am trying to learn how to buy a good product. I probably won't go with Corsair just because of how badly they recently frustrated me with a power supply, but I won't buy that Intel drive if it's crap, and will wait another 6 months for new products to appear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Looking at buying this drive in the next two weeks: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=210_902_1221&products_id=18484 Your questions are all basically answered in the OP that you said you read, so you don't have to ask them again. As far as 'how much slower is the Intel drive', I refer people to this: A Note on Real World Performance The majority of our SSD test suite is focused on I/O bound tests. These are benchmarks that intentionally shift the bottleneck to the SSD and away from the CPU/GPU/memory subsystem in order to give us the best idea of which drives are the fastest. Unfortunately, as many of you correctly point out, these numbers don't always give you a good idea of how tangible the performance improvement is in the real world. Some of them do. Our 128KB sequential read/write tests as well as the ATTO and AS-SSD results give you a good indication of large file copy performance. Our small file random read/write tests tell a portion of the story for things like web browser cache accesses, but those are difficult to directly relate to experiences in the real world. So why not exclusively use real world performance tests? It turns out that although the move from a hard drive to a decent SSD is tremendous, finding differences between individual SSDs is harder to quantify in a single real world metric. Take application launch time for example. I stopped including that data in our reviews because the graphs ended up looking like this:  All of the SSDs performed the same. It's not just application launch times though. Here is data from our Chrome Build test timing how long it takes to compile the Chromium project:  Build Chrome Even going back two generations of SSDs, at the same capacity nearly all of these drives perform within a couple of percent of one another. Note that the Vertex 3 is even a 6Gbps drive and doesn't even outperform its predecessor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Personally, I'd buy, and infact, did buy, an Intel 320 120GB. It's not the fastest, it's not the cheapest, but they have a solid reliability record (+5 year warranty!) and are more than fast enough for everyday use. Any smaller than that in that particular series and they have tragic write speeds. 120GB+ or bust. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jan 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
Thanks guys! I guess I'll buy the intel drive. I did read the OP, but I don't know much about SSDs apart from what's in there. The specific parts that concerned me were: quote:...the Intel SSD 320-series, though they are more expensive and don't offer performance competitive with current-generation drives quote:Intel: Descended from the original X25-M, this controller is used on the Intel SSD 320-series. Weak performance (especially for writes) and no SATA600 support, but with a reputation for rock solid reliability with the latest firmware. quote:Drive performance tends to scale with capacity, as drives with a higher capacity use more flash memory chips. This starts becoming really noticeable on drives with capacities below 120GB. Since the drive's performance apparently increases with capacity, and I'm at the low end of "acceptable" capacity, and since the Intel drive's performance is described as "weak", and since the Anandtech page linked on the first page doesn't refer to the specific drive I'm looking at, and especially since the Intel drives are described in the OP as "more expensive" but the place I usually buy from has that drive cheaper than the "cheaper" drives in the OP, I was just concerned that the exact model I was looking at was an older, crappier model. If what you guys are saying is "it's fast anyway and you won't notice the difference loading game levels and programs", then that's great, but as I said - I don't know much about SSDs, and I wouldn't want to make the mistake of spending 10% less and getting half the performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:320 stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
AnandTech's review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4244/intel-ssd-320-review Sadly it is the 300GB version, which does offer much better writes speeds. I really don't think you'd be disappointed with the 120GB version, though, unless you have specific needs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:AnandTech's review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4244/intel-ssd-320-review http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/359?vs=370 According to those numbers, the 160GB version reads at 260MB/s and writes at 170MB/s, that's not too shabby. The problem is the 80GB drives, they only write about 80MB/s
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Any recommendations on a 2.5" SSD? I plan to use it in my late-2008 MBP in an OptiBay style HDD caddy in my optical bay. I'm only going to house a clean install of Lion and applications on the drive, which at most will be things like XCode, TF2, and maybe some other dev stuff, so I'm thinking 120GB would work fine for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 16:33
|
|
