Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Samsung 840 Basic 600TB till now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung 840 Basic 600TB till now

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Hey guys ,did you see this article:
http://techreport.com/review/26058/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-data-retention-after-600tb/2
They are testing endurance of six SSD.
840 Basic have 600Tb and still going.
And Samsung 840 Pro seems like its not going to cache his predecessor 830 with 6000Tb.
Probable the test are not completely the same as those on xtremesystems but they are not so much different so comparison of 840 pro endurance and 830 would still be fair.
So please comment.
post #2 of 15
Well, so much for poor endurance of Samsung's TLC NAND! They are using a 250GB 840, so no advantage of a larger amount of NAND.

The article said the 840 has retired some bad blocks of NAND and used reserved blocks to replace them, but that is a normal thing for a SSD to do.

The statistic I like is all the SSDs being tested are at 600TB written, which is equal to writing over 300GB per day for five years! That means more than one write to ALL the SSD's NAND every day, since all the SSDs are of 240GB - 256GB in size!

One drive capacity write per day is an enterprise SSD endurance spec, and all of the SSDs tested are not enterprise SSDs.

Given the usual spec for an OS drive, of 20GB written per day, 300GB per day is 15 times that amount.

OTOH, given the usual Program/Erase (write) spec of the standard MLC NAND used today, of 3,000 P/E cycles, a 256GB SSD should be able to write 768TB of data. That simple calculation does not take into account the extra writing a SSD would do performing GC, wear leveling, the affect of write amplification, or the extra NAND it has to replace bad blocks.

So it could be said a 256GB SSD using MLC NAND should be able to take 600TB of writes, since that is not beyond the spec of its NAND. Why didn't I think of this before now. doh.gif

A 250GB Samsung 840, whose TLC NAND has a P/E spec of 1,000, would only be able to take 250TB of writes, using the same simple calculation. We can see that this TLC NAND has almost matched the expected endurance of MLC NAND, which is great.

Given testing like this, I hope we can stop worrying about "wearing out" SSDs. It really is a non-issue, except in theory for small capacity SSDs, such as 64GB or less. The testing ExtremeSystems has done has shown 64GB SSDs to have endurance well beyond what they should have in theory, so that too is a non-issue.

Thanks for posting this Igor!! thumb.gif
post #3 of 15
Thread Starter 
Yes the TLC myth has finally broken.Few days ago we had here guy that cursed Samsung for going TLC way(blissful ignorance),but i said to him that we must thanks Samsung especially for going TLC route because that the only way for now to see big SSD ,like 1TB EVO which is perfect for storage.
I would not hesitate to put my important data on it,of course only thing that stopping me for doing that is its price which is equal to one average Croatian salary.
Tell me parsec please what do you think ,i am in position to sell my two 840 Pro and buy one EVO 250GB,should i do that?Can you fell just a little bit those extra 100mhz that EVO controller has.And please tell me whats the snappiest drive you ever had?For me its still M4,but maybe because it was my the first SSD.
Edited by Unit Igor - 3/16/14 at 4:03pm
post #4 of 15
Quote:
The testing ExtremeSystems has done has shown 64GB SSDs to have endurance well beyond what they should have in theory, so that too is a non-issue. thumb.gif

And then there's total overkill with certain 64GB SSDs....biggrin.gif
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit Igor View Post

Yes the TLC myth has finally broken.Few days ago we had here guy that cursed Samsung for going TLC way(blissful ignorance),but i said to him that we must thanks Samsung especially for going TLC route because that the only way for now to see big SSD ,like 1TB EVO which is perfect for storage.
I would not hesitate to put my important data on it,of course only thing that stopping me for doing that is its price which is equal to one average Croatian salary.
Tell me parsec please what do you think ,i am in position to sell my two 840 Pro and buy one EVO 250GB,should i do that?Can you fell just a little bit those extra 100mhz that EVO controller has.And please tell me whats the snappiest drive you ever had?For me its still M4,but maybe because it was my the first SSD.

Igor, that is honestly a difficult question. I have a 256GB 840 Pro, and a 250GB EVO as Windows drives. I have not booted from my 840 Pro Windows installation in a while, so it is hard for me to remember if the EVO is any better. I will tell you that I doubt you would regret selling your Pro's and getting the larger EVO.

If you do a lot of writing/saving files to the OS drive, I would say the 840 Pro is better than the EVO. For use as a drive that is mostly read from, the EVO is a little faster than the Pro sometimes.

My second SATA III SSD was the M4 (the first an Intel 510, a strange SSD that is great in some areas, poor in others), and yes I loved it too. I've had many other SATA III SSDs since then, and none of them were any better in actual use than the M4, until recently.

The 840 Pro and EVO can boot faster than an M4, only a few seconds difference, but I could tell. If I had to say which I thought was faster, and I would only think about booting the OS, I would say the EVO is, but not by much. NO Rapid use of course. wink.gif

I think a new SSD I just got is at least equal to the EVO, and may be a little faster, at least booting an OS. That is the SanDisk Extreme II. I found a great price on the 480GB model, so I'm using that now on my Z87 PC. It's AS SSD results are almost the same as the 840 Pro, but does not have the 40MB/s 4K speed that the EVO does. I can't find the benchmark I saved right now, I'll look for it or do another.
post #6 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaxx420 View Post

And then there's total overkill with certain 64GB SSDs....biggrin.gif

Your SuperSpeed S301 SSDs are way out in left field compared to other SSDs, but in a good way. They give a glimpse of what "could be" with consumer SSDs, if all the "to expensive" whiners would go away. If you checked the prices of good HDDs (yes, HDDs) about 15 - 20 years ago, they cost more than the same capacity SSDs do today. We are spoiled by a mature technology that has little R & D expense, and whose only movement forward is in capacity. Comparing HDDs to SSDs is really comparing apples to rocks IMO.

IMO, SSD performance has been sacrificed in the name of lower prices, with a few exceptions. Why no other manufacture has the guts to market a SLC NAND SSD in the consumer market is beyond me. OTOH, who knows what the price of SLC NAND is currently, it may be the same as it was two years ago, or perhaps higher, due to low production and use of MLC NAND in enterprise SSDs.

What drives me crazy the most about this SSD, is the performance it has using the SandForce 2281 controller, and purely stock firmware. No offense, but all these SSDs are is the reference SandForce 2281 controller, board, and firmware design, with SLC NAND instead of MLC. It also uses the new firmware option to disable the RAISE feature, so has more user capacity and less spare area.

In spite of that, the incompressible data write performance loss seen on all other SandForce based SSDs is gone! That is amazing, and I have never seen an explanation for that. I'm not a SandForce hater, but imagine what a SSD with the new Marvell controller or the Samsung MEX controller paired with SLC NAND could do!!

I'm not saying that this SSD is beyond the performance of all others, it isn't in some areas of synthetic and real world benchmarks, and is just equal in other areas. In actual use it may be no different than any newer high end SSD. The use of SLC NAND in consumer SSDs may not merit the cost, even considering the performance. But it should be good for at least 6.4 PetaBytes of writes, given the specs for SLC NAND. That's for the 64GB model too. coolsmiley02.gif
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

In spite of that, the incompressible data write performance loss seen on all other SandForce based SSDs is gone! That is amazing, and I have never seen an explanation for that. I'm not a SandForce hater, but imagine what a SSD with the new Marvell controller or the Samsung MEX controller paired with SLC NAND could do!!

I've wondered the same myself....thumb.gif
post #8 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

Igor, that is honestly a difficult question. I have a 256GB 840 Pro, and a 250GB EVO as Windows drives. I have not booted from my 840 Pro Windows installation in a while, so it is hard for me to remember if the EVO is any better. I will tell you that I doubt you would regret selling your Pro's and getting the larger EVO.

If you do a lot of writing/saving files to the OS drive, I would say the 840 Pro is better than the EVO. For use as a drive that is mostly read from, the EVO is a little faster than the Pro sometimes.

My second SATA III SSD was the M4 (the first an Intel 510, a strange SSD that is great in some areas, poor in others), and yes I loved it too. I've had many other SATA III SSDs since then, and none of them were any better in actual use than the M4, until recently.

The 840 Pro and EVO can boot faster than an M4, only a few seconds difference, but I could tell. If I had to say which I thought was faster, and I would only think about booting the OS, I would say the EVO is, but not by much. NO Rapid use of course. wink.gif

I think a new SSD I just got is at least equal to the EVO, and may be a little faster, at least booting an OS. That is the SanDisk Extreme II. I found a great price on the 480GB model, so I'm using that now on my Z87 PC. It's AS SSD results are almost the same as the 840 Pro, but does not have the 40MB/s 4K speed that the EVO does. I can't find the benchmark I saved right now, I'll look for it or do another.
Man I would love to see you signature one day.I think it would be long as Airbus A380.
Yes I heard about SanDisk Extreme II,and his high class consistency. You can fill it to the top but it wont lose performance like PRO.It is also fast.
Is it reliable?
Did you use it for OS?
What am I asking ,of course its reliable ,it has Marvell controller.
Problem is that Samsung stopping making notebooks from next year so I have to buy two for the future ,SO I need to slow down for now with SSDs.Also Z87 mITX build start to racing through my brain.
What I also want is change my HDDs with two 1TB evo.
Man I need now immediately three thousand dollars for all this.
Am I gong crazy? biggrin.gif
If you ask my wife ,I am crazy long time ago. biggrin.gif
post #9 of 15
Yup, too many people still concerned with writes on modern SSD sizes. A 1TB Samsung 840 EVO will need around 2.5 petabytes of writes before NAND failure. Good luck, i'm sending BD ISO after BD ISO through mine with no hope of even coming close to that.
The Leviathan
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700k @ 4.7GHz MSI Z170A Gaming M7 12GB NVIDIA Titan X (Pascal) 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws V (DDR4 3200) 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
2x 1TB Samsung 960 PRO 193TB unRAID Server 3x 140mm Noctua NF-A14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 65" LG 65E6P (4K OLED) Ducky DK9008 Shine 3  Corsair AX860 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Corsair Obsidian 750D Logitech G502 Proteus Sprectrum Denon X7200WA (Receiver) 2x Klipsch RF-7 (Front Speakers) 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
4x Klipsch RS-62 (Surround Speakers) Klipsch RC-64 (Center Speaker) 4x Klipsch CDT-5800-C II (Atmos Speakers) 2x SVS PB16-Ultra (Subwoofers) 
  hide details  
Reply
The Leviathan
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700k @ 4.7GHz MSI Z170A Gaming M7 12GB NVIDIA Titan X (Pascal) 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws V (DDR4 3200) 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
2x 1TB Samsung 960 PRO 193TB unRAID Server 3x 140mm Noctua NF-A14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 65" LG 65E6P (4K OLED) Ducky DK9008 Shine 3  Corsair AX860 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Corsair Obsidian 750D Logitech G502 Proteus Sprectrum Denon X7200WA (Receiver) 2x Klipsch RF-7 (Front Speakers) 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
4x Klipsch RS-62 (Surround Speakers) Klipsch RC-64 (Center Speaker) 4x Klipsch CDT-5800-C II (Atmos Speakers) 2x SVS PB16-Ultra (Subwoofers) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murlocke View Post

Yup, too many people still concerned with writes on modern SSD sizes.

And even a lot of 1st gen drives have proven their longevity. I still have 'my first SSD'...an Ocz Apex 64GB that uses the infamous JMicron J602b controller (actually the Apex uses a pair internally raided). Unfortunately it only shows a fixed temp and nothing else re: smart...I'd luv to see how many miles it's racked up. With 51nm nand, I'm thinking it'll be around for a long time to come.

I'm also to the point where I start shaking my head when I see posts with people being concerned/worried with ssd endurance and even talk of off-loading writes to a spinner (usually page files and caches which are perfect just for ssds...lol). I always link them to the 600TB write up at TR or the 6 Petabyte Sammy 830 at XS...that usually convinces folks in short order. biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: SSD
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Samsung 840 Basic 600TB till now