|
The Iron Rose posted:Just use gparted on a usb. Or hit F8/F10/F12 or whatever it is for your system to get to the boot menu, manually choose the SSD to boot from that. Like I wrote: - I hadn't intended to boot from a USB device and didn't have one prepared, and my question was about a solution constrained to Windows itself. I was trying to avoid opening up the laptop again or preparing a bootable USB device. - I did change the boot order in the BIOS, and Windows still booted from the HDD because the OS installation was cloned on two drives and both pointed to the HDD. Physically disconnecting the HDD was the only way to get it to boot from the SSD. Also, I'm not sure that gparted can do what I was looking for; I wasn't even able to figure out how to do this within Windows itself using BCDedit. Remember, I'm not trying to modify partitions, I needed to tweak the Windows Boot Manager, and I have no experience doing that. I realize that, while this involves SSDs, it's still only tangentially related to the thread, so if I hadn't already resolved it I would continue this in a different thread. It's over now though, so thanks for the input.
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Hey who wants a cheap SSD? Rakuten's SAVE15 code is active again, and with it you can get (among other things, through the end of 9/11  ) the Adata SU650 960 GB for $115  or their SX8200 of the same manufacturer and capacity for $204 if you want NVMe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:It's tempting, although isn't ADATA considered poo poo in the thread OP? Getting one for cheap may actually be worth it considering the three year warranty though. Adata's not top-tier (e.g. Samsung, Crucial) but it's not some Chinese bottom-of-the-barrel manufacturer, and certainly not all Adata SSDs are "poo poo" even if you had a problem with one once. That NVMe drive appears to be well-regarded (according to other users in the deals threads) and the SU650 is similarly satisfactory (i.e. unremarkable, problems or otherwise.) You can certainly spend more on any other drive (note that that code's site-wide) but the SU650 is notable for being the cheapest 1 TB-class SSD like the Micron 1100 is the cheapest 2 TB drive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
I think the good vs. bad SSD list was more relevant in earlier years when products were more suspect. Nowadays, there's generally only a handful of controllers, DRAM manufacturers, and NAND flash manufacturers, and the retail drives are all combinations of the available parts as opposed to there being random buggy Sandforce controllers and the like out there that you have to watch out for. The SU650 is indeed DRAMless (the SU800 is the version with DRAM) and has older components, but nevertheless it's the best storage/$ you can buy at the moment. Certainly prices will continue to drop, but just FYI regarding QLC, apparently there are yield issues so the tech isn't going to flood the market any time soon. Also FYI, while Adata frequently (at least once a month as far as I can tell) has sales on their stuff on Rakuten (they have AD## discount codes,) that SAVE15 code (which is also very frequent,) is site-wide and is directly from Rakuten.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Nobody who buys the Adata SSDs complains about them in the deals threads I monitor (which do feature a lot of previous purchasers sharing their opinions.) I mean I'm sure there are failures, but most users are happy with them, and if you use them as intended (i.e. the SU800 as a 2nd-tier OS drive or the SU650 as bulk storage) I'd bet you'd be satisfied with them. Also on the subject of HDD reliability, my gaming desktop from 2013 has, no joke, a ST3000DM001 that's still working perfectly, ~5.5 years later, and I have another external one attached to the same PC that's been fine for a few years. As I wrote in a different thread a couple months ago, the latter drive was in a Buffalo USB enclosure (the one with 1 GB of DRAM for a write cache) that itself failed, but I shucked the drive and threw it in a new $20 enclosure and it works fine. So I'm aware that this drive model has a bad reputation, and the ones I'm using are long out of their warranty, but they're not in some ridiculous Backblaze storage pod and also they don't get a ton of usage given that I only run the gaming desktop a couple days a week (so maybe ~1k hours per year.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:5.5 years? What Klyith said; you should really Google that model number to see what I was talking about. Certainly there are functioning drives (in general) with more time and power cycles, but those Seagates are ticking bombs if you believed what you'd read about them, and then there's that class-action lawsuit on top of all that.... I'm not saying they're perfect or conversely as bad as that Backblaze report indicated though. My point was that I'd realized I had a couple of those drives in service after learning of their reputation. And my estimate from my previous post was right, the older drive of the two I mentioned only has about 5.5k hours after 5.5 years of use. Part of the reason it's been reliable, I'm sure, is the relatively low workload, but also the fact that it's in a consumer desktop as intended rather than in a high-vibration storage pod. I do have other drives around with far more power-on time, i.e. 20k+, and they all still work; the only dead drive I've encountered in recent memory was a 1 TB 2.5" Toshiba(?) from a gaming laptop that simply died even though it had seen very little use. And wow, I haven't seen a Maxtor drive in years, and until you mentioned them I hadn't realized they weren't around anymore. I just learned they were bought in 2006 by...Seagate.  Since we're on the subject, I went through a box of older HDDs that I'd removed from PCs to make it easier to wipe them in an enclosure. (I did find a few 20-80 GB Maxtor PATA HDDs but they're too small to bother dealing with.) I think 500 GB is capacious enough to still be useful, and am trying to find uses for the lower-capacity drives. I put 3x 250 GB SATA drives striped together in a Shuttle XPC, and they make a nice 750 GB array of 200 MB/s r/w for some games on that older PC. Beyond that, I've got a bunch of 250 GB drives and a handful of 120 & 160 GB ones; they're definitely of limited usefulness, but remember that 120-256 GB SSDs are still useful (for their performance, despite their capacity,) and ultimately they're a cheap (free) way to store some games. The lower-capacity 2.5" drives are more valuable than the 3.5" ones since the former can just go in a cheap <$10 external enclosure and become portable storage, with a single cable and no extra power supply to deal with. Also along these lines, a lot of the older (120-250 GB) drives are PATA, and before I dug them up again I didn't really remember how much I appreciate SATA! Not just for the faster transfer rates and added functions, but those loving ribbon cables and 40-pin connectors, plus the molex power connectors, are sometimes a pain in the rear end to work with! Another issue is squeezing all of the performance out of them, since they're not going to be mounted in a desktop tower, they have to go in an external enclosure. There aren't any native PATA-USB3 enclosures; they're all USB2 and that's still enough of a bottleneck for even the 120 GB drive I benchmarked (they all hit ~35 MB/s r/w sequential.) The best I've found is PATA-eSATA, and I have a couple of desktops with at least 300 MB/s eSATA; on top of that I discovered there are eSATA-USB3 cables, so hopefully that will make that enclosure practically universal. I'll be playing around with that and running benchmarks over the next week or two. One of the 500 GB drives has uncorrectable sectors, and another has reallocated sectors, per CDI. I ran the WD software (including a long scan) on the WD drive, however, and it didn't report any issues; from what I've researched, each manufacturer determines what values are within spec, so CDI is throwing up a general warning but at least the one drive is still "fine" per WD (the other one is a different brand and I haven't gotten around to investigating it yet.) Certainly the safe thing to do would be to toss the drives, but if they're still functional I figure it's fine to throw some games on there until they die.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
crazypenguin posted:m.2 can be PCIe (NVMe) or SATA. Don't buy m.2 SATA. There's nothing wrong with m.2 SATA, especially considering some systems have m.2 ports that are SATA only. Don't have much of a choice there!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
crazypenguin posted:m.2 SATA is for laptops that don't have space for a drive. There definitely are laptops with only m.2 ports and no space for 2.5" drives, and also there are m.2 ports that are only SATA without having an NVMe connection. I agree that, in a perfect scenario you'd have NVMe SSDs for maximum performance and 2.5" SATA drives (of any type) for the best price/performance/storage, but in reality you may have to settle for a m.2 SATA SSD and a 2.5" HDD in a gaming laptop, for example. There's nothing inherently wrong with m.2 SATA, and if you deal hunt you can get the same drive for close to what the 2.5" version costs. On top of that, most people don't even need an NVMe SSD (basically, if you're not sure whether or not you do, then you really don't.) The "don't buy m.2 SATA SSD" thing comes up frequently in this thread, and while it's wrong, you can be genuinely helpful if you explain (copy & paste if necessary) what you recommend instead and why, because that information is going to people who aren't as familiar with the technology as the rest of us are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
crazypenguin posted:I don't get why this is so hard. My recommendation is to ensure everyone understands that m.2 does not automatically mean NVMe. People are routinely confused. We all agree that there's unnecessary confusion between form factors, interfaces, types of NAND flash, etc. However, in this thread, there's also an irrational bias against SATA m.2 SSDs, for previously discussed reasons like "it's more expensive than 2.5," "it's slower than NVMe," etc. Even if you meant "don't confuse NVMe and SATA m.2," you literally wrote "don't buy m.2 SATA" which is wrong on its face, and is by your own admission isn't the message you intended to convey. I don't get why it's so difficult to just write "don't confuse NVMe and SATA m.2" which is clear and correct; it actually helps that poster and makes it obvious to everyone else that you're not an irrational SATA m.2 hater.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Tamba posted:Why is the 860 EVO cheaper than the 850 EVO? Both are 500GB 2.5" drives. Sometimes older components get marked up as the supply dries up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I have an empty mSATA to 2.5" converter Rexxed posted:Yeah, I bought a cheap Samsung 480GB mSATA disk for my Thinkpad T420 when they were presumably dumping them to move to M.2 production and it's going to live there forever. I'll probably use the laptop for a while yet, anyway. Note that eventually you guys will probably want to retire an old laptop and pull the still-usable mSATA SSD, so you might very well be able to fill a mSATA-2.5" adapter (or even just a mSATA-USB enclosure) and find a use for an old SSD, even if it's an obsolete form factor like mSATA. Lockback posted:960GB ADATA XPG SX8200 NVME $209 + you get 41 Rakuten Bucks Also, the 480 GB version is often available for $100 with a 15% off code if you don't quite want to spend $200+.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Crucial BX200 or whatever was $38 on slickdeals yesterday for 256gb, just buy a new one It was the BX300 (quite a good drive actually, MLC + DRAM.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Is there a chart somewhere that shows us NAND type, DRAM y/n for drives? Heh, I actually asked about this a couple months back. The answer's no, but we really should make one! You can often pretty easily find the info by googling it, but failing that you can ask here and probably get an answer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Hold The Ashes posted:Speed wise am I better off buying a 970 Evo 1TB or a 970 Pro 512gb? You can always use extra capacity, even if you don't need it right now; conversely you don't really need the extra speed of an NVMe drive.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
I didn't even mean it as "overrated," it's more that, if you're not sure whether or not you need NVMe/PCIe, then that means you don't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Hold The Ashes posted:I don't know if I did a weird job asking my question or if you guys are just weird because I meant I'd be buying one of the two for my boot drive and just wanted to know if a 1TB Evo managed to be as fast/faster than a 500 gig Pro, since at one point the larger the disk size of SSDs the faster they were, but after looking at benchmarks that doesn't appear true anymore (or maybe I'm dumb and it never was). You're correct in that, within a given SSD line (i.e. drives that use the same controller but scaled amounts of NAND and DRAM) higher capacities are generally higher-performance. This is because the controller has a number of channels that it can address, and lower-capacity SSDs use fewer NAND flash packages that can limit performance while adding more packages can increase performance by saturating the controller's interface. Practically speaking, this means that very low-capacity SSDs (think 128 GB-class or lower) have disappointingly low performance, but jumping to 256 and then 512 GB will show an obvious increase in maximum transfer rates, up to a certain point, often the limit of the SATA 3 interface itself. While if you were generally interested in comfortable performance, you should get an SSD of at least 256 GB if not 512 GB, beyond that the performance difference should be negligible so just get the capacity that works for you. That being said, for any ordinary system that doesn't need to be as fast as possible you can still certainly use any decent SSD; I recommend a minimum of ~128 GB for a Windows-based system for multiple reasons, and even if such a drive isn't incredibly performant it'll still be a far better choice than any HDD. Again, worry about the actual usable capacity and not the theoretical speed. Because of the performance scaling across capacities, a lot of SSD reviews nowadays tend to group the benchmarks by capacity to give the fairest comparison, but you can still find older reviews that illustrate this behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
MREBoy posted:I was given an older laptop for free & replacing the current 5400 rpm drive with an SSD would definitely be an improvement, so that SP drive a few posts up is tempting. I know nothing of SP as a brand, and $20 bucks more gets you an MX500 or 860 EVO Any SSD will be an improvement over an HDD for the OS. If you want the bare minimum, look for a ~120 GB SSD for ~$25, or ~240 GB for ~$40. You don't need a Crucial or Samsung for an old laptop, but a drive with DRAM would be recommended. If you want more specifics let us know your budget, capacity desire, and use-case (will this be a spare or guest PC, etc.) Klyith posted:The problem with that Silicon Power drive is that it's a complete mystery what's inside it. They say MLC NAND, which makes me think they're the remainder stock of drives with a 2014-era Phison controller and Toshiba 2d NAND. If so, those are old and weren't good even when they were new. However, it's fine for light applications -- where they completely fall apart is mixed random read & write stuff. If your laptop is just an internet / email / netflix / typing machine that's ok. I wouldn't worry about the storage and temperature, but you're right that drives like the SP with variable internals can be hit-or-miss (but still probably fine for an old PC.) The SLC cache thing is very common, actually; TLC drives in particular do this, where part of the flash (tens of GB generally) operates in SLC mode (or "pseudo SLC") as a secondary cache (with or without DRAM.) The new Intel 660p does this, with a variable SLC cache that gets folded into QLC mode as the drive fills (we talked about it in this thread.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 02:47
|
|
so IDK right now.
|
Yeah the Adata SX8200 is regularly around $100/200 for the 500/1000 GB capacities with the frequent 15% off discounts on Rakuten, so I personally would go with those instead of the P1. As far as QLC is concerned, it definitely needs to get into the high-capacity and/or low-cost segments to be worth considering, and yields have been a significant issue. There's little reason to consider a 500 GB 660p for $100 (or even $10-20 less than that; it's $95 on Newegg right now,) when you can get a WD Blue for the same price or slightly less, and the Intel drive only has its best performance when nearly empty (i.e. it drops to <SATA SSD speeds and even HDD speeds as it fills up.) The 1 TB version is over $200 (so see the SX8200 above,) and the 2 TB one is $350. If I need 2 TB of SS storage I'm going with the Micron 1100 2.5 SATA and saving $100! It only makes sense if a ~500 GB QLC drive was <$60 or so, 1 TB <$100 and so on because TLC is better at the same price/capacity, or alternately you could get a drive in a given form-factor that wasn't available with any less than QLC. For example, you can't apparently get any m.2 drive with a capacity greater than 2 TB, so a larger QLC drive would make sense for certain users, or alternately a 2 TB drive at notably <$350 (compared to the nearest non-QLC alternative) would have a market.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Manufacturers are still shipping new PCs with the OS on a HDD. Let's get everyone on SSDs first before worrying about getting them all transitioned to NVMe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:I'm guessing teething issues with earlier versions of operating systems did not help, as I first had a hell of a time getting a W7 installation to work properly on an Intel 330. Turns out for some reason it would only install properly when installed from the DVD image on a disc. There was definitely less OS support in the past, and early SSDs were kinda crappy and expensive. Once they started to become affordable several years ago, I bought a 32 GB PQI PoS as an upgrade for a Win7 system, and while it was definitely better than a HDD there were limitations of it that I didn't realize at the time (mostly related to the limited capacity, but also probably contributed to by it being DRAMless.) I could see why, in the early years (and I know that actual SSDs go back decades and thousands of dollars, but I'm referring to the modern SSD era of the past decade or so) people were apprehensive about these newfangled SSDs, but that quickly became nonsensical over the past 5 years or so, and nowadays any new system without an SSD is inexcusable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Stickman posted:This is a M.2 form factor advantage, though, rather than being directly tied NVMe. This was also true of mSATA, AICs, really anything that's a slot/card. We've only had to deal with drive cables because of the mounting requirements of 3.5" and 5.25" drives. Stickman posted:That said, it's tough to recommend a SATA M.2 SSD to anyone building a new system - there's a good chance they'll want a NVMe drive at some point in the next 5 years and it'll be much more convenient to have free M.2 slot(s) when the time comes. Definitely go NVMe if the price is right, although frankly I'd fill any m.2 slot with drives even if they're SATA only. The only thing I take issue with is the "...at some point in the next 5 years..." comment; 5 years is a long time in technology, and I wouldn't buy something now that I don't need until years down the line. I mean in SSD technology alone, imagine if you were stuck now using something you bought 5 years ago (like the aforementioned 840 Evo!!!) instead of something modern, cheap, and good like an MX500 or WD Blue (NVMe wasn't even a thing back then, and 5 years from now we might've transitioned to u.2 or whatever.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Regarding "old" SATA SSDs: even after you'd want to move them out of your PCs they'll still be useful for one thing or another, and you have options, not limited to that m.2-SATA enclosure (there are also cheap ones for mSATA-SATA); there are m.2-to-USB, and SATA-to-USB, plus dual-drive/RAID enclosures. So at worst you can turn any SSD into a really fast USB flash drive. There's really no reason not to get any SATA SSD that you can make use of now, you'll most certainly be able to use it for some purpose in the foreseeable future. If anything, having a bunch of old, extra SSDs can make it easier for you to eliminate HDDs entirely from your setup; failing that, you could also use an SSD to cache your HDDs with software like PrimoCache.BobHoward posted:Afaik it’s closely related, it’s just that the 840 EVO was Samsung’s first TLC drive and they didn’t get the scrubbing algorithms completely right in the original firmware. I think it was an issue with the smaller-process 2D TLC NAND and it having unexpectedly higher "voltage-drifting" or whatever they called it, which made reads more time-consuming. It does appear to have been eventually fixed with the most recent firmware revision. I have an 840 Evo mSATA in a tablet and it appears to be working fine. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Yeah you're probably not going to wear out an SSD unless you're trying, you have terrible habits (i.e. frequent writes on a nearly-full drive,) or if you have a legitimately heavy workload like SSD caching for a huge RAID or something like that. I'm actually trying to wear out old, low-capacity (e.g. 16 & 32 GB) SSDs by using them as a read cache for gaming HDDs with PrimoCache; I'll let you know if this ever happens!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I bought a prebuilt system this summer that came with a single HDD, and I'm looking to upgrade to an SSD. Really all I do is play games and browse the web; in that use case is an m.2 drive really worth it over a SATA drive? I'm looking at 1tb drives if it makes a difference. First of all, m.2 and SATA are not mutually exclusive. If you have NVMe-compatible slots then that's another story, but even then you don't need NVMe over a SATA drive because literally anything will be an upgrade over the current HDD. If you have free space/slots/ports for any kind of drive then I'd suggest the most cost-effective SSD; for 1 TB-class $150 and under would be a good deal, and you can generally find any of the MX500, WD Blue (or its Sandisk version,) even an Adata SU800 would be fine (anything with DRAM is good for the OS.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Keep an eye on r/BuildAPCSales, too - there's a Twitter feed that's easier to follow than the page. I don't know exactly why, but when Reddit 'fixed' something, they got rid of the categories, which makes navigating the list all the more complicated and frustrating. I just sort it by "new," there aren't that many new deals added per day.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
orcane posted:This obsession with boot times has always been weird to me, when we're comparing systems below the 1 minute mark. Like, everyone was so amazed how much faster Windows 8/10 boots (with fast boot on) than other systems, and now we're talking another few seconds less due to having a NVMe drive or a slightly faster SATA SSD - even if the boot process takes a minute, how often do you reboot your computer that this is a thing people worry about? The NVMe boost is definitely not meaningful for most users. That being said, I think part of the obsession is because some of us not-so-fondly remember the pre-SSD days, and now SSDs feel like such a revelation. It's similar to any other technology that sees some revolutionary improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
TITTIEKISSER69 posted:Fry's has a 240GB SanDisk Plus for $48. Worthwhile? Helping a friend upgrade her DJing laptop, need something reliable: https://www.frys.com/product/9158128?nearbyStoreName=false&site=satlanding110318 The SanDisk Plus is their budget line with a variable BoM; it appears that below the ~500 GB mark they're DRAMless (so including that one, which therefore wouldn't be ideal as an OS drive.) If you're only looking for a ~240 GB-class SSD and want something reliable, and were willing to spend ~$48, how about a Samsung 860 Evo for $50, literally the highest-end SATA 2.5" SSD? Keep in mind there have been a ton of SSD sales recently (with prices forecast to drop throughout next year) and good ~500 GB SSDs have been ~$70, including the 860 Evo. The Crucial MX500 is also a top-tier SSD. The Adata SU800 is a small step down, but still has decent NAND and DRAM; here's the 512 GB model for $77. That same drive's about the same price on Rakuten, but notably they have frequent 15% discounts there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
860 Evo 500 GB $80.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:What are options for 2tb nvme? Just the 970 evo? I was going to add the 660p, which has its own issues but is the cheapest option, but you do have a few more choices. Does it really have to be NVMe though? Not that that adds many more options, but for a similar price I'd rather have the SATA WD Blue or 860 Evo with 3D TLC over the QLC 660p, especially because the latter's performance decreases as it fills to capacity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
That's my sentiment. You don't need a 2 TB NVMe drive for the OS, and you can probably make do with cheap SATA storage unless you're doing some out-of-the-ordinary workload that actually needs high speeds AND capacity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
Laslow posted:I just had an Inland Pro 240GB die on me after 5 months. I can totally see this happening but it's not like other SSDs (or HDDs for that matter) can't die early deaths nor does it mean that 100% of that same drive (even I have one or two floating around here somewhere) will die after 5 months. The lesson is that each type of drive has a purpose, so if you have a high-performance system, your main PC, etc., then it would make more sense to shoot for a higher-end SSD, and if you're just replacing an HDD on an older system (like I just did last night with an Inland 120 GB and an old laptop that'll be repurposed for a coworker's schoolkid,) or want to replace your bulk storage HDDs with cheap DRAMless SSDs, the Inland and similar drives should suffice. That it died early is a separate topic. I, too, have an Intel 330, actually, that's working fine and going on 6 years old; given that it's MLC with something like 3k-5k P/E cycles, there's no wonder it's still at ~100% life remaining with only like 14 TBW (out of 700-12k.) Laslow posted:Also after the Crucial M4 and 840 Evo debacles, I’m staying the hell away from goon recommendations, lol. Not trying to be insulting, those were just really just bad luck. Now this is even dumber. Crucial/Micron and Samsung make the top-end SSDs, still, and at the time nobody knew there would be issues with those drives when they were new. There were grumblings about the 840 Evo and its small-geometry 2D TLC NAND, but even after the read/performance issues became clear they've basically resolved that with firmware updates. Avoiding the top-end Samsung or Crucial SSDs, which have no performance issues like predecessors from several years ago, based on aforementioned predecessors' issues, is just idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
That's more of a testament to NAND flash endurance being underestimated than anything else. And I'm assuming you're referring to the 840 Evo, because the 840 was a distinct model from the previous year - the latter being the first mainstream 2D TLC SSD, with a larger process than the former's flash, which was the culprit in the Evo's charge-decay issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Laslow posted:I guess the 840 Evo issues were overblown. In brief, they suffered from degraded read performance on data that had been sitting on the drive for a while. It's more detailed than that, but it had to do with the stored charges decaying over time. The firmware/software updates addressed this by re-writing old data, correcting the issue at the long-term expense of endurance, but as we've gone over many times, NAND flash endurance isn't as much of a problem as it's been made out to be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Lambert posted:I was very annoyed with the whole 840 Evo situation because Samsung took forever to release the updated firmware for the mSATA version. Oh really? I wasn't aware that they didn't release firmware updates (and there were at least a couple for the 840 Evo to "fix" the same issue) for all versions at the same time. That's the version I have, actually (1 TB, in a tablet) but at least it's up-to-date now. For some reason Samsung is basically the only [notable] company still making mSATA SSDs; I was surprised they both made them as recently as the 860 Evo, and that Samsung's still doing it instead of like Adata or someone else that's not a top-tier player. I've been debating getting an 860 Evo to replace the aforementioned 840 Evo "just in case," and I do have a few older laptops that still take mSATA (plus you can just drop them into a 2.5" or USB enclosure and continue using them.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
isndl posted:I've mentioned it before but Samsung never put out firmware fixes for the OEM models of the 840 EVO. There's a bunch of devices out there that have no recourse, for example I believe there's a good number of Surfaces that used them and you can't swap out the SSD for an unaffected drive either. Ah, well that's super lovely. I've previously bitched how none of the manufacturers' management software seems to recognize any OEM SSDs, which is really stupid because they're the same drives and it's not like the system builder has their own software for it. The fact that there are OEM versions of the 840 Evo that desperately need the firmware update(s) but can't get them is hosed up. TITTIEKISSER69 posted:I thought the msata version was unaffected? Of course it'd be affected, it's an issue with the NAND flash itself. It'd be the same problem for any other drive that used that specific flash from Samsung.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 11:07
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:You are being far too dramatic about it. Literally all nand flash suffers from fade, since there is no known way to construct a perfect charge trap. Thanks for the greater insight into the situation. Why though are enterprise SSDs much worse in terms of retention? I'd think they'd be better, especially with the consumer market drifting towards TLC and QLC whereas the enterprise segment still being perhaps the only area you could still find SLC (if that's not completely been abandoned by now for MLC.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
I meant what, technically, causes the disparity in retention? Enterprise stuff tends to have more features (like power loss protection in SSDs,) than consumer products do, so I'm just surprised that this is the case with data retention and I'm curious why that's the case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Ah ok, that explains a lot. So it's partially a function of the wear on the drive (or the wear it's expected to incur) and partially a matter of marketing/rating depending on the intended use.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
teagone posted:I'm researching components to upgrade my Plex server, and decied I want to migrate the OS and Plex server software onto an NVMe drive. I am mostly going to purchase the components from my local Micro Center and came across this 512GB gen3 x2 drive for only $90: https://www.microcenter.com/product/505058/512gb-3d-nand-m2-2280-pcie-nvme-gen-3-x2-internal-solid-state-drive-(512g) There's nothing really wrong with that SSD; I think it's identical to a MyDigitalSSD one if I'm not mistaken. The 2-lane limit isn't going to make a difference, and even being NVMe won't either. My current PMS is on a SATA SSD and it's perfect, so going up to NVMe isn't going to help or hurt. On Rakuten, however, the Adata SX8200 is a good 4-lane NVMe drive that's regularly available for under $100 for 480 GB and under $200 for 960 GB (when in stock of course, and when they have seemingly monthly ~15% off discounts.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:No idea why they didn't just make a NVMe version of the MX500. Well they do have an NVMe drive, the P1.... teagone posted:Thanks for the info. Looks like the 512GB HP EX920 is $99.99 on newegg atm. WIll probably get that. SATA or NVMe SSD, either one will be a huge step up from my Plex server's current 1TB WD Blue HDD being used as the OS/system disk. Figure since I'm replacing the mainboard in the upgrade, I might as well make use of the NVMe slot that's on the boards I'm looking at. The EX920 is basically a substitute for the SX8200, and either is fine at that price. Samsung's drives are certainly good but not worth any substantial price premium. Any SSD would definitely be an upgrade over your HDD, though. And yes, I agree that you might as well populate all your m.2 slots with SSDs because you could then add HDDs via SATA ports to fit as many drives as possible should you need the capacity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 08:20
|
|