Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

owls or something posted:

edit: I mean I know it's probably unlikely I'd ever get close to either drives TBW rating, so maybe I should just go for the Sammy?

Unless you're doing almost constant write cycles (like, your job is to process UHD videos all day), you will never exhaust the TBW on even a 256GB drive, let alone a 2TB drive.

The few times reviewers have bothered to actually test TBWs, they've found them all to be hilariously conservative, too. The 250GB version of the 840 Evo lasted out till something like 800TBW, with many others getting similar results. Those were MLC/TLC setups, so QLC chips should get somewhat less endurance, but still.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Okay storage gurus, what's the "too good to be true" part about the stellar IOPS numbers (seriously, those are nearly Optane levels) on the 960GB Corsair MP510, and why doesn't it extend to the 1920GB SKU?

Arguably, nothing. The Phison E12 is a pretty excellent chip, and its spec sheets do say it can get up to 600k IOPs. I think th MP510 might be one of the first ones to actually reach market with it.

As for the speed difference between the 960 and the 1920GB versions, I can only speculate that it's a difference in the performance of the NAND chips due to density: both versions use 4 NAND chips (two on each side), so the 1920GB version is using chips twice as dense, and as with most other forms of memory, going dense vs wide usually has speed penalties.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Palladium posted:

Keep an eye out for discounts on the Adata SX8200 NVMe, the 512GB/1TB versions can be found for just $20 more than the equivalent MX500.

Yeah, I picked up the 1TB NVMe SX8200 for $175 on Rakuten a few weeks back. Their shipping isn't as fast as Amazon, but no tax and great discounts make up for it. It was a nice upgrade from my 1TB 840 Evo, though I did not count on the difficulties in cloning my Windows install over, made more obnoxious by the 840 being 1,000GB and the SX8200 being 960GB.

DrDork fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Oct 25, 2018

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

BobHoward posted:

Fyi NAND "chips" are actually multi-die assemblies, so the number of NAND packages on the board doesn't tell you how many NAND die are attached. There could be a density difference, or there could be twice as many die per package.

You are correct, but seeing as there is a stated drop in performance moving from 1TB to 2TB while the number of packages remains constant, it's reasonable to assume they're using more dense assemblies to reach the higher size, rather than just filling out unused package space (or some combination of both).

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

codo27 posted:

Any justification whatsoever for the respective jumps between the 3?

860 -> 970 is a generational leap. The 860 is internally a SATA drive, while the 970 is NVMe, meaning it gets substantially better max performance numbers. Whether those are relevant to you is a separate question.

970 Evo -> 970 Pro is a market segment shift. The Evo is intended for normal consumers, the Pro for businesses/servers/etc, so it uses 2-bit MLC instead of the Evo's 3-bit MLC flash, meaning it will have substantially longer total write endurance (about double). Write endurance for a normal user is completely meaningless, though, because it will take a normal consumer decades to wear out a modern 1TB SSD.

Otherwise, the price jumps look about right: In the US the 860 is ~$180, the 970 Evo ~$270, and the 970 Pro ~$400. If you're price-sensitive and only planning on playing games and such, the 860 is probably sufficient for you.

However, it may be worth your while to watch something like SlickDeals or one of the various parts-building Reddits/threads for deals; there are several non-Samsung SSD manufacturers now that put out solidly comparable products for much better prices. I grabbed one of ADATA's XPG SX8200 1TB drives a week or so ago for $175, which has performance comparable to the 970 Evo, but at substantially lower costs.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

For a desktop it's just a nice little convenience feature, really. Mostly I use Sleep rather than shutting it down, so even with a "slow" drive it wakes up in a matter of a few seconds. For laptops it can be more of an issue, though, since especially on systems that don't get great battery life, being able to leverage hibernation to maximize time between charges is useful, and then you're talking multiple boots a day, potentially.

But yeah, honestly there's not a huge practical difference between SATA and NVMe drives in every day use, but with the sales that get run on non-Samsung options, the price premium can be pretty small. Especially with Black Friday coming up shortly, there's no reason to pay full price for a drive unless you need it right this minute.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

That's why I go through and disable all the random add-on bits I don't actually need or use. There's no reason that a modern BIOS needs to take more than 10 seconds to do its thing and hand off to the OS.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

NVMe and a system's BIOS are completely independent. The BIOS is baked into the motherboard and is gonna take how long it's gonna take regardless of what storage drives you have attached (unless you happen to have a drive that takes a noticeable amount of time to respond to the BIOS's queries, which isn't the case for any SSD).

NVMe does provide somewhat faster OS load times (the portion of the boot process that's after the BIOS hands off control to the OS) than a SATA SSD, but we're talking like 5 seconds instead of 6.

An open source / *nix based laptop will probably complete the entire boot process faster than a comparable Mac or Windows laptop, but that's mostly due to Mac and Windows users having 248 programs set to run at start, rather than anything particularly inherent to the Power of Open Source (R).

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Dammit, I really wanted to go with a 960GB Corsair MP510 as my main drive in my new system, but Corsair seems to have a problem getting them out to anyone except reviewers, and I'm finding it really hard not to go with this instead: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07BN217QG

It'd be $152.62 after my credit and VA tax.

EDIT: gently caress it - Corsair lost out on a sale - the 1 and 2TB versions of the 970 don't suffer from whatever Samsung cheaped out on in the 250 and 500GB variants.

If you're in the market for a 1TB NVMe drive, you should look at the XPG SX8200: they've repeatedly dropped to around ~$175, making them easily the cheapest option at that size, while also turning in performance that is right up there with the rest, especially in actual real-world performance.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

codo27 posted:

Good tip on the XPG, ADATA is still on the avoid list in the OP of this thread.

Yeah, their earlier SSDs were hot trash, but their current crop are just as fine as anyone else's. Samsung still has a notable advantage in synthetic benchmarks, but it's more of a wash in actual real-world use, making the price-premium for Samsung pretty hard to justify.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

You can also get something like Paragon Disk Manager or Macrium Reflect that will happily do the migration for you, as well.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

oohhboy posted:

For *reason* neither worked for me. Tried several times nada. Remembered I have a Samsung, click click, done. I don't know what the problem was and I would have trouble shot it eventually(Each run takes a while) but Samsung was just that easy.

I don't know if this was your specific issue, but some of the drive migration tools do not deal well with shrinking drives. I had endless issues trying to move from a 1000GB Samsung 840 Evo to a 960GB SX8200--all the data would move, but for whatever reason it would refuse to boot from the new drive, regardless of what I did. Ended up just throwing in the towel and doing a fresh install of Win10.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Nah, that's about it. x2 instead of x4 is really odd, since there's no real reason to have it cut down like that. Mostly it's about the brand-name, though--you can grab mid-level named (ADATA, HP, etc) 1TB 2280 NVMe drives for <$200 regularly now, so a sub-$100 512GB tracks. If anything, I might actually recommend you look for one of the ADATA or HP ones, since at least those are more likely to actually be able to provide warranty support should you have issues.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Why the hell are we worrying about writes? Even TLC drives of moderate (256+GB) sizes have effective write tolerances so hilariously high compared to normal consumer workloads that they will far out last the rest of the computer you stuff it into. It's worth actually looking at what an average persons disk writes per day are. For most home users, it's actually quite small.

I mean, the Samsung 840, a first-gen TLC drive, went out to 800TBW on a 256GB drive before it died. The QVO drives are advertising about 1/2 the endurance of TLC drives, which even if true, means that they have plenty of write cycles available for Joe Consumer.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Klyith posted:


Intel is selling the 660p with a 5 year warranty and 200TB write endurance limit. And Intel is the most conservative SSD maker about write endurance.

That's kinda my point, though. 200TB is more than most users will accumulate over 5+ years. Samsung is specing theirs with similar limits. With that as the minimum, as long as people aren't buying 128GB models for their only drive, it'll probably last more than long enough for most people.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

WhyteRyce posted:

Just curious, but why? Read only mode isn't dead mode and couldn't you just read/clone off the data? I've never had to recover an EOL drive but I'd imagine that's preferable to a drive passing it's EOL and just letting you continue to write to the drive and gently caress things up

With a SATA drive, you can get your replacement drive, slap it in, install an OS, recover off your locked drive and off you go. With a NVMe drive, you most likely only have one m.2 slot, so you have to grab a SATA drive as a temp deal, or find a working system with an open m.2 slot. Obviously not impossible, but more annoying than before.

e; the Intel drive behavior is dumb for home users because it will probably be fine for far more than 200TB; most drives don't lock until they actually start recording and suffering errors, rather than meeting some super conservative semi-arbitrary write count. That behavior makes far more sense in an enterprise environment, though.

DrDork fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Nov 24, 2018

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Yeah, the Corsair Force lineup were...not great. You CAN use it, but it wouldn't really recommend it. You can get decent 128GB SSDs for <$50 now, which I'd recommend picking up to save yourself the future hassle of a randomly dead drive.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

I thought CrashPlan had exited the consumer backup business?

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

BIG HEADLINE posted:

I wonder, if as SSDs get cheaper and flood the marketplace, if large HDDs will get more expensive since they'll be getting bought less. Most consumer-bought and OEM-included HDDs are only ~1-2TB. The only people buying the 6TB+ drives are NAS users, anime hoarders, and people running servers - be they personal, professional, or corporate.

Until you can get a 8TB SSD for <$200, large format HDDs will have a place. I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but as you point out, the >6TB drives exist to serve a fairly specialized market, and SSDs still have a ways to go before they start eating HDD's lunch. In that sense, I doubt it'll negatively impact HDD prices to any meaningful extent.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

alex314 posted:

I think it's the controller that you want to keep cool for sustained performance. Flash supposedly likes running hot.

Yeah, hence the prevalence of heat-spreaders instead of heat-sinks on many NVMe SSDs.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

LRADIKAL posted:

My point is that most setups won't ever put the type of sustained load required to overheat the controller. Also, that Puget systems article showed that hitting them with a bit of air is even more effective. Glue a fan to your m.2 device if you are serious about real performance.

While you're right, and I don't think anyone here is actually advocating going out and spending $20 to buy an extra heatsink for their SSD, many of us have a handful of leftover stick-on heatsinks from other projects (in my case, putting an AIO on my 1080Ti), at which point it's effectively a zero-cost option for something that might help.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

SourKraut posted:

So if I have an Angelbird PX1 on my HP EX920, right now the heat pad is set so that spans the flash itself within the enclosure. From the last page's discussion and the Gamers Nexus video, it sounds like I may want to revert to a simple PCIe adapter like the Lycom DT-120 or trim back the heat pad on the PX1?

Virtually everything in this heatsink/spreader conversation can be effectively summed up with

It really doesn't matter to normal, sane users. I wouldn't bother spending the time to muck around with it if you've already got something on there.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

redeyes posted:

Dude, no one is burning their NAND out. 99% of the time failure is controller fuckery. You guys are just spinning your wheels.

It's rarely been about "burning out" the NAND. Earlier SSDs had lovely garbage collection, though, and needed a good chunk of free space to play with in order to be able to operate efficiently; filling them to 100% wouldn't kill the drive, just drive write performance into the ground.

That said, modern drives are a lot better, and most come with sufficiently built-in overprovisioning / reserved space that you don't need to muck with adding anything extra on top of it. Just leave the things alone. If you find yourself regularly at 90+% capacity, you can just get a bigger one for real cheap these days anyhow.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

isndl posted:

The price of SSDs is completely irrelevant here though, and if anything buying cheap small drives makes any issues that occur from maxing out capacity more readily apparent.
But it is because in the Bad Old Days it was super expensive to get a 240/480GB drive, so people were trying to make do with tiny rear end 64/128GB drives. Now they're all so cheap on the low end that there's no reason to ever bother getting a drive that small unless you are rather confident you'll never need the space.

isndl posted:

You're right, and I mentioned TRIM support as being important in an earlier post. And there are instances even in 2019 where you might not have TRIM, like a couple weeks ago when I was discussing with someone on a 98 box they were building for retro gaming. Overprovisioning shouldn't be necessary but it's good to know that it exists in case it is.
Sure, but how often do super-old systems without TRIM intersect with "also need to store enough data to the point where I actually need to worry about it"? Like, got it, old MAME boxes and such are cool, but you could throw a 128GB drive in that 98 box and have literally more space than the OS knows what to do with.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Thanks Ants posted:

Does the thread think PC builders are going to realise that SSDs are dirt cheap now? The Pixelbook is a $200 upgrade to go from 128 to 256GB. I assume Apple are taking the piss to an even greater extent.

I don't think Joe Average who buys his computer from Best Buy will figure it out, no. But I also don't expect him to be using an OS old enough to not support TRIM, so it's a wash in terms of overprovisioning. The only reason to be using a non-TRIM enabled OS is because you're either doing something fairly intentionally specific, or you're that poor that you're still running hardware from 2010. If the first case, you should already know what you're doing, and if the second, you probably don't have a SSD to worry about, anyhow.

In terms of just buying the base drive and upgrading yourself, more people are figuring that one out as time goes on, but it's still a small minority, sadly. Or maybe not so sadly, since they're effectively subsidizing everything for us.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

TITTIEKISSER69 posted:

Switch to Roman numbers. VLC drives, baby!

What is a media player doing in my flash?

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

priznat posted:

Interestingly some companies are making nvme storage controllers with video encode functions built into the controller because the controllers are full on SoCs with ARM cores and can have dedicated onchip offload hardware added without too much hassle. Itíll be interesting to see if they get any traction with hyperscale/enterprise but I doubt this is something that will ever make it to consumers.

Still it would make your plex server totally badass.

That is....fascinating. Especially since they support FFmpeg and related extensions, that could be a huge win for anyone doing a bunch of simultaneous streams. No pricing, but I suppose it's probably in the "if you have to ask..." range.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

apropos man posted:

Am I the only one that thinks: me, just let a hard drive do the job of fast, reliable storage well. Let a router do the job of routing packets quickly, reliably and well.

Etc, etc. I get that there would be a speed increase in letting the drive itself doing any transcoding but what about when other codecs are released further down the road and then the possibility of upgrading firmware on your drive becoming a regular NOTHER thing to update.

Anyone else prefer to let a device do what it's traditional role is. Am I being a Luddite?

To be fair, new mainline MPEG codecs don't really come out all that often, and a device like that which lets you slide in custom FFmpeg filters means you can do a lot of monkeying with it if you care to. If you're the type of person who could benefit from having a drive do x264 work, it means you're probably interested in massively wide scalability, at which point you're probably a Real Business and can have someone update them as needed as just another tick in their regular computer janitorial bucket. One server doing 80x 1080p streams sure beats needing multiple servers to get the CPU horsepower needed to do that.

The other fun bit (were it cheap enough) would be throwing that into an otherwise terribly underpowered NAS (I'm looking at you, low-end QNAP/Synologies) to let it actually do live transcoding that their lovely low-end Marvell chip would choke to death on.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

oohhboy posted:

I canít believe people today are still recommending putting anything other than mass media on an HDD like games are some sort of application exception.

In many cases they are, though? While there are certainly exceptions, and games which do benefit heavily from SSDs, in many cases you're only getting a bit faster initial boot times, and then no real benefit, because the games were written with a PS4/XBox in mind, and thus are structured around the assumption that they need to pre-fetch and cache heavily to deal with the lovely laptop HDDs in those systems.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I bought a 1TB SSD explicitly so I could sit all my games and everything else other than movies on it and reap whatever benefits--minimal as they may be at times--I could from it, but if it's a question of "I only have a 250GB drive, what do I jettison first?" the answer is Media > Games > everything else.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Yeah, PC-centric games like BFV are certainly gonna benefit, but many others are firmly designed for consoles, and aren't going to be such a night or day difference. SSDs are cheap, but if you can't/don't want to buy a newer or bigger one, after media, many games are the next step in the "this doesn't really benefit from sitting on the SSD" list.

This isn't me saying "lol never put games on a SSD." This is simply a triage strategy when you run out of space.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

oohhboy posted:

It should be SSD: Put programs here. You keep insisting games are somehow special, they are programs like everything else.

Consoles suck at loading because the CPU is choking hence the variation from meh to ok where in PC it's almost always WOW. There isn't a PC/console centric thing, both can use the same loading strategies and more than likely do outside of playing a game straight off an optical disk.

There's a pretty substantial difference in how much a SSD helps depending on whether your workload is "open a bunch of small, difficult to predict files" or "open a highly predictable stream of largely continuous data." Which is, you know, why stuffing media on HDDs is fine: it's super easy to predict what it'll need next.

I don't know what your argument here is, man: some games simply don't benefit much other than initial load times. For instance, unless you're struggle-bussing around with 4GB RAM, Civ VI starts a lot faster, but after that, drives are pretty much irrelevant because it no longer needs to load much in any sort of rapid fashion, so even a HDD is sufficient to provide any needed assets in time. Other games, like BF V or basically any MMO, have substantial framerate impacts or "pop-in" issues when running off a slow HDD that would be massively improved by a SSD. It's not a universal thing; if you've got the space for it you should absolutely put games on a SSD, but if you're out of space, there are titles that won't suffer much from being elsewhere.

Console CPUs aren't great, no, but they're also not the choke point: that would be the internal SATA 2 interface

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Atomizer posted:

Granted, I could certainly live with, say, a 1 TB SSD and shuffle things around, but keep in mind all of these things are luxuries anyway. We don't need games, or movies, or PCs, or SSDs, etc.

Speak for yourself, you dirty casual.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

unknown posted:

Just want a confirmation: SSDs start slowing down once you've written a shitload to them, right?

Older drives (and some cheaper ones currently--maybe) had issues when the drives were nearly full, because they lost the ability to be able to efficiently manage free space for writes. Total writes, on the other hand, shouldn't impact the drive until it actually starts killing off a substantial amount of the NAND, which shouldn't happen until well into the 100's of TB.

If it's not a huge hassle, it may still be worth letting the drive sit idle for an hour or two, or giving it a secure erase, but honestly you should be fine with that sort of usage until the day the drive finally dies.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

unknown posted:

Now that I think of it, I'm wondering if I can just mount a ramdisk for this app.

This is certainly a viable option. At ~300MB/minute, you wouldn't even need a particularly large RAMdisk to make it functional--a few GB would be enough so it only had to flush every few minutes.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

It sounds like the power supply is dead, so doing it pre-shutdown is out the window.

That said, I agree that if you can get the HDD out and can connect it to a normal computer, you should do so and pull an image off it ASAP. Last thing you want is to swap in a new power supply and find out that it's faulty and power-surge-kills the system when you turn it on the first time.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Naffer posted:

Update 1:
Disk successfully imaged.

Great to hear! My dad works with a ton of very expensive scientific instrumentation, and the number of them that fall into the category of "if the 10+ year old budget computer hardware in this thing died, it would be nearly impossible to revive this piece of $50k+ equipment" is astounding.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Thanks Ants posted:

I think the industry just solves the obsolescence problem by upgrading the bits before they are totally unsupportable, but that depends on the company that makes the machine continuing to exist. suggesting you upgrade your broken equipment to their newer model!

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Endurance was a lot more of a (theoretical) concern when a "reasonably priced" drive was 64-128GB, and you could therefore expect even Joe Normal to rack up a fairly large number of total drive writes throughout a few years. The long-term endurance of the cells was also not particularly well understood, so there was a lot of conservative guess work going on.

Now that you can get a 480/512GB drive for $100, though, it just isn't a worry anymore.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Palladium posted:

It didn't help that the earliest SSD controllers sucked at write amplification and garbage collection.

Garbage collection is what you did when the drive hard locked

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Binary Badger posted:

Specs say it's got 1600 TBW endurance. Pretty good for a $144 part! Samsung 970 Pro is only 1200 TBW..

Dunno how they got 1600 unless it has something to do with that fancy Phison firmware.

They probably got it by (rightly) assuming that no one who shops at MicroCenter will ever get to 1200 TBW, let alone 1600 TBW, so they can quote whatever they want and no one is likely to really call them on it. Even "just" 1200 TBW is a bit over a full 1TB written, every single day, for the entire 3 years the warranty lasts.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply