On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:50, Alessandro Baggi wrote:> Il 28/10/2016 16:28, Valeri Galtsev ha scritto: >> On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >> > Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: >> > > For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap. >> > > - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy) >> > > - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued) >> > > - There are more reliable drives available. >> > > >> > > I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of >> > > warranty. >> > > >> > > But, it's your drive, you make the decissions. >> > > >> > > - Yamaban. >> > >> > Thank you for your suggestion. >> > >> > What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC? >> > >> >> Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung). Reliable in >> my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One by Corsair >> failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about >> Corsair's SSD reliability, right? >> >> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things made >> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what >> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist.[snip]> > Sorry, but my 2 ssds corsair does not report error and works fine, with good > performances and without realloc. These disks are not failed. Yes, they are > failing but these are old driver and this is a desktop under raid. Consider > that these drive are 5 years old, for me this is not bad ssd brand, there are > best brand but corsair is not too bad. > > Now, Yamaban had suggested samsung because this is the best choice. This does > not exclude that there are other products (that can be less reliable and less > performant at lower cost) that for my case are good enough. Corsair neutron > has also 5 years of warrenty. > >> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things made >> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what >> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. >> > > If you are AMD user and your old AMD cpu died, You think that AMD must burn > due to a cpu failure? Great. > I'm with you in the case where you buy a disk and after 3/6 months it fails > (and this can happen also with very good brand) and this is not the case. > Backblaze must burn all brand because many disks fails.... > > Now about bad hardware manufacturing companies it's another problem. These > companies point to low cost consumer, due the fact that not anyone can get the > best hardware due to money. An example? Corsair LE 480 GB (100$) vs Samsung > SSD Serie 850 Pro 512GB (260$). 850 Pro is better, but more expensive, and > Corsair LE has 3 year of warrenty. Maybe an user can spend his money for a > vga or a better cpu. These bad companies permit some users to get hw for less > money without a great expecation for cheapest use case and their ability to > pay. > > Than if these cheap companies must not exist, the user must not use a new > technology (at lower cost)? The IT gap. > > Sorry, my (m.)2 cents.I'm VERY unsure how to answer on "The Question" of what SSD to buy. Religious wars have been fought over less. So, I'll give a intro on how I select a product for myself, and a view into how I personally priorise specification requirements. - Reliability. A "new" Technology (e.g. SLC -> MLC -> TLC) has to be on the market for at least a year as a 3-5 year warranty customer product, or at least 3 month on the market as a 5-10 year warranty datacenter one. - Thrustworthyness. How does the manufacturer handle a product gaffe? * Denial, delay, FUD -> drop that manufacturer, not worthy at all. * Acceptance of proof, offer of upwards replacement -> good, keep. - Openness on product specification. Full specs should be available on manufacturer web site at no cost. Proof of specs by testing of not-paid-for-it Third party? Good! In your case, be very thankfull that you got 5 years out of the disks, not may got that. After some datalosses due to sudden drive failure, I'm replaceing my drives after ca 3 years at similar runtime ("on"-time hours), and that is why I encurage you to replace your drive. Not to drive the economy. In the past "Corsair" was a power enthusiast product, and the time-cycle for those "enthusiast" was 2 to 3 years. No problem for most of the "Corsair" products. With view on SSD you have to seperate the classes / groups: 1. Datacenter: 100% on time, 100% backup, failure time is very expensive. 2. Professional: 30-100% on time, 80-100% backup, dataloss is expensive. 3. Longtime User: 15-100% on time, 15-100% backup, dataloss is hassle. 4. Power-Enthusiast: 100% Speed, Backup? -- Can you eat that? 5. "Walmart" and Co: some speed, some use time, dataloss is your problem. (Prices are for Europe, Germany, online buy) The "Samsung SSD 850 Pro" with 10year warranty, 2. group, 256GiB ~ 125? The "Samsung SSD 850 Evo" with 5 year warranty, 3. group, 250GiB ~ 90? The "Corsair Neutron XTi" with 5 year warranty, 3. group, 240GiB ~ 100? The "Corsair Force LE" with 3 year warranty, 5. group, 240GiB ~ 70?>From the user standpoint, the difference between the Samsung SSD 850 Evoand the Corsair Neutron XTi is not that big. Samsung: TLC 3D Flash, 75TBW @ 250 Gib size, 1,5 Mh MTBF, 512MB Cache Corsair: MLC 2D Flash, 160TBW @ 240 GiB size, ?? MTBF, no RAM-Cache Either Corsair does not want to a) test for MTBF, b) show the MTBF, or c) they are not really satisfied with it and thus hide it. *shrugs* http://www.anandtech.com/show/9799/best-ssds http://www.anandtech.com/show/10406/corsair-gives-phison-ps3110-s10-another-try-neutron-xti-ssds-launched http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssds,3891-2.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-neutron-xti-ssd-review,4599.html My personal conclusion: If you are comfortable with the "Corsair Neutron XTi", it will give you a near same performance for most use-cases as the "Samsung SSD 850 Evo" does. Years ago, when the "Samsung SSD 850 Evo" came out I was not convinced, and went with a "Crucial M4", based on a gut-feeling. I got lucky, it did hold for 3.5 years at 60% on, and got retired from daily use in working condition. I still use ist for a fast transfer between open PCs, 250 GiB USB sticks are still expensive. thats my 2ct, YMMV. - Yamaban.
Hi Yamaban, Great expalanation. I think you know how to buy an ssd. There is no doubt about samsung ssds quality vs other. My question about neutron was to get your opinion about this product. My doubt was about differences between slc, mlc and tlc. Mlc endurance respect tlc is better and I though that the mlc of neutron gives me more endurance respect to the tlc. From a technic point of view, why the samsung tlc is better of corsair mlc? And what about v nand? Have you used it? Thanks in advances Il 28/ott/2016 20:33, "Yamaban" <foerster at lisas.de> ha scritto:> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:50, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >> >> Il 28/10/2016 16:28, Valeri Galtsev ha scritto: >>> >>> On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>> > Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: >>> > > For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap. >>> > > - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy) >>> > > - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued) >>> > > - There are more reliable drives available. >>> > > > > I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of > > warranty. >>> > > > > But, it's your drive, you make the decissions. >>> > > > > - Yamaban. >>> > > Thank you for your suggestion. >>> > > What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC? >>> > >>> Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung).Reliable in>>> my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One byCorsair>>> failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about >>> Corsair's SSD reliability, right? >>> >>> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying thingsmade>>> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what >>> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. > > [snip] > >> >> Sorry, but my 2 ssds corsair does not report error and works fine, withgood performances and without realloc. These disks are not failed. Yes, they are failing but these are old driver and this is a desktop under raid. Consider that these drive are 5 years old, for me this is not bad ssd brand, there are best brand but corsair is not too bad.>> >> Now, Yamaban had suggested samsung because this is the best choice. Thisdoes not exclude that there are other products (that can be less reliable and less performant at lower cost) that for my case are good enough. Corsair neutron has also 5 years of warrenty.>> >>> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying thingsmade>>> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what >>> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. >>> >> >> If you are AMD user and your old AMD cpu died, You think that AMD mustburn due to a cpu failure? Great.>> I'm with you in the case where you buy a disk and after 3/6 months itfails (and this can happen also with very good brand) and this is not the case. Backblaze must burn all brand because many disks fails....>> >> Now about bad hardware manufacturing companies it's another problem.These companies point to low cost consumer, due the fact that not anyone can get the best hardware due to money. An example? Corsair LE 480 GB (100$) vs Samsung SSD Serie 850 Pro 512GB (260$). 850 Pro is better, but more expensive, and Corsair LE has 3 year of warrenty. Maybe an user can spend his money for a vga or a better cpu. These bad companies permit some users to get hw for less money without a great expecation for cheapest use case and their ability to pay.>> >> Than if these cheap companies must not exist, the user must not use anew technology (at lower cost)? The IT gap.>> >> Sorry, my (m.)2 cents. > > > I'm VERY unsure how to answer on "The Question" of what SSD to buy. > Religious wars have been fought over less. > > So, I'll give a intro on how I select a product for myself, and a view > into how I personally priorise specification requirements. > > - Reliability. A "new" Technology (e.g. SLC -> MLC -> TLC) has to be on > the market for at least a year as a 3-5 year warranty customer product, > or at least 3 month on the market as a 5-10 year warranty datacenterone.> > - Thrustworthyness. How does the manufacturer handle a product gaffe? > * Denial, delay, FUD -> drop that manufacturer, not worthy at all. > * Acceptance of proof, offer of upwards replacement -> good, keep. > > - Openness on product specification. > Full specs should be available on manufacturer web site at no cost. > Proof of specs by testing of not-paid-for-it Third party? Good! > > > In your case, be very thankfull that you got 5 years out of the disks, > not may got that. > > After some datalosses due to sudden drive failure, I'm replaceing my > drives after ca 3 years at similar runtime ("on"-time hours), and that > is why I encurage you to replace your drive. Not to drive the economy. > > In the past "Corsair" was a power enthusiast product, and the time-cycle > for those "enthusiast" was 2 to 3 years. No problem for most of the > "Corsair" products. > > With view on SSD you have to seperate the classes / groups: > 1. Datacenter: 100% on time, 100% backup, failure time is very expensive. > 2. Professional: 30-100% on time, 80-100% backup, dataloss is expensive. > 3. Longtime User: 15-100% on time, 15-100% backup, dataloss is hassle. > 4. Power-Enthusiast: 100% Speed, Backup? -- Can you eat that? > 5. "Walmart" and Co: some speed, some use time, dataloss is your problem. > > (Prices are for Europe, Germany, online buy) > > The "Samsung SSD 850 Pro" with 10year warranty, 2. group, 256GiB ~ 125? > The "Samsung SSD 850 Evo" with 5 year warranty, 3. group, 250GiB ~ 90? > The "Corsair Neutron XTi" with 5 year warranty, 3. group, 240GiB ~ 100? > The "Corsair Force LE" with 3 year warranty, 5. group, 240GiB ~ 70? > > From the user standpoint, the difference between the Samsung SSD 850 Evo > and the Corsair Neutron XTi is not that big. > Samsung: TLC 3D Flash, 75TBW @ 250 Gib size, 1,5 Mh MTBF, 512MB Cache > Corsair: MLC 2D Flash, 160TBW @ 240 GiB size, ?? MTBF, no RAM-Cache > > Either Corsair does not want to a) test for MTBF, b) show the MTBF, or > c) they are not really satisfied with it and thus hide it. *shrugs* > > > http://www.anandtech.com/show/9799/best-ssds >http://www.anandtech.com/show/10406/corsair-gives-phison-ps3110-s10-another-try-neutron-xti-ssds-launched> > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssds,3891-2.html >http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-neutron-xti-ssd-review,4599.html> > > My personal conclusion: > If you are comfortable with the "Corsair Neutron XTi", it will give you a > near same performance for most use-cases as the "Samsung SSD 850 Evo"does.> > Years ago, when the "Samsung SSD 850 Evo" came out I was not convinced, > and went with a "Crucial M4", based on a gut-feeling. I got lucky, > it did hold for 3.5 years at 60% on, and got retired from daily use in > working condition. I still use ist for a fast transfer between open > PCs, 250 GiB USB sticks are still expensive. > > thats my 2ct, YMMV. > > - Yamaban. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:03, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi at ...> wrote:> Hi Yamaban, > Great expalanation. I think you know how to buy an ssd. There is no doubt > about samsung ssds quality vs other. My question about neutron was to get > your opinion about this product. > > My doubt was about differences between slc, mlc and tlc. Mlc endurance > respect tlc is better and I though that the mlc of neutron gives me more > endurance respect to the tlc. From a technic point of view, why the samsung > tlc is better of corsair mlc? And what about v nand? Have you used it? > > Thanks in advances[snip] Hi Alessandro, For the clear picture, if I'm talking about "Corsair SSD" I mean the "Corsair Neutron XTi", because the "Corsair Force LE" is pretty much a no-go for anyone that has to rely on the data stored for more than 3 years at a work load of 9 hours per day / 5 days a week / 50 weeks a year (ca 2250 hours per year) at ca 8TBW written per year. I'm not take these numbers out of the air, but that is what an normal office PC is based on. Those 8TBW per year come from observation on Microsoft Windows 10 Profesional and latest Microsoft Office Professional and include nearly half system / half user caused writes on average per year. Those Microsoft updates and shadow-copies are much more heavy than most people thought. Thankfully most Linux-Distros cause a much lighter system part of the Write load of the drive than Windows, but COW based file-systems like btrfs are on the uptake and that will rise the write load. Now, on Flash Technology. Hmm. I've started on that with UV-Erasible E-Prom in 1987 (100 Erase cycles), went on with EE-Prom (over 10.000 Erase cycles!, but only 10 years data retention), and near 1990 Flash-EEProm (Block-wise erasible) became available at prices a student could pay from his/her spending money The writes on early Flash where painfully slow, about 1% of the read-speed, at the beginning. the more wide-spread usage (in digital still-cameras and mobile phones) brought a (slow) change to more write speed, but at what cost? Data Retention Time! [... long rant removed, its late in the (not so pleasan)t day ...] On the difference of nand and v-nand: "normal" nand uses "floating gate" while v-nand aka "vertical-nand" uses a "charge trap" (capacitor) to store the bit information. The Wikipedia article on Flash gives some more indepth info: Flash : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory MLC/TLC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell Conclusion: a well produced (first class / datacenter class) TLC Nand is very similar to a middle class MLC V-Nand, both in terms of access speed and write endurance. But the MLC will be at least 10% bigger on the die. ATM, it is a cost balance between a lower yield on high quality smaller TLC, and higher yield middle class bigger MLC So, for the End user wheter "MLC V-nand" or "TLC nand" is much less interresting than the question of "how well does the manufacturer understand the used flash and how well was the controller adapted to it" Corsair as a SSD manufacturer buys both, the flash, and the controller, from other manufacturers, while Samsung does it completely in-house. Thus it is not surprising that Corsair does still use the MLC technology while Samsung has already made the step to TLC. I see that as a unspoken statement from Corsair that "we do not have to knowlegde avaliable (atm.) to make a TLC drive of the same quality than a MLC one." That is not negative in any way. A manufacturer that knows his limits is much better than one that jumps on a new hype with to little knowlegde. Samsung is very careful about its promises on write endurance. TLC is still a young technology and that shows in lower TBW, so the warranty says for the "Evo" says: "5 years or TBW per spec, what ever is reached first". That's honesty in my eyes. If the question would be the "Samsung 850 EVO" with MLC Flash from last year, or the new "Corsair Neutron XTi" there would be little to no difference in TBW, but the price of the Samsung was ca 10% higher. IIRC, the TBW spec from you old 120GiB Corsair was below 10TBW, and you are nearly on the 7TBW mark after 5 years, even the 75TBW of the 250GiB Samsung should hold out for the next 5 years. My baseline is: wether the "Samsung 850 EVO" with TLC or the "Corsair Neutron XTi" with MLC, is more a matter of gut-feeling than anything else. As you will not buy the SSD in packs of 20 or more you never get into any discount scheme, so that offer from Samsung will also not matter in any way, and at the point where you buy it, the price per GiB will be nearly equal. Both offer 5 years warranty. Have a nice weekend - Yamaban