Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fairwell HD, I knew thee well!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GreyGeek
    replied
    Originally posted by dibl View Post
    Newegg has Samsung 840 PRO 256 GB for $300 and free shipping.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIAADF3ZD3050
    I saw that. Checked it out after I saw Amazon's third party offerings which ranged from $225 to $400 for the 256GB drive. Amazon third party vendors tend to be Chinese firms hiding behind American sounding names. I also noticed that when one compares Amazon's "Prime" price it usually equals 3rd party vendor price PLUS shipping, so "Prime" isn't always prime. That's why I canceled my prime membership. However, until I get my wife's medical bills paid down I won't be buying equipment that expensive, especially when it can suffer from sudden death syndrome a day after the warranty expires.

    Leave a comment:


  • dibl
    replied
    Newegg has Samsung 840 PRO 256 GB for $300 and free shipping.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIAADF3ZD3050

    Leave a comment:


  • GreyGeek
    replied
    Originally posted by dibl View Post
    Right you are! My OCZ PCI-e SSD is not recognized by a number of motherboards, including both of the Asus boards that I've mounted it on, as a bootable device. Therefore it has always been necessary to have another bootable drive of some kind carry the /boot partition. My first bright idea was a small, cheap Kingston SATA interface SSD -- if I remember it was only 16 GB. What a disappointing day it was when that one died and I couldn't boot my system. I don't think it lasted more than two years, and I even used ext2 for the filesystem to preclude journalling on it. Since then, /boot has been on a partition on a WD hdd, which I expect will live longer than I do.
    The most astounding thing to me is that Amazon is offering USED SSDs for sale! Since "Pre-fail" and "Old Age" indicators for smartd mean absolutely nothing, the only thing one could count on is the sector reallocation error count. However, I doubt seriously that the vendor would RMA the used drive if it has a couple thousand reallocation errors because of "as is" on used equipment.

    IF I were independently wealthy, or a recent Powerball winner, I'd buy a brand new monster gaming machine with 1TB SSDs and a couple 1TB Samsung 840 Pro SSD's and use Btrfs to send & receive incremental updates to the second SSD. Dream, dream, dream.
    By the time I get my wife's two medical catastrophes paid off my grandkids will be out of high school and I'll be too senile to remember how to play Minecraft and my 5 year old laptop will probably outlive me too!

    Leave a comment:


  • dibl
    replied
    Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post
    ... and I don't trust the cheap ones which, according to a user survey I read, have failure rates above 15% within the first six months. Also, they seem to fail without warning, making daily backups to external drives mandatory.
    Right you are! My OCZ PCI-e SSD is not recognized by a number of motherboards, including both of the Asus boards that I've mounted it on, as a bootable device. Therefore it has always been necessary to have another bootable drive of some kind carry the /boot partition. My first bright idea was a small, cheap Kingston SATA interface SSD -- if I remember it was only 16 GB. What a disappointing day it was when that one died and I couldn't boot my system. I don't think it lasted more than two years, and I even used ext2 for the filesystem to preclude journalling on it. Since then, /boot has been on a partition on a WD hdd, which I expect will live longer than I do.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreyGeek
    replied
    The final page of a TechReport about SSD's is here. You were right, oshunluvr, the Samsung 840 pro is the best.

    Edit:However, it is outside my budget range and I don't trust the cheap ones which, according to a user survey I read, have failure rates above 15% within the first six months. Also, they seem to fail without warning, making daily backups to external drives mandatory.
    Last edited by GreyGeek; Aug 11, 2016, 09:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dibl
    replied
    Originally posted by oshunluvr View Post
    If I recall, those PCI/SSD boards were rather "spendy" back then. Sounds like you've gotten your money's worth tho...
    Yes, I did part with some serious money. But, look at the reliability and durability that I bought! And I now remember why all the power interruptions -- the first motherboard started puking graphical garbage and then rebooting. I thought the problem was the graphics card, so I bought a new one ( that was not cheap, either). And it did not touch the problem, which is when I knew it was the motherboard that was the problem. So out went more $$$ in 2014 for a new motherboard. But it's been fine ever since. Here are details:

    Code:
    em:    Host: Hibiscus Kernel: 4.7.0-towo.1-siduction-amd64 x86_64 (64 bit gcc: 6.1.1)
               Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.6.5 Distro: siduction 14.1.0 Indian Summer - kde - (201411230337)
    Machine:   System: ASUS product: All Series
               Mobo: ASUSTeK model: Z87-WS v: Rev 1.xx Bios: American Megatrends v: 2004 date: 06/05/2014
    CPU:       Quad core Intel Core i7-4770 (-HT-MCP-) cache: 8192 KB
               flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3 vmx) bmips: 28023
               clock speeds: max: 3900 MHz 1: 3400 MHz 2: 3399 MHz 3: 3399 MHz 4: 3400 MHz 5: 3400 MHz 6: 3404 MHz
               7: 3405 MHz 8: 3404 MHz
    Graphics:  Card: NVIDIA GM107 [GeForce GTX 750 Ti] bus-ID: 05:00.0
               Display Server: X.Org 1.18.4 driver: nvidia Resolution: 1920x1200@59.88hz, 1920x1080@59.94hz
               GLX Renderer: GeForce GTX 750 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 GLX Version: 4.5.0 NVIDIA 361.45.18 Direct Rendering: Yes
    Network:   Card-1: Intel I210 Gigabit Network Connection driver: igb v: 5.3.0-k port: d000 bus-ID: 07:00.0
               IF: eth0 state: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full mac: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               Card-2: Intel I210 Gigabit Network Connection driver: igb v: 5.3.0-k port: a000 bus-ID: 0a:00.0
               IF: eth1 state: down mac: e0:3f:49:e6:85:c4
    Drives:    HDD Total Size: 3120.7GB (26.8% used) ID-1: model: OCZ
               ID-2: model: OCZ ID-3: model: WDC_WD1001FALS
               ID-4: model: WDC_WD1000DHTZ ID-5: model: WDC_WD1000DHTZ
    Info:      Processes: 273 Uptime: 1:38 Memory: 2052.3/7927.3MB Init: systemd runlevel: 5 Gcc sys: 6.1.1
               Client: Shell (bash 4.3.461) inxi: 2.3.0
    Last edited by dibl; Aug 11, 2016, 03:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard10000
    replied
    Originally posted by oshunluvr View Post
    So, I will allow you the final word as we close this discussion <bows gracefully>
    I think we're about 90% on the same page. Close enough for me

    Leave a comment:


  • oshunluvr
    replied
    Originally posted by dibl View Post
    In late 2010 I built a new desktop system and I wanted an optimum combination of performance and reliability...
    Unfortunately for most us, we don't have Don's big "computer-bucks account" to spend on our upgrades! Teasing of course...

    If I recall, those PCI/SSD boards were rather "spendy" back then. Sounds like you've gotten your money's worth tho...

    Leave a comment:


  • oshunluvr
    replied
    Originally posted by wizard10000 View Post
    Sorry for not making my point clear. Let me try again

    My point is that if your SATA port will only do 300MB/s on paper there's no need to spend *extra* money on a drive that'll run twice that fast. So with a SATA 2 controller if you're choosing between two drives, one that'll do 400MB/sec and one that will do 600MB/sec either will do because both of them will talk faster than your interface and there's no reason to make the extra speed a factor in your purchase decision.
    I think I understood your point, I just disagree with it - or at least partially. My point was there may be a reason to spend extra dollars on the latest technology SSD because there are other factors (as I listed before) than just interface or drive speed. Assuming all things equal (firmware, memchips, warranty, reliability, etc.) except IOPS - and assuming you didn't care about future use of the SSD in another system that might have a higher interface speed - of course, take the most cost effective option.

    Additionally, my quick Amazon search shows you may benefit from these other factors without actually spending more, thus negating the dollar argument. Two years ago, I might have agreed with you, but the prices of SSDs have fallen faster than (to quote a Kansas old timer) "a stream-lined sewer lid."

    I agree with the gist of your comment, but IMO the reality would likely be one would might up with the faster drive anyway because of the other factors. I guess my comparative retort to your point would be: There's no need to buy a slower SSD just because your interface won't do SATA III speeds.

    I think we'd both agree that dollar-to-performance is what we're talking about. I just think the "performance" is not interface speed alone, but also longevity, future compatibility, and modern firmware - all of which are often enhanced with a faster speed rated over a slower model - regardless of interface.

    I also now think I've flogged this dead horse enough. It appears we are not far apart in opinions, just viewing it from a different angle. So, I will allow you the final word as we close this discussion <bows gracefully>

    Leave a comment:


  • dibl
    replied
    My anecdotal contribution to the discussion:

    In late 2010 I built a new desktop system and I wanted an optimum combination of performance and reliability. I consulted with oshunluvr who suggested a PCI bus SSD would be really fast and not use SATA connections, giving me good expansion capability for large hdds. In the succeeding 6 years I have replaced the motherboard, the graphics card, and the pair of 1T hdds that I use as a BTRFS data storage system, but I have kept the rest of the system including the SSD. Here it is at almost 6 years of running pretty much continuously. I did not remember that there have been 187 power failures -- not sure what that's all about, but I really like the uncorrected error count, out of almost 10 million. It's an ext4 filesystem running a Linux OS.

    Code:
    smartctl 6.4 2014-10-07 r4002 [x86_64-linux-3.16.0-4-amd64] (local build)
    Copyright (C) 2002-14, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
    
    === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
    Model Family:     SandForce Driven SSDs
    Device Model:     OCZ-REVODRIVE
    Serial Number:    OCZ-0C2Z27B5QEE4L0H2
    LU WWN Device Id: 5 e83a97 f60df6247
    Firmware Version: 1.37
    User Capacity:    60,022,480,896 bytes [60.0 GB]
    Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
    Rotation Rate:    Solid State Device
    Device is:        In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
    ATA Version is:   ATA8-ACS T13/1699-D revision 6
    SATA Version is:  SATA 2.6, 3.0 Gb/s
    Local Time is:    Wed Aug 10 15:18:25 2016 EDT
    SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
    SMART support is: Enabled
    
    === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
    SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
    
    General SMART Values:
    Offline data collection status:  (0x00) Offline data collection activity
                                            was never started.
                                            Auto Offline Data Collection: Disabled.
    Self-test execution status:      (   0) The previous self-test routine completed
                                            without error or no self-test has ever 
                                            been run.
    Total time to complete Offline 
    data collection:                (    0) seconds.
    Offline data collection
    capabilities:                    (0x7f) SMART execute Offline immediate.
                                            Auto Offline data collection on/off support.
                                            Abort Offline collection upon new
                                            command.
                                            Offline surface scan supported.
                                            Self-test supported.
                                            Conveyance Self-test supported.
                                            Selective Self-test supported.
    SMART capabilities:            (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering
                                            power-saving mode.
                                            Supports SMART auto save timer.
    Error logging capability:        (0x01) Error logging supported.
                                            General Purpose Logging supported.
    Short self-test routine 
    recommended polling time:        (   1) minutes.
    Extended self-test routine
    recommended polling time:        (   5) minutes.
    Conveyance self-test routine
    recommended polling time:        (   2) minutes.
    SCT capabilities:              (0x003d) SCT Status supported.
                                            SCT Error Recovery Control supported.
                                            SCT Feature Control supported.
                                            SCT Data Table supported.
    
    SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
    Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
    ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
      1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x000f   105   099   050    Pre-fail  Always       -       0/9806339
      5 Retired_Block_Count     0x0033   100   100   003    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
      9 Power_On_Hours_and_Msec 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       48801h+39m+19.650s
     12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       651
    171 Program_Fail_Count      0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
    172 Erase_Fail_Count        0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
    174 Unexpect_Power_Loss_Ct  0x0030   000   000   000    Old_age   Offline      -       187
    177 Wear_Range_Delta        0x0000   000   000   000    Old_age   Offline      -       0
    181 Program_Fail_Count      0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
    182 Erase_Fail_Count        0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
    187 Reported_Uncorrect      0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
    194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   030   030   000    Old_age   Always       -       30 (Min/Max 30/30)
    195 ECC_Uncorr_Error_Count  0x001c   105   099   000    Old_age   Offline      -       0/9806339
    196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0033   100   100   003    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
    231 SSD_Life_Left           0x0013   100   100   010    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
    233 SandForce_Internal      0x0000   000   000   000    Old_age   Offline      -       2048
    234 SandForce_Internal      0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       3008
    241 Lifetime_Writes_GiB     0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       3008
    242 Lifetime_Reads_GiB      0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       10048

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard10000
    replied
    Originally posted by oshunluvr View Post
    I disagree as a statement of value. Good luck finding an SATA II SSD that costs much less than a comparable SATA III model. Since all SATA III drives are backward compatible, you're actually recommending buying an older (in terms of production date) than what's current. Using Samsung and Amazon again: The only available SATA I drive is 120GB at $60, their SATA II drives have been discontinued and are only available used, but the 128GB 850 Pro w/10 year warranty is the most expensive option at $90. You can get the EVO model (5 year warranty) for $65.

    IMO, the added value of better firmware and more current mem chips would outweigh the additional $5-30 or so you'll spend. Furthermore, in this case - the SSD has a better than average chance of outlasting a 2010 model laptop.
    Sorry for not making my point clear. Let me try again

    My point is that if your SATA port will only do 300MB/s on paper there's no need to spend *extra* money on a drive that'll run twice that fast. So with a SATA 2 controller if you're choosing between two drives, one that'll do 400MB/sec and one that will do 600MB/sec either will do because both of them will talk faster than your interface and there's no reason to make the extra speed a factor in your purchase decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • oshunluvr
    replied
    Originally posted by wizard10000 View Post
    Highly recommended. The difference in performance is phenomenal.

    If I may offer one more piece of advice; I've seen significant improvement in a SATA 1 netbook with an SSD; since on a home computer sustained throughput generally isn't a requirement there's no sense in going for a SATA interface your machine doesn't support. F'rinstance, if your machine can only do 1.5 or 3.0 Gbps SATA there's no advantage to spending extra money an SSD that will talk faster than your interface will
    I disagree as a statement of value. Good luck finding an SATA II SSD that costs much less than a comparable SATA III model. Since all SATA III drives are backward compatible, you're actually recommending buying an older (in terms of production date) than what's current. Using Samsung and Amazon again: The only available SATA I drive is 120GB at $60, their SATA II drives have been discontinued and are only available used, but the 128GB 850 Pro w/10 year warranty is the most expensive option at $90. You can get the EVO model (5 year warranty) for $65.

    IMO, the added value of better firmware and more current mem chips would outweigh the additional $5-30 or so you'll spend. Furthermore, in this case - the SSD has a better than average chance of outlasting a 2010 model laptop.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard10000
    replied
    Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post
    Mmmmm ... I've already ordered an identical replace drive, which arrives tomorrow. Also, even though my HD is 640GB the Btrfs scrub checked only 58GB, which is what "show" also shows. I may get a 128GB SSD just to experiment with.
    Highly recommended. The difference in performance is phenomenal.

    If I may offer one more piece of advice; I've seen significant improvement in a SATA 1 netbook with an SSD; since on a home computer sustained throughput generally isn't a requirement there's no sense in going for a SATA interface your machine doesn't support. F'rinstance, if your machine can only do 1.5 or 3.0 Gbps SATA there's no advantage to spending extra money an SSD that will talk faster than your interface will
    Last edited by wizard10000; Aug 10, 2016, 09:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreyGeek
    replied
    Mmmmm ... I've already ordered an identical replace drive, which arrives tomorrow. Also, even though my HD is 640GB the Btrfs scrub checked only 58GB, which is what "show" also shows. I may get a 128GB SSD just to experiment with.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard10000
    replied
    Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post
    So, do you have to reparation them to eliminate the Windows exe's and security junk so you can use Btrfs?
    Nope.

    Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post
    What about "trim" to maintain speed. Available under Linux?
    Yes, and there are a couple ways of doing it. I personally run 'fstrim -a' as a weekly cron job instead of adding discard to fstab. The difference in performance is probably academic, but I don't generate enough garbage to run garbage collection more than once a week.

    Personal preference and completely unnecessary unless you're just into saving all the disk writes you can, but since mine are single-user machines I also set 'noatime' in fstab.

    Leave a comment:

Users Viewing This Topic

Collapse

There are 0 users viewing this topic.

Working...
X