SSD endurance test

[Delirium]

Skuzzy, any plans to an option in AH to set film and write locations to a different drive than the installation drive/location?

[Skuzzy]

All modern SSDs have had for a long time a wear leveling system where blocks are never reused twice in a row. If you append or refresh a file it gets written to an another set of memory cells. This way the ssds prevent failing from common tasks.

The issue with with the "wear leveling systems" is once they start having errors, the ramp for potential hard failure is a very fast exponential curve, which almost goes vertical in a very short period of time.  It is not a perfect system and it can serve to extend the life of the SSD.  It usually does.

It does not prevent the original reasons for failure of the parts.  They do have a limited life.  It is the nature of the design.  It is a very high number of writes, but the limit is real.

I am not opposed to SSD's.  If I was going to use one, I would do everything I could to minimize writes to them.  I would never use an anti-virus program, in conjunction with one either.  One should expect a very long life, from one, when used in that manner.  Yes, it should exceed the life of a mechanical HD.

For me, I see no real reason to use one.  The speed at which an application loads is a pretty insignificant amount of time compared to using said applications.  Then again, I need a huge amount of storage space, which also makes SSD's useless for me.

Skuzzy, any plans to an option in AH to set film and write locations to a different drive than the installation drive/location?

Not at this time.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The issue with with the "wear leveling systems" is once they start having errors, the ramp for potential hard failure is a very fast exponential curve, which almost goes vertical in a very short period of time.  It is not a perfect system and it can serve to extend the life of the SSD.  It usually does.

It does not prevent the original reasons for failure of the parts.  They do have a limited life.  It is the nature of the design.  It is a very high number of writes, but the limit is real.

I am not opposed to SSD's.  If I was going to use one, I would do everything I could to minimize writes to them.  I would never use an anti-virus program, in conjunction with one either.  One should expect a very long life, from one, when used in that manner.  Yes, it should exceed the life of a mechanical HD.

For me, I see no real reason to use one.  The speed at which an application loads is a pretty insignificant amount of time compared to using said applications.  Then again, I need a huge amount of storage space, which also makes SSD's useless for me.

You are obviously much more patient man than me. A snappy load time makes me happy every time, I never get tired of it.

[2bighorn]

They have been here for 50 or so years. Implemented in super computers in the early 80's. That's ancient history in computer terms. Flash based SSDs came around 1995, again ancient history as far as computers go.

Specialty products, have almost nothing in common with current generation of enterprise/consumer SSDs.

Or to rephrase that: Fear of unknown makes people cry about things which are not a problem in reality. Nobody is spewing doomsday scenarios about hdd:s.

It's not fear of unknown, it's ABC of technology management.

Case in point (real world example, my LAN server)


Volume C is RAID1 with 2+1HS 1TB SAS HDDs
Volume E: is single 3TB SATA HD
Volume F: is RAID1 with 2 3TB SATA HDDs
Volume G: is RAID10 with 8+1HS 3TB SATA HDDs
Volume H: is RAID10 with 8+1HS 3TB SATA HDDs
They all hang behind cache pool with 2x180GB + 1x240GB SSDs

Lets say you replace all HDs with SSDs (forget for a moment all reliability concerns)
a) What are the performance gains if any?
b) Can you utilize performance gain without stepping up to, lets say 10GbE?
c) Cost? (probably high enough for me to sell the house and move into trailer in order to afford it)

Similarly, my main PC is used more or less as workstation, with RAID1 2x300GB SAS HDs and small SLC 20GB caching SSD. Since most of data get stored on the server, what's the point of increasing storage performance? I'm limited by network throughput.

It's really pointless to scream how good SSDs are. They have their place, but most often than not, performance gain is just not cost effective. Now, if you factor in all the longevity and reliability issues, they're just meh...

Anyway, there's a bright side too, you do get upgraded to SSD evangelist 









 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Specialty products, have almost nothing in common with current generation of enterprise/consumer SSDs.

It's not fear of unknown, it's ABC of technology management.

Case in point (real world example, my LAN server)
(Image removed from quote.)

Volume C is RAID1 with 2+1HS 1TB SAS HDDs
Volume E: is single 3TB SATA HD
Volume F: is RAID1 with 2 3TB SATA HDDs
Volume G: is RAID10 with 8+1HS 3TB SATA HDDs
Volume H: is RAID10 with 8+1HS 3TB SATA HDDs
They all hang behind cache pool with 2x180GB + 1x240GB SSDs

Lets say you replace all HDs with SSDs (forget for a moment all reliability concerns)
a) What are the performance gains if any?
b) Can you utilize performance gain without stepping up to, lets say 10GbE?
c) Cost? (probably high enough for me to sell the house and move into trailer in order to afford it)

Similarly, my main PC is used more or less as workstation, with RAID1 2x300GB SAS HDs and small SLC 20GB caching SSD. Since most of data get stored on the server, what's the point of increasing storage performance? I'm limited by network throughput.

It's really pointless to scream how good SSDs are. They have their place, but most often than not, performance gain is just not cost effective. Now, if you factor in all the longevity and reliability issues, they're just meh...

Anyway, there's a bright side too, you do get upgraded to SSD evangelist  

Nice troll. Yeah SSD:s have a "huge benefit" when they're used in a server behind a slow ethernet connection. Too bad we're talking about gaming pcs here and not your LAN server. Take any regular computer user from the street who uses a regular hdd for i/o and his transfer speeds will speed up 20 to hundred times simply by installing a 200 dollar SSD. About the price of your raid controller without the SAS drives lol. That makes night and day difference in performance.

It also seems weird that you saw the need for caching SSDs since you seem to think hdds are just fit for the bill.. ROFL!

[2bighorn]

Nice troll. Yeah SSD:s have a "huge benefit" when they're used in a server behind a slow ethernet connection.

Intel I350T4 ie 4 Gbit/s trunk. That's pretty decent in my book. Most of us mortals can't afford 10Gbe

Too bad we're talking about gaming pcs here and not your LAN server.

Too bad majority of people use PCs for more than gaming.

Take any regular computer user from the street who uses a regular hdd for i/o and his transfer speeds will speed up 20 to hundred times simply by installing a 200 dollar SSD. About the price of your raid controller without the SAS drives lol. That makes night and day difference in performance.

Nobody disputes performance gains.

It also seems weird that you saw the need for caching SSDs since you seem to think hdds are just fit for the bill.. ROFL!

Why is that weird? I've never said I wouldn't use them, I've just said I would not use them as the only storage option. SSDs have way to go before any person who loves their data use them exclusively.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Intel I350T4 ie 4 Gbit/s trunk. That's pretty decent in my book. Most of us mortals can't afford 10Gbe

Sorry to drop you down to earth but the majority of people still use 100mbit or 1Gbit lans if they even happen to have one. Most people own just a single computer and the ones that own more, typically network through wifi.

Too bad majority of people use PCs for more than gaming.

Yes too bad. How does it affect this discussion though? We're not talking about you here but the endurance of the SSDs!

Nobody disputes performance gains.

So what was the problem again? Nothing stops people from buying a relatively cheap 512Gb SSD and storing anything performance demanding (such as games and the OS) on it. Nothing stops people from having multiple 2Tb drives for video etc. storage on the side.

Why is that weird? I've never said I wouldn't use them, I've just said I would not use them as the only storage option. SSDs have way to go before any person who loves their data use them exclusively.

Who said they would be the only storage option? On a gaming machine though the SSD serves just fine as the only storage.

[Skuzzy]

You are obviously much more patient man than me. A snappy load time makes me happy every time, I never get tired of it.

In my system I do not see any cost/benefit to it.  Saving a second here and a second there, only when the executable is run the first time, does not seem to be the best investment I can make in my computer system.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

In my system I do not see any cost/benefit to it.  Saving a second here and a second there, only when the executable is run the first time, does not seem to be the best investment I can make in my computer system.

I guess it depends on what you do. If you frequently need to open files or different applications the load times are annoying. The quicker the system responds to the commands the better. That's why I love my puppy linux, can't beat running things straight from ram.

[2bighorn]

Sorry to drop you down to earth but the majority of people still use 100mbit or 1Gbit lans if they even happen to have one. Most people own just a single computer and the ones that own more, typically network through wifi.

Yes too bad. How does it affect this discussion though? We're not talking about you here but the endurance of the SSDs!
So what was the problem again? Nothing stops people from buying a relatively cheap 512Gb SSD and storing anything performance demanding (such as games and the OS) on it. Nothing stops people from having multiple 2Tb drives for video etc. storage on the side.

Who said they would be the only storage option? On a gaming machine though the SSD serves just fine as the only storage.

Again, fact is that SSDs are (at minimum) 15 times more expensive than HDs ($/GB). This price difference is true whether you build a server with 1PB of storage or a PC with 1TB.
For that reason alone it would make more sense, even for a dedicated gaming machine, to have a hybrid storage system.

And then, there's that pesky reliability problem. Every time they think it's gone, they shrink cells and so we came from 100k cycles for SLC down to 1k cycles for TLC, which, according to you somehow increases endurance. Right...

[Bizman]

In my system I do not see any cost/benefit to it.  Saving a second here and a second there, only when the executable is run the first time, does not seem to be the best investment I can make in my computer system.

I have a feeling we are somewhat old fashioned, you and me... In my world, the longer something takes, the better I get paid. I charge per hour, even per minute if needed. All the time in the world is there for me to consume until the Pearly Gates call, and after that I just won't care any more. Of course there's deadlines every now and then, but they can't be helped whether my personal computer does things faster or not. On the other hand, I don't suffer from gastric ulcer or excessive stress, which seem to be the symptoms of a successful businessman...

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Again, fact is that SSDs are (at minimum) 15 times more expensive than HDs ($/GB). This price difference is true whether you build a server with 1PB of storage or a PC with 1TB.
For that reason alone it would make more sense, even for a dedicated gaming machine, to have a hybrid storage system.

And then, there's that pesky reliability problem. Every time they think it's gone, they shrink cells and so we came from 100k cycles for SLC down to 1k cycles for TLC, which, according to you somehow increases endurance. Right...

That 'pesky endurance problem' doesn't exist in real world as your favourite hdd:s have a shorter lifespan than modern SSD:s. But enough of that, time to leave this discussion.

[Skuzzy]

I guess it depends on what you do. If you frequently need to open files or different applications the load times are annoying. The quicker the system responds to the commands the better. That's why I love my puppy linux, can't beat running things straight from ram.

It depends on the application.  I deal with 40 to 60GB files all the time.  The applications are written for to deal with those files.  When I want to edit one, it is literally milliseconds in jumping to any point in the file.

It takes less than 2 seconds to open my editor(s), the first time.  The second time takes less than 1 second to open.  To open a large project (8+ 50GB video tracks, + 22+ sound tracks) takes about 15 seconds, the first time.  If I close and reopen that project, it takes seconds for it to open.  I can work for hours with instant responses.

It takes less than 9 seconds for my computer to boot to the desktop and be ready to use.

There are some very poorly written applications (games in particular) which have very poor loaders and probably could use the SSD.  I avoid applications like those simply for the fact, if they cannot get their loaders right, why would I trust them to get anything else right?  Personally, I detest masking problems, with poor code, by throwing more hardware at it.