Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#111

Post by gambiting »

maccard wrote: post #77
gambiting wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest series has an issue with stuttering when watching live TV, hundreds of pages of complaints on their own and other forums, and Samsung has officially replied that yes, the issue exists, but they won't fix it. I know at least 3 people who have bought Samsung TVs in the last year and they all returned them due to this very issue.

Sony and LG flagship devices also have the same problems. I've a bravia and our office has an LG c9 tv - the softwdre on them both is unusable. The problem is there's no other real choice in the high quality TV market, and the experiences are still better than before; having one remote for Netflix, prime, live tv and a sound system via ARC is such a huge improvement too.

Do they? I've had an LG CX for almost a year now and haven't had a single issue with it, the interface and all the apps are certainly super fast and I wouldn't bother switching to a dedicated device, everything built into the TV works fine. And it definitely doesn't stutter like the Samsungs do. Maybe the C9 had some faults in the firmware, but it's 2 generations behind now. What do you mean by "software is unusable"? In what sense?

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#112

Post by PixelOfDeath »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #108
PixelOfDeath wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current consumer QLC devices still do very well in read speed and especially latency. The latency often is better then on older enterprise SSDs. Only device managed SMR is terrible. Host managed SMR is fine for data-hording if the savings in size/price are forwarded.

> Host managed SMR is fine for data-hording if the savings in size/price are forwarded. I'll believe it when I see it, though. Unless you're trying to cram more data into a 2.5 inch drive, there seems to be zero upside to getting an SMR drive. They're priced about the same per byte despite "25% density improvements", and the high capacity 3.5 inch models on the market don't use it.

> and the high capacity 3.5 inch models on the market don't use it.

Sure they do. WD sold device managed SMR 3.5 disks without telling anyone. And then people noticed because of absolutely terrible raid re-silvering performance.

The consumer market is absolute trash for SMR devices, all the disadvantages with no benefit. But you can be sure that the enterprise sector gets host managed SMR drives at a better size/price ratio.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#113

Post by PixelOfDeath »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #110
PixelOfDeath wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QLC also has shitty slow write speed. (Slower then linear writes on spinning rust!) So consumer SSDs now depend on a limited dynamic part of flash being used as SLC to cache writes. Just that this dynamic part mostly gets smaller the fuller the device is. And as soon as you do anything with large writes you will hit a brick wall of slowness, on full devices sooner then on empty ones.

The minimum size of the cache doesn't have to be bad. And I bet the vast majority of people basically never do >10GB writes at >200MB/s.

Yes many consumers will be fine with this drivers.

But the information about the limited write cache never gets mentioned by the manufacturers. So people that actually need to write large amounts of data from time to time, fall into a performance trap.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#114

Post by Dylan16807 »

PixelOfDeath wrote: post #112
Dylan16807 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Host managed SMR is fine for data-hording if the savings in size/price are forwarded. I'll believe it when I see it, though. Unless you're trying to cram more data into a 2.5 inch drive, there seems to be zero upside to getting an SMR drive. They're priced about the same per byte despite "25% density improvements", and the high capacity 3.5 inch models on the market don't use it.

> and the high capacity 3.5 inch models on the market don't use it. Sure they do. WD sold device managed SMR 3.5 disks without telling anyone. And then people noticed because of absolutely terrible raid re-silvering performance. The consumer market is absolute trash for SMR devices, all the disadvantages with no benefit. But you can be sure that the enterprise sector gets host managed SMR drives at a better size/pric…

What's your definition of "high capacity"?

The biggest SMR drives I can buy are 6TB or 8TB.

The biggest non-SMR drive I can buy is 18TB.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#115

Post by wmf »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #107
belltaco wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The SLC cache was increased nearly three fold How can they do that without reducing the overall capacity? My understanding is that part of the MLC storage in SSDs is used as an SLC cache so that it's faster, but can store only half, one third or one fourth of the data it otherwise would.

I don’t know if that’s true they are the same memory, and I don’t know if the other posters are correct. However, every SSD out there has unallocated space. This is for trim and drive write purposes. At the mfg level, if you needed to get more space, you can. This will affect the drive rates per day (DWPD) rating of the drive. In the server world, you can get “high endurance” drives that are 90% just under-provisione…

Consumer SSDs don't have a a lot of overprovisioning. For example, a 1 TB SSD will never have more than 1 TiB of flash. Server SSDs are a different story.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#116

Post by reacharavindh »

darksaints wrote: post #92
reacharavindh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A serious question. I use a “Smart TV” without any internet connectivity whatsoever. Never let it connect to my WiFi, neither did I connect Ethernet. This way I am happily enjoying a high quality “dumb TV” that I always wanted. Are all the complainers in HN really letting their TV connect to Internet (inspire of knowing all the crap TV manufacturers have been pulling all these years?!)

I have a smart tv and I don't like the fact that it connects to the internet...but would it be any better if I had a dumb tv and a fire stick? Honest question...I don't really know the difference.

Fire stick is probably not any better than using the apps on TV. I bought a used Mac mini, and connected it to my “dumb” TV via HDMI. I have a wireless keyboard and mouse for my TV. Netflix, YouTube, and anything available on a web browser is now available on my TV. In addition, I can use AirPlay to stream photos or music from my iPhone. This setup has been lovely.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#117

Post by reacharavindh »

fortran77 wrote: post #85
reacharavindh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A serious question. I use a “Smart TV” without any internet connectivity whatsoever. Never let it connect to my WiFi, neither did I connect Ethernet. This way I am happily enjoying a high quality “dumb TV” that I always wanted. Are all the complainers in HN really letting their TV connect to Internet (inspire of knowing all the crap TV manufacturers have been pulling all these years?!)

> Are all the complainers in HN really letting their TV connect to Internet (inspire of knowing all the crap TV manufacturers have been pulling all these years?!) Why are people complaining about Smart TVs in a thread about SSD?

Because the parent commenter said Samsung Smart TVs are so garbage that even their own employees don’t prefer to buy it. Hence my comment that you can always buy a smart TV and use it as a dumb one by never allowing it to connect to the internet.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#118

Post by reacharavindh »

wickoff wrote: post #68
reacharavindh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A serious question. I use a “Smart TV” without any internet connectivity whatsoever. Never let it connect to my WiFi, neither did I connect Ethernet. This way I am happily enjoying a high quality “dumb TV” that I always wanted. Are all the complainers in HN really letting their TV connect to Internet (inspire of knowing all the crap TV manufacturers have been pulling all these years?!)

I watch YouTube and play music through my TV. I have no choice.

I do too. I bought a used Mac Mini online (any computer with a HDMI port will suffice). You get your browser on Tv. Hook up a wireless keyboard and mouse to your computer, and you can have your privacy friendly Internet TV experience.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#119

Post by londons_explore »

wmf wrote: post #103
londons_explore wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All manufacturers multi-source parts. That will always have some very minor impact on power/reliability at least. The difference here is it makes a major difference. See also:. Apple sourcing 4g modems from both intel and Qualcomm, and the performance being quite different so they disabled features of qualcomms chip to make them similar.

All manufacturers multi-source parts. No, not really. The whole point of buying Samsung SSDs is that they're guaranteed to contain a Samsung controller and Samsung NAND. Likewise with Hynix or WD/SanDisk.

And the resistors? Multi-sourced.

Re: Samsung seemingly caught swapping components in its 970 Evo Plus SSDs

#120

Post by gruez »

sp332 wrote: post #88
gruez wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>QLC is complete trash and should never be used outside of a WORM architecture in a larger pool. Not everyone is a creator editing/rendering 4k videos. For the typical surfer/office worker/gamer QLC drives are fine because they rarely need to dump 50+GB of writes at a time. What you're suggesting is basically "ban all atom processors because they're criminally slow!"

I think they were complaining about reliability. QLC cells can't handle as many writes before failing.

Samsung 980 is rated for 0.3 DWPD. For a 250 GB drive that's 75GB per day. I have a hard time imaging what type of workloads would cause the target audience (ie. surfers/office workers/gamers) would reach that limit on a consistent basis.
Post reply on HN