Twitter yuk, can somebody just post the names of the four tested drives and which passed/failed please?
[deleted]
I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
41–50 of 261 posts
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#42Twitter yuk, can somebody just post the names of the four tested drives and which passed/failed please?
The models that never lost data: Samsung 970 EVO Pro 2TB and WD Red SN700 1TB
Correction: “Plus” not “Pro”. Exact model and date codes:
Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10 WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021
Update 2: models that lost writes: SK Hynix Gold P31 2TB SHGP31-2000GM-2, FW 31060C20 Sabrent Rocket 512 (Phison PH-SBT-RKT-303 controller, no version or date codes listed)
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#43Twitter yuk, can somebody just post the names of the four tested drives and which passed/failed please?
imo hackernews should just automatically replace twitter.com with nitter.net even if just for readability without logging in's sake: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056
The Harmonic HN reader for Android does this
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#44Misleading headline since after testing eight more drives, none more failed.
2/12 is not nearly as dramatic as “half”, and the ones that lost data are the cheap brands as one would expect.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#45Losing flushes is obviously bad. I wonder how much perf is on the table in various scenarios when we can give up needing to flush. If you know the drive has some resilience, say, 0.5s of time it can safely writeback during, maybe you can give up flushes (in some cases). How much faster is the app then? It's be neat to see some low-cost improvements here. Obviously in most cases, just get an enterprise drive with supe…
Performance gains wouldn’t be that large as enterprise SSDs already have internal capacitors to flush pending writes to NAND.
During typical usage the flash controller is constantly journaling LBA to physical addresses in the background, so that the entire logical to physical table isn’t lost when the drive loses power. With a larger capacitor you could potentially remove this background process and instead flush the entire logical to physical table when the drive registers power loss. But as this area makes up ~2% of the total NAND, that’s at absolute best a 2% performance benefit we are potentially missing out on.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were a few more listed deeper in the thread. Fyi, the nitter version is actually readable: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056#m Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10: Pass WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021: Pass Crucial P2 250GB CT250P2SSD8, FW P2CR046: Pass Samsung 980 250GB MZ-V8V250, 2021/11/07: Pass WD Black SN750 1TB WDS100T1B0E, 09Jan2022: Pass WD Green SN350 240GB WDS240G20C,…
So...vendors no sane person would store valuable data on their drives were the only ones that failed. The sound of a dog biting a man...
FWIW, I've had SK Hynix parts in my Dell laptops before.
I agree about Sabrent.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
imo hackernews should just automatically replace twitter.com with nitter.net even if just for readability without logging in's sake: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056
The Harmonic HN reader for Android does this
Uhm nope , atleast not the one on playstore , is it there somewhere in the settings ?
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#48Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#49Does advertising a product as adhering to some standard, but secretly knowing that it doesn't 100%, count as e.g. fraud? I.e., is there any established case law on the matter? I'm thinking of this example, but also more generally USB devices, Bluetooth devices, etc.
Hardware vendors are known to swap to cheaper lower performance hardware after reviews are out which in my eyes is fraud, whether or not the law agrees is a different story.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were a few more listed deeper in the thread. Fyi, the nitter version is actually readable: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056#m Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10: Pass WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021: Pass Crucial P2 250GB CT250P2SSD8, FW P2CR046: Pass Samsung 980 250GB MZ-V8V250, 2021/11/07: Pass WD Black SN750 1TB WDS100T1B0E, 09Jan2022: Pass WD Green SN350 240GB WDS240G20C,…
So...vendors no sane person would store valuable data on their drives were the only ones that failed. The sound of a dog biting a man...
SK Hynix is the #3 flash manufacturer (acquired Intel's NAND biz), and their RAM is quite decent. i wouldn't think twice about buying if it wasn't for this report.