1 |
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:22:36PM -0500, Dale wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Thanks for the additional info. As I figured, they got most of the |
5 |
>> kinks worked out by now and we got some dependable SSDs to buy. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> I found a 240GB for a little over $42.00 USA. Not bad at all. For |
8 |
>> those curious: |
9 |
> Careful, you get what you pay for. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> When I built my first PC from scratch (had laptops before that), I bought a |
12 |
> 128 GB Sandisk SDSSDP128G. I didn’t have a lot of money back then, it was |
13 |
> relatively cheap, but not the very cheapest. It doesn’t even have real |
14 |
> branding to speak of. No series or model name, just a label with “Sandisk”. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I’ve been using it for 5 years for a dual-boot system (2×64 G for Windows |
17 |
> and Gentoo). By the end of last year it became slower and slower when |
18 |
> writing. Especially eix-update became sloooow. My main suspicion is that it |
19 |
> was quite full and there probably is no overprovisioning for wear-leveling |
20 |
> built into the drive. So it was writing the same cells over and over when I |
21 |
> did my world updates. |
22 |
> |
23 |
>> Sandisk SDSSDA240GG26 |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Should last me a good long while. It's the /home that keeps growing. o_O |
26 |
> When I built my NAS 2 years ago, I wanted the cheapest (but still from a |
27 |
> notable brand) SSD for the OS. So I bought a Sandisk SDSSDA120G, so |
28 |
> apparently from the same series you mentioned. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> A simple read test with hdparm -t reveals: |
31 |
> 500 GB Crucial from 2016: Timing buffered disk reads: 1596 MB in 3.00 seconds = 531.46 MB/sec |
32 |
> 128 GB Sandisk from 2014: Timing buffered disk reads: 1532 MB in 3.00 seconds = 510.60 MB/sec |
33 |
> 120 GB Sandisk from 2017: Timing buffered disk reads: 968 MB in 3.00 seconds = 322.42 MB/sec |
34 |
> |
35 |
> The theoretical maximum of SATA-III is around 550 MB/s. As you can see, even |
36 |
> a very simple read test already shows a considerable performance drop, even |
37 |
> though it is the newest in the bunch (by date of purchase). |
38 |
> A good SSD should always be able to saturate SATA-III when reading. Most do. |
39 |
> Sequential writing on the cheap Sandisk topped off at around 90 MB/s, IIRC. |
40 |
> This is slower than an HDD. For a NAS system drive this is enough, but not |
41 |
> for a desktop, methinks. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> So my message is: don’t by the cheapest. |
44 |
> |
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
I generally go by the model number. If a model number is the same |
48 |
between two different sellers but one has a better price, I'll go for |
49 |
the better price. If it's the same model, it shouldn't matter. One |
50 |
thing I did try to do, avoid the much older versions. I found some |
51 |
older models that were cheaper but I wanted a newer model since most of |
52 |
the kinks and quirks should be fixed in the newer ones, according to |
53 |
what folks posted on here anyway. |
54 |
|
55 |
I still haven't bought it yet. I ordered some toner cartridges a while |
56 |
back for my printer. The site said that the ones I ordered fits my |
57 |
printer. Well, it appears they found out that was a error because they |
58 |
removed that page and relisted it but did not include my printer model. |
59 |
So, I had to order a whole new set, at about $100.00 each for high |
60 |
yield. Needless to say, I'll be paying on that for a while. I'll try |
61 |
to sell the wrong ones later. I only opened one color so the others are |
62 |
still sealed. |
63 |
|
64 |
BTW, next time I'll find a printer that allows refilling and such too. |
65 |
I don't like that chip thing. It counts against my page count on color |
66 |
even if I print a black and white page. Still, printer does a awesome |
67 |
job. Beats those ink jet thingys by a country mile. |
68 |
|
69 |
Dale |
70 |
|
71 |
:-) :-) |